rer0tsaz

Making sure the Direction flag is clear on entry and return is a somewhat hidden requirement of stdcall (Windows calling convention), but it didn't crash if you set it in WindowProc and forgot to clear it until Windows XP.

More recently, Vista had (accidentily?) 16-byte aligned stacks when using OpenMP with MingW, but the exact same binary crashes on Windows 10 when it tries to use unaligned SSE instructions.

I was expecting a "Django SQL" Explorer, for example a Django ORM -> SQL compiler playground, but got a Django "SQL Explorer".

No, but let me quote Jaynes (Probability Theory: the Logic of Science, 10.10):

> ‘When I toss a coin, the probability for heads is one-half.’ [...] the issue is between the following two interpretations:

> (A) ‘The available information gives me no reason to expect heads rather than tails, or vice versa – I am completely unable to predict which it will be.’

> (B) ‘If I toss the coin a very large number of times, in the long run heads will occur about half the time – in other words, the frequency of heads will approach 1/2.’

These are not the same except for special circumstances like controlled experiments. Frequentism usually assumes or restricts itself to those special circumstances. The long run here means `for any ε > 0, the probability that the observed frequency n/N lies in the interval (1/2±ε) goes to 1 as N goes to infinity'.

There is no such thing as an intrinsic probability, a coin only has a chance of landing heads when tossed. If we know everything about the coin and how it is tossed we could calculate the result. Some ways of tossing a fair coin are biased. Some coins are biased when tossed in fair ways. A fair coin toss exaggerates factors that are difficult to know and control exactly, like the force that we apply on the coin with our finger.

Jaynes thinks that `true randomness' such as is postulated by conventional quantum physics is unscientific (10.7). In any case it doesn't matter for calculating, and I don't think many Bayesians lose sleep over whether it's unknown, unknowable or `true randomness'.

If the Bayesian has an informative prior, they won't be mislead too much. If a Bayesian is 100% sure beforehand with a δ(x - 0.5) prior they won't be mislead at all, but of course no one is ever 100% sure (Cromwell's rule). On the other hand a frequentist might say p<0.05 and be mislead.

No, no, the cool thing to do now is to defend it. You claim that critics just don't understand its purpose, even if they mention it multiple times and are only criticising misuse. Then you use it ironically in your professional presentations to show that you are above the hoi polloi, both of today and of 15 years ago.

Just use n = max(a, b). Of course that doesn't help you much unless you're adhering to strict safety standards (e.g. power of ten rules), it just shifts the burden of proof from termination to correctness. And there's no such trick with the Ackermann function.

I'm really just advocating a rule of least power. Don't go into full general recursion just because you can.

Yes, that is the point I tried to make. Use simple, constrained forms such as (C) "for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) { ... }" with n an int and no modification of i in the body, or (Python) "for e in l:" where l is a list that is not modified in the body. Then your code is very easy to analyze, not just in theory but also in practice for compilers, tools and people reading your code. Many language designers have realized this and provide special syntax for this very common case. I'm not aware of any language that has special syntax for primitive recursion, but it's an interesting idea.

My apologies for making an absolute statement with unclear terms, thus inviting uncharitable interpretations.

They helped a local 30-year-old coffeehouse by buying them and their neighbor at above market rate. Backed by illegal secret tax deals, as it turned out.

To summarize and paraphrase the paper:

> Every upvote should increase the score, every downvote should decrease the score and the more votes there are the less an additional vote should matter. Only "adding pretend votes" satisfies this.

That really puts into words why "adding pretend votes" just felt right to me in practice.