Gaga comes, the audience is mostly women.
Knuth comes, the audience is mostly men.

Clearly, Google's pro-woman hiring strategy is not having the desired effects.

If I bought a place, I'm pretty sure I would at least send a little word about it to my friends and family . That would be a major life event.

Anyone who venerates TAoCP like you do is a drone formatted by the establishment, an elitist, or both.

Offense arises because of difference

... further qualification is unnecessary.

As the UKIPper next to me in the operations department here amply demonstrates. Difference is to be abolished - all differences from the One True Person - him.

Needless to say, by disagreeing, I mark myself as an un-person.

Why on earth would you need to fly somewhere to apply a software update ???

Just as one hypothesis : air-gapped location. Materials go in (and the bill of lading etc are scanned with a bar code scanner), product goes out with a printed book of certification. Orders, plans and designs come in on hardware of considerable obscurity making it really difficult to get a virus into the system.

tldr version : Stuxnet ; NSA.

Not every hunter-gatherer got crushed by a mastodon either - that doesn't mean it wasn't a selective factor in tribes that hunted them.

But it does raise a serious issue - they're studying changes that don't necessarily reflect the selective pressures of present-day life.

Think about it: what are the leading causes of death for people in the prime breeding age (15-34)? Car accidents - by a good margin. So isn't this significant selective pressure to beef up the neck against whiplash, the skull against forehead impact, survival during significant blood loss, etc?

#2 is suicide. I don't know how this rate has changed over time or whether the methods modern humans choose for attempts are more effective than would have been chosen in the past. For example, while men commonly turn to firearms, which are a very effective way to commit suicide, women more often turn to prescription medication overdoses as a method, which overwhelmingly fails.

#3 is poisoning. While humans have always been around poisons, the sheer number that we keep in our houses, most of types that we didn't evolve to, suggests that this may be a stronger selective factor now than it was during our agrarian days, perhaps comparable to that when we were hunter-gatherers or worse.

#4 is homicide. We've definitely gotten a lot better at that, a person is far more likely to die from an intentional gunshot wound than a beating or stabbing. Selective pressures: surviving blood loss, mainly. Stronger, thicker bones may help in against low velocity penetrations.

#5 is other injuries. Again, we're not as likely to suffer from, say "crushed by a mastodon" as an injury, but we've developed plenty of new ways to get killed or maimed in our modern lives.

Then it gets more complicated on the basis that the issue isn't just about survival of the individual, but their social group as a whole, so even nonbreeding members can have a major impact...

To make a political statement? Since when was this "a political statement"? It was an attempt to stop a movie that made fun of the Great Leader. An attempt that mostly succeeded. Which was done after previously threatening Sony about the issue.

What, exactly, is to gain by admitting culpability? Is that usually what criminals do? "Why, yes, officer! I threw the brick through my ex's window to get back at her and scare her. I'm telling you now so that you can go ahead and punish me!"

Because the world is just full of people who would hack a company to blackmail them not to release a movie about Kim Jong Un. Because everyone loves the Great Leader! His family's personality cult^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HVoluntary Praise Actions only take up about 1/3rd of the North Korean budget. And I mean, they totally deserve it. I mean, did you know that his father was the world's greatest golf player who never had to defecate and whose birth was fortold by a swallow and heralded by a new star in the sky?

No, of course it wasn't North Korea. Clearly it was the work of America! Because America wants nothing more than a conflict with North Korea right now. Because clearly Russia and Syria and ISIS aren't enough, no, the US obviously has nothing better to do than to try to stir up things out of the blue with the Hollywood obsessed leader of a cult state whose family has gone so far as to kidnap filmmakers and force them to make movies for him. It all just makes so damn much sense!

Cue the conspiracy theorists in three, two, one...

I know, write? Who gives a flying flip about an app to track a jolly magical man with an eating disorder.

Now, if someone would make an app to track the Yule Cat, Grýla, and her progeny, then that I would have interest in!

Ah, but state those rules out loud (assuming you are already confident as to what they are) and the comma or its lack will almost certainly be apparent in your speech, at least to an astute listener. Which is also the reason I use it sporadically in "and" conjunctions as well - in that case the alternatives are usually roughly equivalent, but may have subtly different implications. I write like I speak, and commas appear in the places where I pause to separate concepts. It may not always adhere to the formal rules, but is usually clearly comprehensible. I think.

Which raises the question: how to write a sentence to proactively state that you do in fact mean for "draw and discard" to be a discrete concept?
If I say "I have one pile each for for my carrots, lettuce, , macaroni and cheese.", does that clarify that I do in fact have three piles*? The english language would well benefit from an equivalent to mathematical parenthesis, or perhaps something somewhat more expressive. Conciseness in language is not something that should have to depend on the normal usage of language being concise - it never will be. For maximum utility and adoption it should be something where the various common permutations can be seamlessly dropped in to a casual conversation where conciseness is useful, before disappearing again into the rough-and-tumble realities of casual conversation.

* Yes, I do consider .", to be the correct punctuation - how else would you unambiguously characterize the way that sentence should be read?

According to the paper, EEC only reduces but does not eliminate the problem (section 6.3). Multiple bits can be corrupted at once.

If you're wanting to narrow it down, you won't like this line from the paper:

In particular, all modules manufactured in the past two years (2012 and 2013) were vulnerable,

It's pretty clever, and something I always wondered whether would be possible. They're exploiting the fact that DRAM rows need to be read every so often to refresh them because they leak charge, and eventually would fall below the noise threshold and be unreadable. Their exploit works by running code that - by heavily, cyclicly reading rows - makes adjacent rows leak faster than expected, leading to them falling below the noise threshold before they get refreshed.

And the only reason the risk is higher for longer flights is because, well, they're longer, so there's more time for something to possibly go wrong.

Every flight consists of at least three phases : take-off, cruise and landing. The large majority of airplane crashes occur in take-off and landing phases, and relatively small numbers in cruise (some while taxiing too, but they're mostly survivable - airframe damage only).

If you re-work the statistics in terms of take-off, cruise and landing, then the numerical advantage the long distance flights have in terms of deaths per passenger-kilometre decreases a lot, leaving flying rather more comparable to long-distance train travel. Both still considerably ahead of driving, even if you neglect all the starts and stops of most road journeys.

There's a reason that airlines indirectly quote the deaths per passenger-kilometre figure - it makes them look better. Deaths per passenger journey wouldn't be anything like so good. (still relatively good, but not as good.)