Kogasa

Distributivity is a requirement for non associative algebras. So whatever structure is left is not one of those

1 = Ω0 = Ω(Ω + Ω) = ΩΩ + ΩΩ = Ω + Ω = 0

so distributivity is out or else 1 = 0

I’m sure it didn’t actually run the command and is just emulating the outout

Well now we have to find you good Miku songs just in case you are trans.

https://youtu.be/Ljr2wMSBHqU

It’s a Windows Subsystem that is responsible For (Running) Linux. Yes, everyone thinks it should have been called Linux Subsystem for Windows.

I mean the specific issue about the binary blobs. Something that might set off alarm bells for you or a security-focused group may not do so for some dude working on a passion project in his free time.

Maybe they weren’t working on it.

Software to create bootable usb drives. It’s handy, you just copy ISOs into the drive and pick which one to boot into instead of overwriting the drive with a single ISO.

I thought at first the point was that murders had gone down because they were suddenly technically legal. The inverted scale thing is worse

The GPT architecture is well understood, the part that is hard to explain is the way information is encoded in the trained model’s parameters. It’s not magic, it’s just a highly opaque encoding.

If “AI art is kinda bad” is part of the argument against AI art, it will only be used against us when AI art isn’t that bad anymore.

If the host were to pick a door randomly, there would be 6 equally likely possibilities.

First, you pick either Goat 1, Goat 2, or Car. In the first case (1/3 chance), the host picks either Goat 2 or Car. In the second (1/3 chance), the host picks either Goat 1 or Car. In the last (1/3 chance), the host picks either Goat 1 or Goat 2.

Out of these 6 possibilities, two of them result in the host revealing a car, which would end the game early. Eliminating those two possibilities, so the host always reveals a goat, leaves 4 possibilities. This is the “new information” that is used by the host.

In the first case (1/3 chance), switching gives you the car. In the second case (1/3 chance), switching gives you the car. In the last case (1/3 chance), switching gives you a goat.

It’s a different situation, as a dev I’d happily bet my life on this assumption.

Dropping support for that stuff means breaking 95% of the websites people currently use. It’s a non-starter, it cannot ever happen, even if you think it would be for the best.

Math builds up so much context that it’s hard to avoid the use of shorthand and reused names for things. Every math book and paper will start with definitions. So it’s not really on you for not recognizing it here

🍕(–, B) : C -> Set denotes the contravariant hom functor, normally written Hom(–, B). In this case, C is a category, and B is a fixed object in that category. The – can be replaced by either an object or morphism of C, and that defines a map from C to Set.

For any given object X in C, the hom-set Hom(X, C) is the set of morphisms X -> B in C. For a morphism f : X -> Y in C, the Set morphism Hom(f, B) : Hom(Y, B) -> Hom(X, B) is defined by sending each g : Y -> B to gf : X -> B. This is the mapping C -> Set defined by Hom(–, C), and it’s a (contravariant) functor because it respects composition: if h : X -> Y and f : Y -> Z then fh : X -> Z and Hom(fh, C) = Hom(h, C)Hom(f, C) sends g : Z -> B to gfh : X -> B.

–

P^(n)® AKA RP^n is the n-dimensional real projective space.

–

The caveat “phi is a morphism” is probably just to clarify that we’re talking about “all morphisms X -> Y [in a given category]” and not simply all functions or something.

–

For more context, the derived functor of Hom(–, B) is called the Ext functor, and the exactness of that sequence (if the typo were fixed) is the statement of the universal coefficient theorem (for cohomology): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_coefficient_theorem The solution to this problem is the “Example: mod 2 cohomology of the real projective space” on that page. It’s (Z/2Z)[x] / <x^(n+1)> or 🍔[x]/<x^(n+1)>, i.e. the ring of polynomials of degree n or less with coefficients in 🍔 = Z/2Z, meaning coefficients of 0 or 1.

It’s not nonsense, although there is a typo that makes it technically unsolvable. If you fix the typo, it’s an example calculation in the wikipedia page on the universal coefficient theorem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_coefficient_theorem

It’s real projective space

“put the excess energy into batteries” is an idea, and is already pretty much what is done, but the large scale implementation still requires a lot of time, effort, and expense.

Unless the improvements include making them fly at the same speed and height as fighter jets I’m not seeing the endgame.