doonesbury

If I had a no-paywall URL I'd give it. I love ft.com because it's harder hitting that many US publications in the same space. And here they are really onto to something.

It's inevitable.

Super nice. Thank you for posting.

Agree. And another thing: Brett talks too much.

An outstanding one-liner. Where/who's it from?

I am happy to read to a piece which gives friendly fire to the left and the right. We need more of these.

My own tired example "half of the fraud" is fiscal management: one-half focus only on income (via raising taxes) and the others on cutting expenses. No successful family or company does fiscal management this way. It's both sides, and it's even deeper than that: usually we need to re-assess the priorities which underpin expenses and taxing strategies. And fix those too. Heck, the GOP has even given up on talking the talk. Not even that is around anymore.

Like other commenters here outrage isn't an answer. Yes, it's the present currency for talking heads on TV and crap talkers on the radio. Like a Woody Allen movie without the humor or intellect or pretense of trying, each side tries extract more outrage, more anger, and to guilt the other side into change. It's stupid. As one corporate owner put it (paraphrasing) Americans prefer to be entertained than to deal better with the truth. So we play into this.

Why outrage? Because we have no agency in the present. We gotta fix that.

MLK had two easy outs: give up beating a dead horse, and open a barber shop or preach. Or payback. He, thankfully, chose the middle course. The middle course in America will travel through both political parties re-examining their political planks, since without them, they are lobbying fodder.

Oresteia - Aeschylus: is great read!

Whatever the root reason this is now conflict over control. Therefore you need to know your legal contractual options and obligations and his plus whatever poison pills or repercussions for out of contract behavior. Who owns the IP is key. What is that? No need to necessarily write here but to bolster your resolve. Now if the contract allows bad actors without downside risk ... There are no good answers except experience. Watch out for attrition by tying you up on legal fees. But then call BS on him not having buyout proceeds. Finally, maybe you need to press him and not let him set the context. Saying no is but one play his side. You can put him in a box too All this assumes an adversarial process. Good luck to you.

Agree! Let's not think leather shoes and shirt cuffs is always better. There's a long running issue with fee-for-service giving what the client wants. Ok to be fair to banks they could easily be value add but only if they face stiffer down side on fees when fraud, bs, and bad evals happen earning indeed commanding those fees on the upside or average case. It's separating risk from reward that is the issue largely.

I worked at Broderbund testing this. Hired out of an arcade by a Broderbund guy in San Rafael.

Thank you for bringing smarter, better information. I stand corrected then.

>a^4 = b^2 = 1, a^3 b = ba >has exactly eight elements

I suppose the missing issue (or at least the one I feel could have had more sunshine on it) is how and why elements of the monster groups are represented as this would more subtly capture the symmetry that keeps the group finite. It's not so much symmetry as a subject unto itself, as the subtle interplay between group operations on the form of elements with symmetry that keeps the group finite.

Your term "a^4=1" has exactly that missing emphasis: take element 'a' (i.e. a square) and rotate it four times and it's the same as multiplying a by 1, which is the identity element. Ditto b^2: perform the mirror operation twice and again it's the same as doing b*1 etc.

When I wrote:

"then you can do line symmetry of (a+b)+c through c and on and on an on and on ... until at some point you've played through all the symmetry on all the permutation and choices of elements until it goes back into something you started with earlier. Extending the analogy monster groups have rotation, translate, mirror, and zillion other kinds of symmetries ..."

That's slightly misleading. What I should have wrote is starting with two random elements in the set a,b form c=a+b. Almost always this will yield a new, distinct element in the set c. So throw c into the set and repeat trying all permutations and combinations getting d,e,f,...z.

At some point the symmetry in the monster group will overtake insuring that, because of symmetry, a subsequent operation on z will transform it equal an earlier element. Thus the monster group maintains an interesting ultimate boundary where all elements eventually through symmetry revert back to an earlier form.

In the article's 90deg rotation analogy on 2D squares, we can rotate a to b to c thus making 3 distinct squares (if we label their corners), however, upon rotating c again we get back to a. In monster groups it takes a longer run to revert.

I suppose it's worth emphasizing monster groups of finite size can only exist in a few variations. And between two monster groups M,O there is no in-between group N. It's definitely discrete in that sense.

>understanding that the reads or sequences are long

So why slice and replicate slices? All that makes more noise. The wikipedia seems to suggest (or I infer) that one can't merely "just read of" the base pairs in QWERTYUIOP through some super cool process and be done with it. No, I have to split QWERTYUIOP into chunks and replicate the hell out of the resulting chunks which just re-asks my question. I mean how is QWERTYUIOPQWERTYUIOP not a reasonable outcome?

I'm still missing something fundamental. The more chunks there are, the more permutations, combinations there are in possible re-assembly up to all the power sets of base pairs. Granted, it may not be possible to make complex simple here. So that thank you for your time and effort.

Good question. I think I screwed up a bit, and typed things up too fast.

For multiplication the identity element is 1, and therefore inverses relate to 1 not 0 like addition.

So what 'a' makes a*0 = 1? There is no such element and it has to be excluded as per other comments.