AEVL

Suppose we observe an alien in Alpha C. The alien has (in our observation) its own observation instruments directed at us. What does the alien (in our observation) observe? Modulo possibly more carefully formulating ”directed at us”, is this a well-posed question? If so, what is the answer?

How does the analysis look if we only count the >=90 severity cases—that is, if we downgrade the severity of all <90 cases to 0?

> "spouses of Maxis employees vs Maxis"

where can I read more about this?

Why not instead have

hash(-1)=-2,

hash(-2)=-3,

hash(-3)=-4,

and so on?

The Artist (2011)

I might be splitting hairs now. Is not ambiguity the problem in your examples, and not any off-by-one error? If the respective ambiguities were resolved then there should be no off-by-one errors.

Of course use of expressions may vary. My in-spirit-meaning of ‘off-bye-one error’ may differ from yours, and that is fine. (Had it really mattered in a discussion then we would simply agree to find a suitable definition of the expression.)

Not an off-by-one error—at least not in spirit. Interesting nonetheless.

I expected the article to eventually answer this puzzle:

> The competition started and got through a number of rounds. There were some comments about how the climber on the left always won.

Near the end:

> The kicker is that the out of place hold hasn’t been used in a long time. The climbers have optimised their route such that it is skipped. The same happens to the fourth hold from the bottom. So either being in the wrong place is immaterial to the climbers’ technique as long as they don’t get in the way.

So it seems like the error discovered by the article author should not have conferred any advantage to the climber on the left.

Anyone who can shine light on this matter?