au8er

This just again shows that given enough time skill, and resources, any security is pointless if the attacker has physical access to the device.

The "book" is accompanying studying material for the course Probabilistic AI at ETH Zurich. Essentially each chapter is the material covered in one lecture (3hrs).

Source: I did the course

There is no independent scalar floating point unit for most modern CPUs. When scalar floating point arithmetic is needed, it is send to the SIMD unit. This pretty means that scalar and vectorised floating point operations usually have the same latency. If you do any scalar floating point operations, the CPU is just doing vectorised operations except with only 1 useful value.

If every other exchange is selling $AAPL at $100 and suddenly the top level of one exchange drops to $99, then if you just take out that order you basically gain a free dollar. Do this very fast and have pricing the product accurately and you will print tons of money.

It's the predecessor of Go1. If you buy the Pro/Edu version of Go1 then you get direct low level SDK control, though there are reverse engineering efforts that can do the same on the cheap ~5k version as well

Would it be better to do

  sparse_val = sparse[i]
  return sparse_val < n && dense[sparse_val] == i

Regardless, we are treading in undefined territory, and the behaviour is not something that can be reliably be dependent upon

Step 3.5, see some other interesting paper is referenced in the related work, go to step 1.

From my experience, saying "I'm thinking" actually makes it worse. Instead of thinking for a response, I internally start to panic (mainly thinking whether I have considered everything and the response is correct). After a few seconds of "thinking", I eventually give a response that is no different to my knee-jerk reaction.

I do find replying with an email to be extremely helpful. Even if the response is not correct, it does show you have put in the effort to reflect on the meeting after it has finished.

While learning, hiding details is important, but Python overdoes the abstraction. `for` loops and iterator based loops have been merged into one thing, and I am sure people write `for i in range(10)` without a good understanding of what the `range` function does. Even strings blur the line between individual characters and actual strings. The lack of clarity at these basic concepts is precisely why Python is not suitable as a first language, since it hides concepts that are prevelant in all other mainstream languages. As a result, I have often seen students develop bad coding habits and poor mental model of why their code works. Instead of learning proper programming concepts, they just know the syntactic sugar and abstractions that Python offers.

I do agree that Python provides a very small startup cost to writing code, the details are sacrificed to acheive this. This may be useful to capture interest/generate motivation and get a quick prototype/"helloworld" out, learning Python is only good for learning Python, not for programming in general.

I feel like python has never been a good introduction language. It is simply too abstract and hides too many details that are often required in other languages (Python is simply too flexible). It is good to learn if you are only scripting or calling library API, but I feel like it is a poor starting point if the goal is to transition into languages with more rigid structures such as C++.

As mentioned in the article, he aims to make each act fit in 40 pages, not the entire screenplay.

> Roth also said the 40 page limit helps him structure his screenplays.“I like it because it makes acts,” he said. “I realize if I hadn’t said it in 40 pages I’m starting to get in trouble.”

I guess just like the Panama papers, leading journalists will be killed, investigations stop being reported in mainstream media, and the world goes quiet again with nothing changing.