N if for Nougat
O is for O.....
can it do car analogies?
It can, but there are none: https://sidewaysdictionary.com...
The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Politico and BuzzFeed were also excluded from the meeting, which is known as a gaggle and is less formal than the televised Q-and-A session in the White House briefing room. The gaggle was held by White House press secretary Sean Spicer.
In a brief statement defending the move, administration spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the White House "had the pool there so everyone would be represented and get an update from us today."
The pool usually includes a representative from one television network and one print outlet. In this case, four of the five major television networks — NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox News — were invited and attended the meeting, while only CNN was blocked.
And while The New York Times was kept out, conservative media organizations Breitbart News, The Washington Times and One America News Network were also allowed in.
We know all the scenarios where AI fucks us over, it's about time we heard about the scenarios where AI gets us fucked.
How do we know it won't do both? It could control the gene pool.
that the free market isn't implementing a feature he thinks is necessary - sounds like a failure of the free market to me.
That would imply the market is supposed to have optimized in accordance with preferences of one man. Excepting possibly a post-scarcity society (replicators anyone?), the market cannot optimize everyone's preference. There are lots of things I would like the market to manifest but that I don't see them doesn't mean the market has failed.
The infrastructure there is great.
Tell that to people from Wisconsin, it is recognized by both sides that theirs is better. We are better than we were thanks to a tax hike in 2015. I would not be one to call what we have bad, but it is not "great."
Tons and tons of barely used roads (and bridges, obviously).
Barely used? I suppose you could find ways to measure it to make that case, but no one here is thinking that way. If you look at the number of cars per unit time compared to some congested California corridor sure it would seem barely used but that is not really a fair comparison if you consider, say, population density. It might be worth mentioning that a lot of the lesser roads are limestone / gravel.
People in the least dense parts of the state even get fiber to their doors
I am reading this over an expensive (>$90/mo for 50 GB of daytime usage) satellite Internet connection because that is the only access available. It is so slow at the moment, that I cannot even load my account information to see what the exact cost it.
The most surprising thing about this story for me is that Iowa needs 5,000 bridges
In the 5 miles to get from my home to the post office, I cross 5 bridges. Really not sure how else to deal with all the running water that needs to be crossed.
I have coded processors with only 16 bytes of data memory.
Honestly curious, what did you use it for?
... to produce a secure system that is closed source?
It may not make a difference in your argument, but it is worth noting that Fuchsia is currently open source: https://github.com/fuchsia-mir....
I think there is a pretty clear distinction between standard functions you DON'T have to provide definitions for because they are standard, and arbitrary functions you made up on the spot, and had to define before using.
This is where we disagree. Someone had to define the functions (NB. many functions include constants in their definition). From what you have said, I can derive two possible definitions of "standard". The first being functions you expect people to know. This is not a reproducible definition because what you expect is not likely to be the same as what another individual expects. For example not everyone knows the inverse trig. functions. The second interpretation would be functions that are externally defined such that the definition can be looked up. To me, this does not provide any clear restrictions on the mathematical domain, opening up for all sorts of tricks:
naming f(x) was only for convenience, I could have written it as:
((lambdan . (n + pi)) 4+4-4-4) [lambda should be the lambda character, but
Valid math. Everything is externally defined. Sure it is technically still an arbitrary function, but then I could also argue repeated application of a function you consider "standard" is also an arbitrary function. I do not see what grounds is there are for disallowing an entire mathematical system, but if you did, then I'd re-write it using currying notation. If you disallow that too, then I might try restating it using category theory. This continuing shows the distinction is arbitrary.
You seem to be confusing operators (or, more generally, functions) with constants here. arccos is just an operator, much like negation, addition, subtraction, etc. Pi is a constant, a numerical value, it has no other interpretation.
I think you overstate the distinction.
I guess you could also claim: 4+4-4-4+pi, claiming that that thing on the end is just a mathematical symbol and therefor a legitimate part of the equation
Let f(x) = x + pi (NB. we just curried addition)
Therefore, 4+4-4-4+pi = f(4+4-4-4).
Indeed, that part at the end was just some mathematical function. In fact, lambda calculus could be used to show all all your constants are functions.
I am not saying that opening up the problem beyond arithmetic is consistent with the spirit of the question, just pointing out the once the metaphorical flood gates are open, the distinction between what is and isn't allowed is not simple.
At blocking ads on my phone. No other mobile browser allows this.
Opera and Opera Mini have built-in ad blockers.
Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada