JonC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widdershins

Just because it sounds cool.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262046305/introduction-to-algorithms/

This one is pretty hardcore. I bought the 2nd edition of it over 20 years ago when I started my career as a developer due to not doing a CS degree.

It’s not necessarily how far things are, it’s that you need a car to get to places in a sensible way.

I’m a fellow Brit, but have stayed in suburban US enough to have experienced how different it is. You might have a supermarket a couple of miles away, but if you want to attempt to walk there, you’ll often be going well out of your way trying to find safe crossing points or even roads with paved sidewalks.

Train stations are mostly used for cargo in most US cities. If you don’t have a car, you’re pretty much screwed.

Some cities are different. NYC being the obvious one. You can get about there by public transport pretty easily in most places there. San Francisco is another city that is more doable without a car, but more difficult than NYC.

I stayed near Orlando not too long ago and there it’s just endless surburban housing with shops and malls dotted about mostly along the sides of main roads. You definitely need a car there.

Also take a look at the Specification Pattern for something similar.

That’s something I would only use if the logic becomes very complex, but it can help break things down nicely in those cases.

An annual degradation of 1.8% over 20 years gives more than 69% capacity the end of the period, so it’s better than what you posted.

Each year, you have 0.982 of the previous year’s capacity (1 - 0.018), so the capacity at the end of the 20 years is 0.982 ^ 20.

Why the assumption that reactivity is only a front-end thing?

I’ve used it plenty on the back-end when dealing with streams of data that need to trigger other processing steps.

First Contact main theme > all

Yeah, it’s one of those scenarios that happens so infrequently that people rarely think about it.

Until it does happen and then everyone gets confused!

Technically, the line is at the second to last opponent in the direction of attack.

The usual case is that the goalkeeper is the last opponent, so the line is at the last defender. If the keeper comes forward past some of the defenders, then the line would be at the second last defender.

The attacker also has to be ahead of the ball to be offside, which doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the link. You could have two attackers, both in offside positions, but if the one with the ball passes to the second attacker and the second is behind the ball when the pass is made, then it is not offside.

So I deleted the story before I posted it, and began to realize that even though I’m 40, and should be past all this, it still hurts, and I’m a deeply broken person.

The thing about trauma (and it likely is trauma) is that it often just doesn’t go away on its own and you need to do work on it. So, why should you be over it?

Should is a loaded word as it pretty much always comes from what you learned as a child. You should do that. You should be like this.

That “should” probably comes from your father when he told you how you should be as a child.

It sounds like you aren’t over it now, but that’s ok. It’s ok not to be over stuff that happened in childhood. But the important thing to understand is that you can get over it with work. Being aware of that is the first step on that road.

Apparently it’s because CrowdStrike installed their device driver as one that must start when Windows starts.

Explained here: https://youtu.be/wAzEJxOo1ts?feature=shared&t=675

I’ve linked to the specific time where he explains that issue, but tbh the whole video is worth watching.

deleted by creator

I still remember the code for Braeburn Apples, over 25 years after I worked in a supermarket.

For some reason, their code of 6969 sticks in my mind.

And at this point, the extended crew of the Discovery was thoroughly sidelined: Burnham’s personal relationships took priority over everything else.

This is the part that I’ve never got on well with in Discovery.

In TNG, it’s not a show about Picard, or Riker, or any of the other individuals. It’s a show about the crew. I’ve even seen it said that the actual star of the show is the ship.

Whereas, with Disco, it’s a show about Michael Burnham and everyone else has a bit part. That always felt weird for a Star Trek show. I want to see how the crew works together to solve problems and overcome things with everyone on an equal footing regardless of their rank in the show.

And I think that’s why there was such a warm reception to season 3 of Picard. It brought the crew back together. Picard alone isn’t satisfying enough. What we wanted was him as part of the crew.

And he created Trello

Or is that just what you want us to think?

Same, using Chat GPT 4. It explained the steps without prompting, which is different from the single line answer shown in the post too. I got this…

Let’s break this down step by step:

1. Sally has 3 brothers.
2. Each of those brothers has 2 sisters.

Sally is one of those sisters for each of her 3 brothers. Therefore, the second sister that each brother has would be the same other sister.

This means that Sally has only 1 other sister, making a total of 2 sisters in the family (including Sally herself).

So, Sally has 1 sister.

Just move to Brixton

https://maps.app.goo.gl/hdEvTsPzTj8eYD5z5?g_st=ic

And if anyone’s not familiar, the song was written about this street.

That one’s actually really easy to prove numerically.

Not going to type out a full proof here, but here’s an example.

Let’s look at a two digit number for simplicity. You can write any two digit number as 10*a+b, where a and b are the first and second digits respectively.

E.g. 72 is 10 * 7 + 2. And 10 is just 9+1, so in this case it becomes 72=(9 * 7)+7+2

We know 9 * 7 is divisible by 3 as it’s just 3 * 3 * 7. Then if the number we add on (7 and 2) also sum to a multiple of 3, then we know the entire number is a multiple of 3.

You can then extend that to larger numbers as 100 is 99+1 and 99 is divisible by 3, and so on.