Just asked ChatGPT about that line of code with a "Why?"

It gave a fine analysis with the result that I could rewrite it to:

1 – (sqrt(MiddlePoint))/(10)

I would probably continue to:

1 – sqrt(MiddlePoint/100)

And it guessed that the input was between 0 and 100 and we wanted a smoothly decreasing output.

There exists a separate Chat application you can install, and then you can disable chat in the Gmail app (done in settings per email account). That will probably allow you to control notifications separately.

They have free plans where they host your data: https://bitwarden.com/pricing/

Including one for a two person org, I have to switch to that.

Is there an open source alternative to Immersed?

I have found one application on my system using the Posix message queues, stress-ng (https://kernel.ubuntu.com/~cking/stress-ng/)

Doesn't seem like a very critical bug.

You nailed it. If there's a futures market for it, that means volatility. Part of it will be intrinsic to the resource itself. The other part will be due to active manipulation for financial gain. I think some will win and some will lose. Unfortunately, it will not be in equal measure.

I can see how that could work, but it would require the starting position of the masses in the universe to initially be far away from each other in order to release energy as mass gets closer. That doesn't really match up with my intuition about big bang, but really nothing about that is intuitive.

My gut feeling is also that you have to bring stuff really close in order to cancel out the energy bound in mass. Given that G is small and c^2 is large.

Do you have any calculations/papers/books that describe how to get the universe to have zero energy? (I read https://www.goodreads.com/book... a month ago, so I have been trying to find an explanation for where the energy is coming from)

That is an elegant way to fix the energy problem with the multiverses. But where does all the negative energy come from that is needed to cancel out all the energy of the mass that is in the universe?

Yes we do. We also thank the British people a lot.

There is a large celebration of the American Independence Day here in Denmark every year, and it is often visited by the sitting Prime Minister as main speaker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

ANTICIPATED: Handheld computers and wireless data.
EXPECTED: An almost 100% sure thing we'd get there.
UNEXPECTED: That same technology that was supposed to be our tool to free us and make us better is used by default to track us, monetize us, maintain and resell portofolios on us.
DISAPPOINTED: The success of the cell phone and tablet effectively kills other pieces of dedicated or unique hardware implementations (MP3 player, a physical chess set that you can play against another friend anywhere in the world, etc).
ALSO DISAPPOINTED: How freely the common person would cash in their privacy for free services.

HOPED FOR: That "everyone" would finally be online and that you could do real things (and significant things) online.
EXPECTED: More individuals connecting with even more individuals.
UNEXPECTED: Reaching the tipping point where you're expected to be online or you can't access some desired information. (My offline parents complain about this quite regularly.)

SKEPTICAL: My dad telling me (circa 1980) that computer graphics would be good enough one day to make cartoons just as good as I see on TV. Even further in the future, maybe even something that might look like real life!
UNEXPECTED: Just how far we've surpassed even that dream of believable computer graphics in standard definition and in real time.

PROMISED: Useful and interactive household robots.
DISAPPOINTED: Roomba and a few small toys.

PROMISED: Television will keep getting better and better.
EXPECTED: High quality and lower cost hardware.
DISAPPOINTED: Everyday "broadcast quality" video quality has improved, but not as much as I'd thought.

For "Offline Trajectories" 20180352383-A1,

It should cite "System and method for providing quality of service mapping" US8620339B2 while talks about doing that very thing (but with a different spin to it).

https://patents.google.com/pat...

I'm not saying it invalidates the patent (I'm not a patent examiner) but it should at least be cited as a related patent.

You raise some interesting issues, but in the end, what does this proposed change in FCC policy look and smell like? Is this really about how the FCC can best meet the connectivity needs of rural customers? Or something else?

If this was honestly first and foremost about meeting the needs of rural customers, hey, we'd all welcome this! But it looks like the FCC is tinkering (yet again) with the definition of broadband, and this time it seems they're using it with the intention of steering funds.

How? They can define the bandwidth requirements just high enough to be unfavorable to regional competitors who have been building out networks. Yet they don't go too high. They still keep the definition low enough as not to burden those new competitors who have a well-known plan to roll out high speed fixed-wireless technology.

5G promises to be an awesome new technology, and I personally can't wait to see it! But I'd like to see it compete with the wired competitors on more level ground. Not through political lobbying. Not by carving out competition with an arbitrary definition of 5G that artificially tilts the distribution of funds.

It is another story of regulatory capture at the FCC. The FCC was supposed to favor Americans and put limits on corporations. Now the FCC is favoring the corporation they're supposed to regulate and the Americans are just contrived into a justification for doing so.

It is sad and unfortunate for America.

The current standards for the Connect America were kept low so that they could show a map full of territory that is covered with 'high speed broadband Internet access'. The FCC wanted to look good.

Now that we're on the cusp of 5G, the FCC wants to change the rules of the Connect America (Slush) Fund to turn it into a giveaway for 5G wireless providers (such as his former corporate employer).

They need the number to be high enough to knock out many of the existing landline offerings (often local or regional companies), but at the same time low enough not to significantly obligate those 5G providers to offer significantly more than they want to.

It is a delightful balancing act of minimal levels and timing that is used to shift the reward from wired landline providers to wireless providers. I'm sure his sponsors couldn't have asked for anything more.