headsupftw

What are you even talking about? Read the blog post one more time, please.

Sure. Tell that to the valley real estate prices.

Oh it's just partisan political bullshit you say? Enjoy your low crime rate in SF then. Just the other day Bob Lee got stabbed to death near SoMa but oh no it's just the repubs spinning the news for their gain!

When you can't compete, call them commie spies.

As if the made-up article does not show up in Google search results?

That's just another way of saying "that's why its price is down 20%".

"We all decided that's not ok". And we also all decided it's ok to start doing something else in a Zoom meeting, because nobody will notice anyway?

They can easily provide a feature where the employee could flip a switch and temporarily (semi?) hide herself, signaling that she is currently occupied with something else. Yes, in a Zoom setting, she doesn't have to broadcast that. But that's just cheating.

This top comment is odd, in the sense that the article does not talk about TikTok's privacy and/or geopolitics debacles at all, even though the title "poison pill" might lead some users who didn't read the article to think it refers to TikTok's violation of privacy, or it being created and controlled by an Internet giant based in Communist China, or something along these lines.

The "poison pill" in the title actually refers to TikTok's recommendation model that disregards (or at least de-weights) social graph, versus Facebook/Instagram's approach.

I used to play on chess.com but now I'm lichess 100%.

"One million dollars baby!"

To me the key to understand the problem is paying attention to this detail: Monty knows where the car was so he wasn't just randomly opening A door. He always opened a door that didn't have a car behind it. It's this non-randomness that's giving you more information about the remaining door.

Not only that, we were forced to do it for the past two years. Does this "thing" truly have any merit? We don't know because companies did not have an alternative. We have nothing to compare it to.

"Caught another mistake: Section 3.2: First, an observation: the column sums of Q(G) are all zero is wrong. Contradicts their definition of Q(G)." True, but it's pretty obvious he was referring to a directed graph G where matrix Q(G) is defined as Qij = 1 if vertex vi has an outgoing edge ej; -1 if vertex vi has an incoming edge ej; 0 otherwise.

"how many ways you can get there in two steps from v1" If it's not obvious, v1=3, v2=1, v3=1, v4=1, v5=1, v7=2.