Nah, Wall Street is not one entity, it's a plrthora of firms each with own solutions (jealously guarded against the competitor). Some may use GPS. But jamming it you'd only make the others happier.
"How precise does your nuclear missile really need to be?" - Depends. If you want to destroy a city of civilians, not very. If you want to destroy an underground command bunker or nuclear silo, it must have a goddamn pinpoint accuracy.
...and hit a $20 worth of antenna and cable equipment with a several $mln missile. Getting the jammer (1 out of 80) offline for 30 seconds it takes Misha to plug the cable leading to the antenna 300 meters north (then an hour to fix the first one.)
Never claimed it was easy... but they somehow managed to deliver. That set them apart, and made the price tag attached worth it for a lot of people.
Nowadays they are losing the race - and still attaching the same price tags as if they were still in the lead. This will come back with vengeance to them soon.
Although his strategy kept Apple popular and famous. It maintained a long-term profit by ways of reputation of perfect, innovative products and being a leader. Now Apple may be bringing more cash in quarter-to-quarter, but it is falling behind. The newest iPhone is objectively worse than Samsung's flagship, and more expensive. It's been years since they last released any truly innovative class of devices - iPod, iPad, iPhone were all something completely new, disruptive. Now Apple just releases upgrades - and loses followers. Soon it will go the way of Amiga.
Quarterly profits have completely overshadowed their vision for a decade ahead.
If finding a prime becomes negligibly cheap, then testing n semi-primes against that prime, vs testing one semi-prime against n primes become equally costly.
" It may be less than 1% at first,"
Way to oversell.
It will be less than 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 00000000001% at first. But it will grow in probability until it's only 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 00001% eventually.
You increase the efficiency hundredfold, you just cut 2 out of the 10^112 times the age of the universe, now you're at 10^110. You increase the efficiency tenfold every year, you'll be at "age of the universe" in 110 years.
Correct - let me put it in numbers better than "jillions".
Starting with sqrt(semi-prime) and going downwards (one of the primes must be necessarily lower-or-equal than that, the other greater-or-equal) , testing only divisibility of the number by the primes, without first finding whether a number is a prime through factorization, you're still left with ~10^151 "is x a factor of the semi-prime?"" tests - instead of ~10^155 numbers to go through "is x a prime, and if so, is x a factor of the semi-prime?".
It's a massive reduction of computational complexity but still useless in the grand scheme of things, because 10^151 is such a ridiculously huge number. If the operation of finding the next prime and checking if the semi-prime is divisible took a single CPU cycle of a 10GHz processor in a cluster of 100,000 such processors, it would still take about 10^117 times the age of the universe.
Don't make any sudden moves and no one floats away!
The "rovers" hopping mechanism would barely make them twitch in Earth gravity - on Ryugu it results in 15-meter hops. That may last something of order of an hour too.
The problem is they expect their arguments to be accepted regardless of their validity, and there was no way to convince them their wrong arguments were wrong - up to outright rejecting trivially verifiable arguments like "you misquoted the source, it's not what they wrote."
And if you concede and yield, they'll demand more, encouraged by the victory and using your concession as further leverage and proof that you are wrong on principle and should yield. They don't accept compromises. The only way to go about them is to reject all arguments, valid or not, decline all requests with a strong prejudice - then on your own time consider validity of their argument, and do the right thing - and in case they happened to be right, absolutely never credit them.
Except the name-callers have journalist friends and a big following, and may influence your revenue, by giving you a label no advertizer is willing to be seen near.
Too bad you sometimes can't even refuse to play the game.
Take Ninja, a Twitch gaming streamer. Popular, absolutely apolitical, flawless reputation. Recently, he was approached by some female streamers, who have strongly political streams, "bold statements" like painting breasts blue on live stream etc. They requested making joint streams with him. He politely refused.
Currently, Anita Sarkeesian calls him 'mysogynitst'.
Some people can't be 'a good person'. That doesn't automatically make them bad coders. And sometimes, they are coders so excellent, that when you compare the losses due to their bad behavior (which are primarily primadonnas who can't recognize good code and can't deal with stress of working in a highly demanding environment anyway), with direct benefits from productive contributions of the 'bad person', you should really consider if it's better to try to change (or dismiss) the efficient asshole, or just have the complainers go seek their luck elsewhere.
