toth

10 ms·

91.
by toth 9y ago
I get that part, that's why you use std::find or std::lower_bound on the vector, but my point is that std::lower_bound will not give you the right answer unless your enum is defined with the names in alphabetical order.
92.
by toth 9y ago
Interesting write up. There was a claim I didn't understand though > Let’s fix this. An easy way to get our std::vector implementation in-line with the rest of the containers is we can sort it and utilize an algorithm, std::lower_b
93.
by toth 10y ago
Tangentially related, but was not aware of the python package sacred that they used. Seems pretty useful for organizing data science runs.
94.
by toth 10y ago
This is a nifty paper. Also very cool is the proof without words that just happened to be in the same journal page as the last part of this paper.
95.
by toth 10y ago
> Wow, can anyone shed some light on how they time this? What sort of clock, I'm assuming its some fancy hardware that you use to benchmark at the 4 nano second level? Or do you just claim this and assume that no one can prove you w
96.
by toth 10y ago
Ah, that would explain it! Was not aware Oberth effect was thing, thanks!
97.
by toth 10y ago
That's a great read, thanks for linking. I am little peeved by the maneuver at the beginning of the story though. You cannot use a slingshot maneuver around the sun to gain speed relative to the sun - that's simple conservation of
98.
by toth 10y ago
If you leak tens of thousands of emails by hundreds of people that the senders expected to remain private you are pretty much guaranteed to find some that you can read as racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever you want. In an ideal world w
99.
by toth 10y ago
The question about about TOR? Sure, they could have used TOR, but that doesn't make them automatically untraceable. I am definitely not an expert on this kind of forensics, but in past cases the "smoking gun" pointed to by e
100.
by toth 10y ago
Well, I would agree with you if the DNC leaks were accompanied by equivalent GOP leaks. Personally, I didn't find the DNC leaks that damning to be honest - I don't think the same standards of impartiality that you need for the gen
101.
by toth 10y ago
Well, even if it wasn't Russia that hacked the DNC (and now the Clinton campaign) it is still the case that someone did, and that's still reason enough to take the measures Bruce Schneier's advocates.
102.
by toth 10y ago
Also recommended are the two other articles in this series: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/large-counta... https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/large
103.
Large Countable Ordinals, Part 1(johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com)
58 points by toth 10y ago|4 comments
104.
by toth 10y ago
You are saying that static_assert would not trigger here, correct? That makes sense to me, but it's not what is in the proposal [1] - see the "Not proposed" section. [1] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22&
105.
by toth 10y ago
You may be correct, and I certainly hope you are. But if that's the case then the static_assert behavior seems all the more puzzling. In particular if this code works, then you can roll your own "static_assert" that will no
106.
by toth 10y ago
Opinions differ I guess. I would love it if if constexpr ( COND) { CODE }; would compile even if CODE only compiles when COND is true. There a lot of nice use cases for that, and that's how the static_if in D works. You can st
107.
by toth 10y ago
Hmm, it seems this constexpr if is much more limited than I realized then. If I understood correctly the code in the the body of the constexpr if has to be correct even if the condition does not hold. I.e., this code: template<typ
108.
by toth 10y ago
I agree that constexpr if looks great. I am confused about the decision on how to handle static_assert. It seems that if constexpr (false) { static_assert(false); } Will fail to compile because the static_assert will trigger. Thi
109.
by toth 10y ago
Well, the point is that paying a stock dividend is equivalent to doing nothing. All that happens is that 1 share turns into for example 1.05 shares. Price per share should go down by ~ 5%, but total market cap stays the same. A rational sha
110.
by toth 10y ago
The function call is not being optimized out, it's being hoisted outside the loop. I.e., it is as if the code was written as: let result = flatuseStruct(outputData) for _ in 0..<iterations { assert(result == 864431
111.
by toth 10y ago
You are correct. They would have to drop an axiom to hope to go from inconsistent to consistent. E.g., go from ZFC to ZF (drop the axiom of choice). If ZF is inconsistent... I think that would make a lot of mathematicians panic.
112.
LendingClub and Hedge-Fund Pay(bloomberg.com)
2 points by toth 10y ago|0 comments
113.
by toth 10y ago
The title is incorrect and very misleading. This is not "salary" for hedge fund managers, it's total income. I couldn't find the exact breakdown, but for the guys at the top of the list, most of the income is not compen
114.
by toth 10y ago
That's true, but it's also true if you drop the "passive" part :)
115.
by toth 10y ago
Yes, you are right, I am wrong! That works just fine. For the record: template<typename T> struct OnScopeExit { OnScopeExit(T f) : f_(f) {}; ~OnScopeExit() { f_();}; T f_; }; template<typename T
116.
by toth 10y ago
Lazyness is a great virtue! Thanks for the suggestion on unique_ptr , it should be pretty useful for debugging!
117.
by toth 10y ago
I actually don't think there's a nice way of doing this without making the interface slightly more annoying. If you make OnScopeExit a template on a callable, then you need to give it the type of the callable explicitly on constru
118.
by toth 10y ago
That is a pretty cool use. In practice though, it is pretty unreadable unless you wrap it in a macro or template, and if you are doing that you might as well just implement it yourself. Something like: struct OnScopeExit { OnS
119.
by toth 10y ago
Love this part: "Meta-Failures 2016 This darn CV of Failures has received way more attention than my entire body of academic work"
120.
by toth 10y ago
0.5% of the GDP of US ($17 trillion) is $85 billion, not 1 trillion. And I don't know many westerners that would say that $951M is not a lot of money :)

More ›