- I don't understand what PVS is in this context, but it seems any attempt to completely automate this would struggle with false positives.
There might be >350 polys visible from weird camera locations, but if the player is never there in normal gameplay you don't care about them. If they do end up in such a weird position in one game in a thousand (say a rocket jump lifts them up to somewhere normally inaccessible) it's not the end of the world anyway, the game will just render slower for a few frames.
- Even that might leak to length attacks: one reasonable plaintext would lead to black bars of 1135 px, another to 1138 px, and with enough redactions you can converge on what the plaintext might be.
The only safe way for journalists is to paraphrase what the document said and to say "an unnamed source claims that ..." and to guarantee with your reputation, and the reputation of your publisher, that you are being faithful to what the original source said. For even better results, combine multiple sources.
Unfortunately paraphrasing things and taking editorial responsibility have both been deprecated in favour of rereleasing press releases in the house style, so it's difficult to get the actual journalism these days.
- > States make their own age-related rules. The states are part of the US. So technically sure, you're right. In practice, you're very wrong
This is wrong. It's particularly wrong in the way that you draw a distinction between theory and practice. It's so wrong that it's backwards.
In theory, the states set age related rules. In practice, they must set them to what the federal government tells them to. This was established in the specific case in 1984 [0] when Congress realised that it could withhold funding to states based on how quickly they agreed with it, and in the general case in 1861 [1] when the United States initiated a war that would go on to kill 1.6 million people after some states asked it only to exercise the powers derogated to it in its constitution.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...
- I would read your summaries of legal precedents again, ahead of lots of people who AAL.
- It's 1 us granularity, which means you should report your timestamps with six figures after the decimal point.
The required accuracy (Tables 1 and 2 in that document) is 100 us or 1000 us depending on the system.
- What, it will use as much as a small village or subdivision? As much as 80 average US households? That doesn't seem noteworthy at all.
- I never saw a need for this in HFT. In my experience, GPS was used instead, but there was never any critical need for microsecond accuracy in live systems. Sub-microsecond latency, yes, but when that mattered it was in order to do something as soon as possible rather than as close as possible to Wall Clock Time X.
Still useful for post-trade analysis; perhaps you can determine that a competitor now has a faster connection than you.
The regulatory requirement you linked (and other typical requirements from regulators) allows a tolerance of one second, so it doesn't call for this kind of technology.
- But the reason factoring numbers is used as the quantum benchmark is exactly that we have a quantum algorithm for that problem which is meant to scale better than any known algorithm on a classical computer.
So it seems like it takes an exponentially bigger device to factor 21 than 15, then 35 than 21, and so on, but if I understand right, at some point this levels out and it's only relatively speaking a little harder to factor say 10^30 than 10^29.
Why are we so confident this is true given all of the experience so far trying to scale up from factoring 15 to factoring 21?
- You're correct but the complexity is in the things you're ignoring for simplicity.
This game is constructed such that the questions you can ask are not arbitrary, so you cannot choose them to always produce one bit of entropy (you need to frame your questions as ten matchups in parallel, using all the contestants exactly once) and the number of bits you need may indeed not be an integer.
Because you can't choose your questions to partition the state space arbitrarily, that affects not just the question you ask today, but also previous days: you want to leave yourself with a partitionable space tomorrow no matter what answers you get today.
In the Guess Who analogy, it's against the rules or at least the spirit to ask "does your character have a name which is alphabetically before Grace?". That would allow a strategy which always divides the state space exactly in two.
- Because everyone would cheat and include a program that sprays cold water for a few seconds, using minimal energy but not actually getting your dishes clean.
- Yes, I was going to note that this doesn't necessarily apply on derivatives exchanges. But
a) I don't know of any exchange where this could be true for specifically Apple and Tesla, so the example is OK
b) you can still get some level of isolation, even on commodities exchanges you can't typically affect the gold book with your crude oil order (the typical case is that your order to buy oil futures in 2027 matches against someone selling oil in 2026, plus someone selling a calendar spread)
c) for exchanges that do offer this kind of functionality, one of the ways they deal with high volumes is by temporarily disabling this feature.
- I attended a screen free school, but back then we just called it a school.
- This article both undersells and oversells the technical challenge exchanges solve.
First, it is of course possible to apply horizontal scaling through sharding. My order on Tesla doesn't affect your order on Apple, so it's possible to run each product on its own matching engine, its own set of gateways, etc. Most exchanges don't go this far: they might have one cluster for stocks starting A-E, etc. So they don't even exhaust the benefits available from horizontal scaling, partly because this would be expensive.
On the other hand, it's not just the sequencer that has to process all these events in strict order - which might make you think it's just a matter of returning a single increasing sequence number for every request. The matching engine which sits downstream of the sequencer also has to consume all the events and apply a much more complicated algorithm: the matching algorithm described in the article as "a pure function of the log".
Components outside of that can generally be scaled more easily: for example, a gateway cares only about activity on the orders it originally received.
The article is largely correct that separating the sequencer from the matching engine allows you to recover if the latter crashes. But this may only be a theoretical benefit. Replaying and reprocessing a day's worth of messages takes a substantial fraction of the day, because the system is already operating close to its capacity. And after it crashed, you still need to figure out which customers think they got their orders executed, and allow them to cancel outstanding orders.
- I would expect the opposite.
Commercial products are run by product managers: they do whatever the business needs that day, and if it doesn't work for most inputs, "that's fine, our users will only ever need addition". Fun open source projects, run by the same programmer who does the implementation, obsess over finding the generic solution to inverting a function and end up with a version that isn't useful for anyone's specific case.
- Auto-generate a TypedDict type while type checking, while doing nothing at runtime.
I expect this is not a very big ask and the various typecheckers will have versions of this soon after release.
- It looks like the wheels could stay attached to the outside of the suitcase. It means leaving it in the less standard configuration to pull around (landscape rather than portrait) but that can be overcome with a longer handle.
- > If they want to have their database be the authoritative copy pricing information, then they can just not put up price signs to begin with.
This one really does vary by jurisdiction, but no, grocery stores generally must display prices by law.
- Sure, but it's in the same category as the owner putting up a sign by mistake, or omitting to update a sign by mistake. Or more realistically, an employee of the owner putting up a sign even though the owner had instructed him to put up a different sign.
- I don't think the laws of the specific jurisdiction matter. In every US jurisdiction, the prices aren't completely legally binding (what if the previous customer changed the price tag?). In ~every US jurisdiction, if you systematically show one price but charge customers another, that's an offence.
So intent matters. What would decide an individual case is not the exact characterisation of the laws on the books, but how sympathetic a regulator or a judge is to the supermarket's claim that these things just happen sometimes.
More likely their email address is firstlastnumber@gmail.com or firstlast@otherprovider.com though, in which cases the types of mistakes people make are likely asymmetric.