pierrebai

Strawman detection activated.

The goal of giving money is not to make those who receive it more educated, better parents or making them politically active. I mean, why did I have to say that?

(The amount of money is also unlikely to enbale to make savings for the future.)

The goal is that their immediate poverty decreases. Why is the author insistent on the measurement of unrelated stats? Because he has an ax to grind.

OTOH, 99% of use cases don't care about performance and just want a portable implementation.

While it could be useful to have a "fast" variation that offers no guarantee at all, what you would end up with (because people are vain) is that too may people would use those instead "because perf", even though the actual usage is not performance critical, and have code that breaks whenever the compiler or platform changes.

Knowing that a typical maze will have branching paths at the beginning, but necessarily one good path at the end, I find it easier to start from the goal and work my way backward.

But your example is not reflective of the study. Are you saying that the 17% reduction is for some reason significant but the other ones, all of which would inconveniently disagree with the result you want, are not, even though they are in the same study?

IOW, you're saying that among the study results, all that agree with your POV are valid, all that don't are invalid. That's quite some bias there.

Well, we read the article, which cites many studies. Maybe she is doing a super selective review of the field, but she does not merely quote one study, but several, all of which indicate that there is no correlation between saturated fat and cardiovascular problems.

IOW, we did not merely "read and trusted one random article" but assessed the presented evidence. You OTOH, merely provided ad-hominem attack on both the author and anyone who dared believe the presented evidence, which smacks of trying to shame people in not voicing their opinion.

Ah, the old "if you do not spent your time, effort an interest where I have chosen to spend them, then you are an inferior human being to me."

Everyone judges people who do less about subject X, Y, Z to be criminal, lazy slob, and everyone doing more to be inflexible annoying zealots.

Woe those who are not me and do things differently, for they are worthless.

Isn't this whole description a lie, both ways?

You can embed/tunnel any network transport into another. There is nothing magical about the internet and IP. It is actually being tunneled when you're using a cable modem. WiFi is a horrible hack that encapsulate IP in a very ugly way to make it onto it's wireless tech.

You could have tunnel ATM over IP, I'm pretty sure of it. The depiction seems to me like a flattering extolment of IP.

No, since they use an integer (Z) as the denominator. So their representation support having -1 (i.e 0) as the denominator.

I wonder why they chose to represent rationals with subtracting one from the denominator. It makes human parsing of the value harder and in many case makes the implementation code slighter harder; for example the equality op need to increment both denominators before using them. I suspect such increment must be constantly be needed left and right?

Some of the ideas in the blog must be speculative, given that it fell through a wormhole, being published September 17, 2024.

Looking at the code, "maintainability" is quite relative: it might be maintainable by the original author, but the code has no comment and is chuck-full of magic constants without any explanations. Or'ing this hex value, and'ing that other hex value, etc.

The article is just plain wrong about classes: if you have declared any constructor, then the language will not provide a default constructor and default-initialization will fail with a compiler diagnostic.

So their claim that "T t;" will "do nothing" is incorrect.

    class T
    {
    public:
        T(int);
    };
    T t;

Will fail.

I'm utterly confused by the description of the solution of Hilbert's 10th problem.

On one hand, the article claims that Diophantine equations are polynomials. On the other hand, it claims that when JR is true, a Diophantine equations grows faster than a polynomial.

How can a polynomial grow faster than polynomial? That seems like a contradiction to me.

Interestingly, there is a common pattern for fixed-points and cycles for different number lengths: numbers made of 4, 5 and 9. For example

length 3: fixed-point 495 length 5: 2-cycle containing 59994 length 6: fixed-point 59994

Similarly for digits 6, 1, 4, 7:

length 4: 6174 length 5: 4-cycle containing 61974 length 6: fixed-point 631764