Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines:
• interesting, insightful, useful
• aim to explain, not to persuade
• avoid meta discussion
• relevant to people whether or not they
are involved with the LessWrong community.
My favorite one: burning wood for heat. Better than fossil fuels for the GW problem, but really bad for local air quality.
To your alternative approaches I would also add Bruce Schneier's advice in *Cryptographic Engineering*, where he talks a little about the human element in dealing with clients. It's similar to the Socratic approach, in that you ask about a possible flaw rather than argue it exists.
Why is a mere statement of contradiction voted up to five? Something I'm missing here? I could understand if it was Clippy and there was some paperclip related subtext that took a minute to "get" but ...
>Admittedly no one's ever been charged under the ADA, but there are plenty of examples of people being disciplined for violating it.
Thinking about your experiments does not (in itself) involve expenditure of government money, so I don't see how they would prosecute you under the ADA for that. Yes...(read more)
... and that is what being a big fish in a small pond feels like ;-) That is, most of them there won't even make it that far. At least, that was my experience.
(My approach was the cruder one of just taking a remainder modulo max size after each operation.)
C-style integers = integers with a fixed possible range of values and the corresponding rollover -- that is, if you get a result too big to be stored in that fixed size, it rolls over from the lowest possible value.
Ruby doesn't implement that limitation. It implements integers through [Fixnum](ht...(read more)
+1 for a (+1 for acknowledging the inconvenient) on a subject you dislike discussion of.
Depends on what you intend to get out of it, but you can go to an amateur hack night ("we're going to implement C-style integers in Ruby", "we're going to implement simulated annealing)", where almost everyone but you will have trouble conceptualizing the problem.
Non-thinking-of-customers-as-fish is not a business plan.
My favorite one: burning wood for heat. Better than fossil fuels for the GW problem, but really bad for local air quality.
To your alternative approaches I would also add Bruce Schneier's advice in *Cryptographic Engineering*, where he talks a little about the human element in dealing with clients. It's similar to the Socratic approach, in that you ask about a possible flaw rather than argue it exists.
Bad: "that does...(read more)
Case in point: the weather.
Why is a mere statement of contradiction voted up to five? Something I'm missing here? I could understand if it was Clippy and there was some paperclip related subtext that took a minute to "get" but ...
>Admittedly no one's ever been charged under the ADA, but there are plenty of examples of people being disciplined for violating it.
Thinking about your experiments does not (in itself) involve expenditure of government money, so I don't see how they would prosecute you under the ADA for that. Yes...(read more)
... and that is what being a big fish in a small pond feels like ;-) That is, most of them there won't even make it that far. At least, that was my experience.
(My approach was the cruder one of just taking a remainder modulo max size after each operation.)
C-style integers = integers with a fixed possible range of values and the corresponding rollover -- that is, if you get a result too big to be stored in that fixed size, it rolls over from the lowest possible value.
Ruby doesn't implement that limitation. It implements integers through [Fixnum](ht...(read more)
+1 for a (+1 for acknowledging the inconvenient) on a subject you dislike discussion of.
Depends on what you intend to get out of it, but you can go to an amateur hack night ("we're going to implement C-style integers in Ruby", "we're going to implement simulated annealing)", where almost everyone but you will have trouble conceptualizing the problem.
Non-thinking-of-customers-as-fish is not a business plan.