AirBreather

I think you may have whooshed: this person was pointing out a “th” that slipped through.

$42 million, not $42

Updated title is now:

Japan’s PM Ishiba denies talk he will quit following election drubbing

Na

127.69.420

127.69420

127.42069

no that’s “Invisible”. “Invincible” means it can’t be divided

The “only 800mb of free RAM” was a reference to how much Windows was consuming before the switch to Linux

Wait, this is a memes community… crap…

Uh… I mean…

Haha funny

False. The speed of causality is also c, so you would only have the extremely small interval of time represented by the difference between c and the speed of light in whatever not-total-vacuum exists between the Sun and Earth. Not 8 minutes.

In a Neil Breen movie?

I’ll figure it out

These are fun rabbit holes to go down. Everything here is true, of course: Big-O complexity isn’t everything, context always matters, and measurements trump guesses.

But also, how many times have you encountered a performance problem with a slow O(n) solution that you solved by turning it into a fast O(n²) solution, compared to the other way around? The difference between 721ns and 72.1ns is almost always irrelevant (and is irrelevant if it’s not on a hot path), and in all likelihood, the same can be said at n=500 (even 500x these numbers still doesn’t even reach 0.5ms).

So unless context tells me that I have a good reason to think otherwise, I’m writing the one that uses a hash-based collection. As the codebase evolves in the future and the same bits of code are used in novel situations, I am much less likely to regret leaving microseconds on the table at small input sizes than to regret leaving milliseconds or seconds on the table at large input sizes.

As a trained practicioner of “the deeper magics” myself, I feel the need to point out that there’s a reason why we call these types of things “the deeper magics”, and that’s because heuristics like “better Big-O means better performance” generally point you in the right direction when it matters, and the wrong direction when it doesn’t matter.

FOSTA-SESTA is at the heart of it, as I understand. I don’t want to elaborate much more because I don’t know nearly enough about the situation, but adding this search term helped make it make a little bit of sense to me.

Edit: not that I’m lumping these different ideas together, but that the prudish folks could theoretically use this legal framework to throw allegations that Visa/MasterCard would rather not have to defend against.

FYI a more pertinent link for these situations: https://dontasktoask.com/

From the article:

Trump’s opposition to DSTs is not new: the Biden administration felt they disproportionately targeted US businesses and threatened 25 percent tariffs if they were not removed.

I’ve bought a few of these before (no affiliation) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CCL7TJ48

Edit: this is a link to 1.5V rechargeable batteries, which I commented before OP’s edit acknowledging them.

Another older blog post saying the same: https://sandimetz.com/blog/2016/1/20/the-wrong-abstraction

deleted by creator

Combining the suggestions from 1 and 3 is where things fall apart for me. If the statute does not specify what objective standards must be met in order for someone to be eligible to vote, then the ruling party gets to decide on their own.

Maybe the next updates to the standardized test just “accidentally” favor the ruling party.

Some questions to challenge your proposal:

1. What test, specifically, do we implement to tell whether or not someone “know[s] the most basic of facts”?
2. How do we make sure that this test is kept up-to-date as information changes?
3. Who administers this test?
4. When is the test administered?

No matter how I try to answer these questions in a way that’s consistent with reality, all my ideas dead-end at outcomes that suck and only get worse over time.