svat

27 ms·

271.
by svat 2y ago
> Throughout this process, we’ve received feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders, including regulators like the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), publishers, web develop
272.
by svat 2y ago
I'm sure you know this, but even very simple/short programs can have complex behaviours that put them out of reach of computer scientists with present-day knowledge. For example, short programs can encode things like the Goldbach
273.
by svat 2y ago
Thanks for sharing. Curious how things are now 6 years later: do you still keep in touch with some of the employees? Has the outcome been good for them?
274.
by svat 2y ago
Love those great examples! But I wonder why you say Not exactly "eggcorns" , as "incorrect but plausible" is pretty much the definition: https://eggcorns.lascribe.net/about/ (I guess maybe because
275.
by svat 2y ago
Just curious: could you delete some of the larger files, or do something else to reduce the data usage, to stay within the current tier?
276.
by svat 2y ago
This is the original Knuth-style "literate programming", and being able to do this is approximately the entire point of CWEB. BTW, note that the .w source file is not meant to be read directly: it is intended to be run through cwe
277.
by svat 2y ago
No he won't. The point of the reward has always been to solicit improvements to the text, point out things he missed -- it does not include conscious/stylistic choices. Please don't waste his time, as (from personal experienc
278.
by svat 2y ago
The sentence is missing the example of "May", as you observed. It should say: > Take, for example, "Day" and "May", which are even, and "Say", which is odd. Since the "-ay" suffix is con
279.
by svat 2y ago
> "unimpressed." That is not the "new" meaning under discussion That is pretty much (very close to) the new meaning under discussion: as the article says, the old meaning was “at a loss as to what to say, think, o
280.
by svat 2y ago
It's also interesting to see cultural differences here (partly coming from the respective languages themselves): • In English, rhyming/versification is relatively limited, and (so?) rhyme is dismissed as for less-serious poetry&#x
281.
by svat 2y ago
The bulk of Sanskrit literature, including everything technical — astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, politics, etc — is in metrical verse. This was true both when things were primarily passed down orally, and when writing/printing was
282.
by svat 2y ago
I'm not sure I understand your comment, because at first glance it seems to be making a distinction between "Oh" and "O", when Bigelow's article is using "Oh" as the name/vocalization of the lett
283.
by svat 2y ago
Related reading, from the font designer's side: “Oh, oh, zero!” by Charles Bigelow (of Bigelow and Holmes, makers of typefaces like Lucida and Wingdings), published in TUGboat the journal of the TeX users group: https://tu
284.
by svat 3y ago
> these kind of "calculus made easy" pamphlets The link is not a pamphlet (unless you read only the linked HTML page). It is an entire book, published in 1910 by Silvanus P. Thompson, and sufficiently well-regarded that it wa
285.
by svat 3y ago
> “Casablanca is best described as cinematic magic that occurred accidentally on purpose,” writes [Alan K Rode, biographer of the director Michael Curtiz] This is also the message of Umberto Eco's essay called "Casablanca, or
286.
by svat 3y ago
I think Bruce Berndt's Number Theory in the Spirit of Ramanujan (2006) may be along the lines of what you're looking for, and also possibly G. H. Hardy's Ramanujan: Twelve Lectures on subjects Suggested by His Life and Wor
287.
by svat 3y ago
I don't think of myself as having good spatial reasoning, but it still works for me — note that if you look at the top part of the UI (in the grey box covering the map), the arrows are still relative to "you". So at least in
288.
by svat 3y ago
Just enter a page number; it works fine. Or if you wish, here are the direct links: http://ramanujan.sirinudi.org/Volumes/01/01.pdf http://ramanujan.sirinudi.org/Volumes/02/02.pdf http:
289.
by svat 3y ago
The notebook (like Ramanujan's three previously known notebooks) has already been published, in 5 volumes by Bruce Berndt and George Andrews, with extensive annotation (e.g. just flipping at random, in the third volume Chapter 6 is cal
290.
by svat 3y ago
Strong agree; came here to recommend this — this is something I came up with by myself and thought I was the only one who did this; glad to find others think the same. Doing this has greatly improved my sense of direction (to much better th
291.
by svat 3y ago
Possibly from here? * The Science of Scientific Writing (1990) by George Gopen and Judith Swan: https://web.archive.org/web/20240120063715/https://www.ameri... They say: > In our experience, the mi
292.
by svat 3y ago
Was your comment (“Original source found at…”) intended to be a reply to some other comment, rather than being a top-level comment? Or did you actually mean to suggest that the original source of the post here (“What I think about when I ed
293.
by svat 3y ago
> Then the LuaTeX devs moved their efforts to LuaMetaTeX and I found myself scratching my head. This makes sense: They're essentially “done” with LuaTeX; it works fine and is distributed with TeX Live; it's up to others to us
294.
by svat 3y ago
Yup: > In 2003, the entire editorial board of the Journal of Algorithms resigned to start ACM Transactions on Algorithms with a different, lower-priced, not-for-profit publisher, at the suggestion of Journal of Algorithms founder D
295.
by svat 3y ago
“That's private property!” — Colonel "Bat" Guano in Dr. Strangelove (1964) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUAK7t3Lf8s
296.
by svat 3y ago
I cannot deny that your comment couldn't have failed more to displease me. Cheers,
297.
by svat 3y ago
It's nice to see Ousterhout's idea of module depth (the main idea from his A Philosophy of Software Design ) getting more mainstream — mentioned in this article with attribution only in "Other notes", which suggests the
298.
by svat 3y ago
> It means having the fewest parts needed in order to accomplish your requirements. That is exactly what "deep" means, in the terminology of this post (from Ousterhout's book A Philosophy of Software Design ). Simple me
299.
by svat 3y ago
> I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn’t happen more often. From context I guess you meant either "I wouldn’t be surprised if this happens more often" or "I would be surprised if this doesn’t happen more often."
300.
by svat 3y ago
> Have you given any kind of training or lessons in programming (honest question)? Everything can break down! I have actually, so I understand what you mean, that all sorts of confusions are possible no matter what. I agree with you on

More ›