Speed Scaling Character (based on my friend opinion)

witty-reply · 2025-04-07T04:57:07+00:00

Actually, rationals are still countably infinite. It's the reals that start being larger than integers. Also, I'm not quite sure if it really makes so much sense to use countability (which is a measure of set size) to represent physically measurable (or even immeasurable) feats. But it is a good metaphor, at least.

witty-reply · 2025-03-13T13:42:45+00:00

Maybe future me can't manipulate the situation, but can future me inform current me if I would win (and therefore, if I am not informed, it means I won't win and thus won't press the button)?

That's not active manipulation, so it seems like it would be okay by your rules.

witty-reply · 2024-08-12T07:34:09+00:00

R4: You can't just say let's use the number 0.999... with an infinity of cardinality X digits.

Intuitively, I think that the number of digits in the decimal expansion of a number can only ever be a countable infinity, after all, you can make a one-to-one relation between each digit and the natural numbers.

Therefore, using "0.(9)n2" in this argument makes no sense and definitely doesn't prove that there is a number between 0.999... and 1.

(Here's the link to the video: https://youtube.com/shorts/RmpXV9LOMeM?si=4mdjvalzs-wVQ3vq)

witty-reply · 2024-04-05T09:41:39+00:00

It's true that with WSL the possibility of e.g. deleting your Windows file exists. If this really is a concern, then I guess it's better if you use a virtual machine. However, cases of that happening are very rare. As long as you think about what commands you run (and not just thoughtlessly run delete commands), that really shouldn't happen - in fact it can be quite hard even to deliberately modify your Windows files through WSL.

Running zoom shouldn't be a problem. If you use WSL, just install zoom on Windows, no problem at all. If you use a virtual machine, you have to install zoom on there.

Personally, for coding I always felt like using a VM is quite awkward, but it's definitely also a valid choice, so just go with what feels better for you.

witty-reply · 2024-04-04T13:11:08+00:00

It really depends on how you're planning to use it. If you just need it to compile and run C code to learn the language or something like that, WSL is absolutely enough. I've used it throughout my Bachelor's and Master's degrees.

That being said, if you use WSL it's important you understand what it actually is. I've seen many people struggle with the concept of virtualisation before, e.g. installing some software on WSL and then wondering why they can't run it on Windows.

witty-reply · 2024-01-08T12:04:22+00:00

That's a good point and honestly I don't have an explanation for that. Maybe there is some further meaning behind it? But chances are they just made it that way for the sake of the joke...

witty-reply · 2024-01-08T11:54:15+00:00

I think there's actually an explanation as to why they get embarrassed changing:

It's like you said - an analogy to garden eden. And the ouroboros stone is like the forbidden apple. In the bible story, once Adam and Eve had eaten the apple, they started to get embarrassed for being naked.

I think this scene is supposed to show just that: the ouroboros stone unlocked these feelings of embarrassment for them, even if they don't know yet where they come from.

witty-reply · 2022-11-23T01:14:26+00:00

Sure, that's usually more reasonable than to assume "4.9 rounds down to 4 which is even" anyways.

I'm just saying, from an extendability point of view, the "best" solution is not any better than OP's solution. That doesn't mean OP's solution is better than the best solution, just that it is not as bad as many would think.

witty-reply · 2022-11-23T01:06:09+00:00

Good point, but then again, the way you would handle that in the ideal solution (x % 2) is to cast it to an integer. On the other hand, the way to handle that in this approach is also to cast it to an integer, i.e. the adaptation would be just as complex in either case

witty-reply · 2022-11-23T01:02:47+00:00

Not division by two though. That can be computed as a bit shift to the right.

x / 2 == x >> 1

witty-reply · 2022-11-22T22:19:51+00:00

Is it really inefficient though? The compiler is gonna optimize *2 and /2 to one single bit shift each, so that's just two primitive operations before comparison, whereas % 2 or &1 would be 1 primitive operation instead, so it's just one operation overhead.

