tom_mellior
Joined 11 years ago
Joined 11 years ago
System jq:
$ jq --version
jq-1.6
$ echo '{"number":288230376151711744}' | jq '.number'
288230376151711740
Fresh compile from source according to the build instructions at https://github.com/stedolan/jq: $ ./configure --with-oniguruma=builtin && make -j8
$ ./jq --version
jq-1.6-137-gd18b2d0-dirty
$ echo '{"number":288230376151711744}' | ./jq '.number'
288230376151711744
Alternatively: $ ./configure --with-oniguruma=builtin --enable-decnum=no && make -j8
$ echo '{"number":288230376151711744}' | ./jq '.number'
288230376151711740
So the basic bug is fixed, jq has included a bignum library for > 2 years. I don't know if Mint (and thus presumably Ubuntu, and thus possibly Debian) includes an older version of jq or sets nonstandard user-unfriendly flags on purpose, but I'm somewhat underwhelmed in either case.In totalitarian regimes, constitutions aren't worth the pixels they are printed on. Rights guaranteed by laws must be enforced by the judiciary and the executive. But that only happens if (1) cases actually reach a court, (2) that court is independent, and (3) the executive is willing to enforce the court's decisions.
Indeed, according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Belarus, "Citizens [...] have the right to protest against the government." Problem solved?
Without the superlatives and strawman attacks and with an actual description of how things should be done instead this would be an interesting read.
This is a strange claim since the entire field was founded upon the investigation of potentially (and often actually) infinite computations.
> Compare with most of "legacy" mathematics, which studies countable structures (so the description can use arbitrary series).
Define "most". Do it in a way that makes real and complex analysis and topology (and probably many other branches) the smaller part of mathematics.
Most importantly though, my problem with this kind of discussion is that the question itself is meaningless. Not everything can be classified into neat " X is a Y" relationships. Not everything needs to be classified into such relationships. Even if the discussion reached a consensus, that consensus would be meaningless. Computer science is a part of math? OK, but so what? Computer science is not a part of math? OK, but so what? Neither conclusion would tell us anything useful.
Thus proving the point that a field that studies them cannot be considered a branch of mathematics.
Because the one you are reading may have crowded out a better one. Even if the current review system is essentially random, replacing it with something that is essentially a contest of well-connectedness is worse. Young researchers with good ideas but fewer connections, or people from less well-known institutions would have their ideas suppressed.
So you should be worrying about stagnation, and about not reading what might actually be new and exciting.
The Kickstarter (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/playdreamworld/dreamwor...) says (emphasis mine, also highlighted in the article): "Creator centric crafting economy : Using simple tools and guided by quick tutorials, you can learn how to create your own 3D models for items that you and others might need or want in your builds and adventures. Imbue them with useful function like lighting, extra damage, low weight, knockback, and a plethora of exciting magical properties! Not artistically inclined? Import 3D models from anywhere online, and DreamWorld will help you turn them into exactly what you were looking for."
We'll see how much of this actually ships.
Thanks for the Second Life information.