It's really quite cool how we can implicitly know all these linguistic rules without consciously being aware of them. Just another reminder that our conscious self is just a layer on top of a big and complex processing machine.
Readit NewsJZumun commented on Totes Adorbs Truncations [video] youtube.com/watch?v=41-CV... · Posted by u/JZumun
For me, above that, is multi-page support.
I understand why it's not there, though. But for me, an accidental "need to design this quick" amateur, I really don't like juggling 01_cover.svg, 02_inlay_left.svg 03_inlay_right.svg and so on. Designing a booklet, folder, or even business-card is frustrating.
I think they added multi-page support in the previous point release[0]. I only use inkscape to make graphics though, so I'm not sure how user friendly the implementation is.
JZumun commented on Rejected GitHub profile achievements github.com/Flet/rejected-... · Posted by u/kelseyfrog
I love this, however...
I would say the "thumbs up" on a comment is one of the most helpful things on Github, it telegraphs that a comments is usually the fix for something, if we didn't have loads of people doing the "thumbs up" reaction on comments, we wouldn't effectively have stack overflow style answers in comments.
I think the badge isn't for the reaction, but for posting comments whose text is solely "+1" or "<thumbs up emoji>"
JZumun commented on New York Times Election Day Crossword (2009) crosswordunclued.com/2009... · Posted by u/lazycouchpotato
> the NYT clues do not mention solution lengths
I don't understand, can't we just tell from the grid?
Cryptic crosswords usually provide the lengths of each word in the solution as part of the clue. If that were done here it would have spoiled the ambiguity because either answer would have had (3,4,7) or (7,7) in the clue.
I think this site probably deals more with the cryptic crosswords, so that aside probably made more sense for regular readers.
JZumun commented on TypeScript: Control flow analysis for destructured discriminated unions github.com/microsoft/Type... · Posted by u/tosh
I know you're entirely right, but sometimes when I see things like this in Typescript...
https://github.com/sindresorhus/type-fest/blob/main/source/r...
I can walk through it with enough pause, but it kinda makes my head implode when I glance at it.
{ [Key in KeysType]-?: ... }
source: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/2/mapped-types....
Let N be the number of places life could arise, and p the probability that life arises in one of those places.
That argument is basically "there is a value of N such that for any p > 0, N p is much greater than 1."
But that's obviously wrong. For any N, there are values of p > 0 that make the product N p arbitrarily close to 0.
The dim intution behind the argument was that p can't be "too small". But given our current understanding of OoL, that's not a justified assumption. p could be exponentially small, if OoL requires some extremely unlikely step.
Natural selection is great once the system's reproductive fidelity is good enough to support it. The problem is bridging the gap from small molecules to that system. The smallest system we know of that can independently support Darwinian evolution has billions of atoms.
In this formulation, isn't p^N the probability that ALL places where life is possible, actually has life? It makes sense for that to approach zero.
What we want is the probability for at least one other place other than ours to have life. This would be 1 - (1-p)^N, which does tend to 1 as N gets arbitrarily large.
To get that formula: (1-p) is the probability that life does not exist in a place, so (1-p)^N is the probability that ALL places where life is possible, has no life. Therefore, 1-(1-p)^N is the probability of the opposite of that (where at least one place has life).
JZumun commented on Which jobs most often pair together among married couples flowingdata.com/2021/05/2... · Posted by u/thrower123
I don't get it. Wouldn't anyone's chances of marrying any group be higher if we assume they are married at all? Because "being married" is a super set of "being married to a person from X group"?
I think an extreme example might help: if there are 100 software developers but 98 are single, and 2 are married to each other, then 100% of software developers(that are married couples) have married software developers, even if only 2% of all software developers are married at all.
It’s been awhile since I’ve worked in the frontend space, but even 5 or 6 years ago if you were using a pretty popular hosted CDN of JQuery with a pretty recent version there was a pretty good chance it was already cached on the end user’s device when they hit your site. There’s always a lot of talk about Jquery’s size but I wonder how many users don’t even notice because they’ve already got it on their system.
There’s also of course the added cost of executing the library on the site but I’m guessing V8 and other JS engines have optimized the hell out of that too as to make it pretty negligible in terms of time difference.
Modern browsers partition caches by site nowadays - at least, Chrome started doing it last year[0], and Firefox followed soon after I think [1]. That means there's no longer any caching benefit for multiple websites using jQuery - each site will download and cache it separately.
[0] https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2020/10/http-cache...
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Privacy/State_P...
JZumun commented on The Inconsistency of Arithmetic (2011) golem.ph.utexas.edu/categ... · Posted by u/woopwoop
I think you may have a typo. Should 4 be Sn+Sm=S(n+m)?
When I read about Peano axioms I mentally think of Sn as the function S(n) = n+1 and that helps me understand them better.
As a non mathematician sometimes I wonder if this substitution is causing me to misunderstand something else about them.