It's not *that bad* really. The crash occurs in the gfx library / rendering engine, on a lower level. It's just given a single absolutely massive rendering task it's unable to complete within the watchdog duty cycle. Someone didn't foresee this - normally the library should be done with its job within microseconds, but this specific job was engineered to take a "macroscopic" time slice, and so, the watchdog bites.
There are solutions - but not easy. It would be fairly difficult to design a subsystem that estimates time required to render a specific effect, before deciding "just don't do it", An easier approach would be to abort the rendering job after a preset time, and restore the subsystem to a stable state. This would require a separate dedicated watchdog, and a special subsystem that is capable to abort and unroll an arbitrary job mid-way through. Or they could slice the rendering engine vertically, and make it perform only a specific amount of work per time slice. And this gets quite convoluted because you're replacing simple loops with a finite state machine.
All doable, all difficult and costly... and not contributing to normal web experience, just protecting against malicious attacks. Yeah, they fucked up, but it's a 'the fucking incompetent idiots' fuckup type, it's just 'for fuck's sake, do we really have to protect against THIS too?' one.
It is. Everything offends someone. There's not a single thing in the world that somebody won't find offensive. And if we began seeking non-offensive alternatives to everything that offends someone, first, we'd have no time for anything else left, next nothing would bear the same name for longer than it takes for someone to find it offensive and demand a change (days tops for anything in common use), and last, we'd still never name anything in a way that wouldn't offend someone.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, Wall Street is not one entity, it's a plrthora of firms each with own solutions (jealously guarded against the competitor). Some may use GPS. But jamming it you'd only make the others happier.
"How precise does your nuclear missile really need to be?" - Depends. If you want to destroy a city of civilians, not very. If you want to destroy an underground command bunker or nuclear silo, it must have a goddamn pinpoint accuracy.
...and hit a $20 worth of antenna and cable equipment with a several $mln missile. Getting the jammer (1 out of 80) offline for 30 seconds it takes Misha to plug the cable leading to the antenna 300 meters north (then an hour to fix the first one.)
so that boils down to "50% of people earns more than average"?
Never claimed it was easy... but they somehow managed to deliver. That set them apart, and made the price tag attached worth it for a lot of people.
Nowadays they are losing the race - and still attaching the same price tags as if they were still in the lead. This will come back with vengeance to them soon.
Unfortunately, had to do my own.
Date of easter, sunrise/sunset times. No good C++ library providing these.
The new products are less better than they did in the past.
No new disruptive inventions. Competitors taking over in domains where Apple used to dominate.
It's not enough to do a bit better than you did last year. You must do better than the competition.
Objectively, Amiga 600 was better than Amiga 500, and Amiga 1200 was better than the two. Look where it got them.
Although his strategy kept Apple popular and famous. It maintained a long-term profit by ways of reputation of perfect, innovative products and being a leader. Now Apple may be bringing more cash in quarter-to-quarter, but it is falling behind. The newest iPhone is objectively worse than Samsung's flagship, and more expensive. It's been years since they last released any truly innovative class of devices - iPod, iPad, iPhone were all something completely new, disruptive. Now Apple just releases upgrades - and loses followers. Soon it will go the way of Amiga.
Quarterly profits have completely overshadowed their vision for a decade ahead.
If finding a prime becomes negligibly cheap, then testing n semi-primes against that prime, vs testing one semi-prime against n primes become equally costly.
" It may be less than 1% at first,"
Way to oversell.
It will be less than
0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 00000000001% at first. But it will grow in probability until it's only
0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 00001% eventually.
You increase the efficiency hundredfold, you just cut 2 out of the 10^112 times the age of the universe, now you're at 10^110. You increase the efficiency tenfold every year, you'll be at "age of the universe" in 110 years.
In the *infinite* universe.
Given the chance was *finite* even if very small, it *had* to happen somewhere.
Correct - let me put it in numbers better than "jillions".
Starting with sqrt(semi-prime) and going downwards (one of the primes must be necessarily lower-or-equal than that, the other greater-or-equal) , testing only divisibility of the number by the primes, without first finding whether a number is a prime through factorization, you're still left with ~10^151 "is x a factor of the semi-prime?"" tests - instead of ~10^155 numbers to go through "is x a prime, and if so, is x a factor of the semi-prime?".
