You mean, you went on to the second paragraph and found it better?

No, but if you were shown that one of the *other* doors has a goat behind it, would you decide to stick to your original door choice, or choose the 3rd door instead?

Back in my day, we solved this using CVS and LaTeX. You can use Git now.

på?! First the ± symbol and now this?! Did Slashdot fix its Unicode support?! Did I miss the article, or did Slashdot fail to report its own news for nerds and stuff that matters?!

I will not pretend I understand the paper, but this is a big deal! I find it annoyingly funny that the very mathematical definition of the continuity hypothesis (on which fluid dynamics is based), that the density equals the limit of DeltaMass/DeltaVolume for DeltaVolume going to zero, will break up if you actually apply it in reality: for volumes down at the atomic level the mass is not equally distributed anymore unless you use probabilities. This is very helpful in explaining some fluid dynamic principles, like Bernoulli's principle. Deng et al. got our back!

Does it also work when you have a bleeding nose and a broken jaw? Asking for a friend.

+1 Funny, because it's funny.
+1 Insightful, because you should *really* not forget your error bars.
+1000 Interesting, because you used the actual ± symbol. I had to look up how to do it.

Getting to the moon, or mars, in general only requires a single push. Without drag there is nothing to slow down the spacecraft afterwards and you don't need to keep pushing. So you can push once against the magnetic field of the earth if you are pointed in the right direction, and also get to your destination in a reasonable amount of time. The actual questions are: 1. can you push hard enough for accelerating to a reasonable velocity within a reasonable time? 2. What about correction burns/pushes? I suppose you will still need conventional thrusters for course corrections.

They were thought to be dwarfed Homo erectus. Homo erectus is not a modern human.

Well, one thing you're missing is the fact that when humans learn something, they don't start from scratch. The driving instructor teaches you not only the basic rules, but also empirical cues so that you can learn quickly. Ditto for chess, learned and self-obtained experience informs the grandmaster that some opening moves are better than others. Those others and their algorithmic children don't need to be checked. A computer brute forcing a problem like chess or driving will be lousy, but if you give it more empirical information (weights and biases), like teaching a human, it will perform better.

Nobody said that horsepower was based on a *good* horse...

Indeed, all companys offering mods will be all over this. So much potential!

"LineShine uses semi-custom 304-core LX2 processors based on the Armv9 instruction set architecture running at 1.55GHz. The LX2 appears to have been co-designed with China's National Supercomputing Center and Huawei, with 40,960 chips deployed across 92 cabinets. It has a total of 13,789,440 cores." From: https://www.datacenterdynamics...

How about a bait and switch? Lure everyone in promising MS-Office compatibility, then switch the default saving setting to a standardized format. People even start getting oblivious to the fact that there are files out there somewhere in the cloud, nobody cares about the extension...

Donotwant. Then the car will bother me all the time about infotainment subscriptions, heated seat subscriptions and the like. I'd like to hover some plastic and enter a pin, thank you!