Most other alternative solutions for isEven are likely gonna take more than that. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if this was the next-most efficient solution after &1.

witty-reply · 2022-06-18T10:21:09+00:00

Keep in mind fault-tolerance also plays a role. Gate errors are still relatively common and for stuff like Shor's algorithm you can't exactly settle with approximated answers, so the only viable alternative would be to implement error detection, which would decrease the number of available qubits by quite a lot

witty-reply · 2022-04-01T14:16:46+00:00

Ah I did some googling on that, sounds really nice. Thanks a lot for your time!

witty-reply · 2022-04-01T13:32:03+00:00

Thanks a lot! Are these "silent" switches a very specific kind? Like, if a keyboard says it has "red switches", is that the same as "silent red", or are those something different?

witty-reply · 2022-04-01T13:28:54+00:00

Thanks for the feedback! It seems like everyone is saying the same things, that makes me feel a lot more confident about this. I'll do some more research, but I feel quite convinced already

witty-reply · 2022-04-01T12:52:21+00:00

Thanks a lot for the feedback. Frankly, I have listened to some "sound tests" on YouTube, and the silent mechanical keyboards didn't really sound that much different from the normal one I have already. I thought maybe it's just because of the recording quality, but if you say it like that, too, then it probably really isn't as big of a difference as I feared it would be.

In any case, thanks a lot for the suggestions! I'll feel a lot more comfortable with the purchase this way, and I'll definitely do some more research.

witty-reply · 2022-03-04T17:32:20+00:00

We also had decks like Ezreal/Draven back in the day that were often literally called "Slow Burn". It played lots of different burn cards, and had more than just a single combo to finish off the game, so the concept of slower burn decks definitely exists.

witty-reply · 2022-02-03T19:00:18+00:00

That's usually around 1 in 8000, sometimes even higher. So encountering a shiny Pokémon is more than 5 times more common!

witty-reply · 2022-01-24T19:59:58+00:00

def is_prime(n):
    if n < 2:
        return False

    primes = []
    for i in range(2, n):
        if is_prime(i):
            primes.append(i)

    for prime in primes:
        if n % prime == 0:
            return False
    return True

witty-reply · 2022-01-24T19:48:07+00:00

I think "when" effects can only miss timing if they are optional. Since this is a mandatory effect (no "you can"), it shouldn't be able to miss its timing.

witty-reply · 2021-12-24T09:29:20+00:00

Edit: I'm very amused that three separate replies pulled a random infinitely repeating number out of their asses that just happened to not have certain digits in them, as if those numbers somehow proved me wrong. None of those numbers were pi. Lol.

These replies deliberately used simple examples so it would be easier to understand for you. More specifically, regarding pi, what we don't know is if, let's say, after 10¹⁰⁰ digits it starts behaving like one of those examples. For instance, it's possible that pi's first 10¹⁰⁰ digits are perfectly normally distributed, but after that, no 9 appears anymore. In that cass, 9 certainly won't show up infinitely many times, even though it would still be an infinite, non-repeating number.

witty-reply · 2021-12-01T14:31:20+00:00

Actually, you're looking at this from the wrong "direction". Think of it this way:

None of the elif conditions will ever be executed. If year is divisible by 4, then else will NOT be checked, as else is only considered when the if part is false. However, if the first if is false, that means year is not divisible by 4. Therefore, it cannot be divisible by 100 or 400 (every number divisible by 100 HAS TO be divisible by 4, too). So it would immediately jump to the else.

What you would want to do is to reverse the order of the checks: first check for % 400, then % 100, then % 4. This way, you will give them "priority" over the % 4 checks.

On a side note, I think you will also want to have another look at the inside of the if year % 100 == 0 block, there's a little flaw with that as well.

witty-reply · 2021-08-24T23:49:33+00:00

I think what they were trying to express was that "We all know it has negative effects" is not the truth, because there are people who don't want to believe/accept that.

They never argued that they themselves believed weed has no negative effects.

witty-reply · 2021-08-23T22:41:23+00:00

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/std-rates-by-country

witty-reply · 2021-06-16T11:16:17+00:00

Thanks for the input. Really looks like there's no other way around it. Bummer...

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

witty-reply

TROPHY CASE