It's a massive reduction of computational complexity but still useless in the grand scheme of things, because 10^151 is such a ridiculously huge number. If the operation of finding the next prime and checking if the semi-prime is divisible took a single CPU cycle of a 10GHz processor in a cluster of 100,000 such processors, it would still take about 10^117 times the age of the universe.
In Earth gravity? The most they'd manage to do would be twitch powerlessly on a desk.
Don't make any sudden moves and no one floats away!
The "rovers" hopping mechanism would barely make them twitch in Earth gravity - on Ryugu it results in 15-meter hops. That may last something of order of an hour too.
Well, that "dumbass" managed to land a probe on a comet. Meanwhile all these "smart" outraged women...? What did they give the humanity?
The SS-520 you have linked, after a couple failed launches, finally launched a cubesat to the orbit successfully earlier this year.
Considering most of the regions touched by famine have opulation wit $10/month of income, that's already 4x what they earn.
I faced some such people.
The problem is they expect their arguments to be accepted regardless of their validity, and there was no way to convince them their wrong arguments were wrong - up to outright rejecting trivially verifiable arguments like "you misquoted the source, it's not what they wrote."
And if you concede and yield, they'll demand more, encouraged by the victory and using your concession as further leverage and proof that you are wrong on principle and should yield. They don't accept compromises. The only way to go about them is to reject all arguments, valid or not, decline all requests with a strong prejudice - then on your own time consider validity of their argument, and do the right thing - and in case they happened to be right, absolutely never credit them.
Advertizers don't. One slur by Pewdewpie and he lost all his best contracts.
Except the name-callers have journalist friends and a big following, and may influence your revenue, by giving you a label no advertizer is willing to be seen near.
Too bad you sometimes can't even refuse to play the game.
Take Ninja, a Twitch gaming streamer. Popular, absolutely apolitical, flawless reputation. Recently, he was approached by some female streamers, who have strongly political streams, "bold statements" like painting breasts blue on live stream etc. They requested making joint streams with him. He politely refused.
Currently, Anita Sarkeesian calls him 'mysogynitst'.
Some people can't be 'a good person'. That doesn't automatically make them bad coders. And sometimes, they are coders so excellent, that when you compare the losses due to their bad behavior (which are primarily primadonnas who can't recognize good code and can't deal with stress of working in a highly demanding environment anyway), with direct benefits from productive contributions of the 'bad person', you should really consider if it's better to try to change (or dismiss) the efficient asshole, or just have the complainers go seek their luck elsewhere.
Unfortunately, some people you don't please some of the time will step forward and demand your dismissal due to your "toxic attitude".
Some people demand to be pleased all the time.
It's not *that bad* really. The crash occurs in the gfx library / rendering engine, on a lower level. It's just given a single absolutely massive rendering task it's unable to complete within the watchdog duty cycle. Someone didn't foresee this - normally the library should be done with its job within microseconds, but this specific job was engineered to take a "macroscopic" time slice, and so, the watchdog bites.
There are solutions - but not easy. It would be fairly difficult to design a subsystem that estimates time required to render a specific effect, before deciding "just don't do it", An easier approach would be to abort the rendering job after a preset time, and restore the subsystem to a stable state. This would require a separate dedicated watchdog, and a special subsystem that is capable to abort and unroll an arbitrary job mid-way through. Or they could slice the rendering engine vertically, and make it perform only a specific amount of work per time slice. And this gets quite convoluted because you're replacing simple loops with a finite state machine.
All doable, all difficult and costly... and not contributing to normal web experience, just protecting against malicious attacks. Yeah, they fucked up, but it's a 'the fucking incompetent idiots' fuckup type, it's just 'for fuck's sake, do we really have to protect against THIS too?' one.
It is. Everything offends someone. There's not a single thing in the world that somebody won't find offensive. And if we began seeking non-offensive alternatives to everything that offends someone, first, we'd have no time for anything else left, next nothing would bear the same name for longer than it takes for someone to find it offensive and demand a change (days tops for anything in common use), and last, we'd still never name anything in a way that wouldn't offend someone.
Certainly that should be 'legal_guardian' and 'ward'.