Right. Before starting with this kind of *ahem* creative defensive explanations, a quick question. I know it's looking over the wall, so kinda verboten in Apple-land, but does anyone have any information about Russia requiring such side-loading on phones using that other mobile OS who happens to have the option to allow sideloading?

Actually it would be a spoiler if true - for how much it would not follow the books, seeing as Paul Atreides does not conquer the galaxy (see books 3/4 for who does)

Very good point. Definitely not fair to dismiss her out of hand as quackery. She does seem to have a bit of an agenda, though. Useful as one perspective, not so useful as the only perspective.

Hmm ... well, firstly she starts of by titling the video as "What's Going Wrong in Particle Physics? (This is why I lost faith in science.)" First sentence good (although that's definitely not all that's going on wrong), second sentence bad. She should have a second look at her own Euler diagram in the video illustrating "some A are B". But I suppose "This is why I lost faith in some scientists." would not sound as catchy.

Secondly, you get a bit of a credibility hit when you're only presenting the negative results in a field. Letting aside the fact that in any research field there will be a number of failed models and thus negative results, the bias of showing negatives without any qualification (say, by distinguishing them using some sort of metric that describes the distance of the proposed failed theory from the SM) looks a lot like cherry picking. Especially since the (few and disproportionately visible) positive results presented are kind of glossed over. True, finding a novel decay mode or a new unstable quark combination is not as flashy as finding the Higgs, but last time I checked (and it's been quite a while, since HEP is not my main concern or too adjacent to it, so feel free to correct me) our understanding of the strong interaction is not as complete as we'd like. So presenting the field the way she does makes it seem that it's "all are wackos" instead of "there are wackos" - and we're back to Euler diagrams and that dash of dishonesty.

Lastly, her suggestion of directions for moving forward is ... frankly, bad. Not entirely bad, but the "reasonable" kind of bad. It only covers incremental changes, which have their place, but anyone looking at the history of Physics can see that major advances have been made in discontinuous leaps. Which means a certain level of risk-taking is needed in approving research choices. And sadly we don't have a consistent approach for walking this particular tight rope, otherwise for instance the string theory field would look rather different from what it is today. So yes, it's a hard problem, which is not limited to HEP. And, as the saying goes, for every hard problem there's (at least) a solution that is simple, clear and wrong.

Well, Norway is, by most of the metrics that matter, in the top 2-3 richest countries in the world by population income (typically competing with Luxembourg). If a majority of your population can pay down a new and heavily kitted up electric car in less than two years then yeah, tipping points start to depend on supply and product quality. For the rest of the world personal finances will play a somewhat larger role.

to use a line from an old satirical series, get some integrity, then we'll make fun^H^H question it.

Hmm ... let's see ... (source: SpaceX application to the FCC)

Not the easiest thing to do when the satellite no longer responds to propulsion commands.

Still, there will be natural orbit decay regardless, so let us assume 1-5 years. The problem is you'll have a steady state of the constellation where a certain percentage of satellites will be down in the process of de-orbiting at all times. Now, if you want a back of the envelope calculation of the percentage, after ~2.5 years the percentage of non-responsives is 3%, with the implicit assumption that some non-responsives have already de-orbited. However, since the satellite count in orbit has been increasing, the failure percentage is likely skewed younger, so the average age of the current unresponsives is likely to be between 1 and 2 years. Picking the optimistic 2 years for a 3% failure rate (assuming the probability of failure remains constant through the life of the satellite, which is optimistic), with an average of 3 years for natural de-orbiting, various assumptions about actual rates (failure, deorbiting, replacement) will give you a steady state of somewhere around 4-5% of satellites currently in orbit being unresponsive and not yet de-orbited. Of course, the devil is in the details - for instance, currently about 5.7% of the launched satellites have already been de-orbited. But one can see how for a final planned fleet of ~40k satellites, having ~4% unresponsive is ... well, close to double of the current fleet size. And while the regular satellites will be grouped for optimal service over specific landmass areas and hopefully avoiding rocket launch windows (space and/or time), land-based observatories, other satellites and so on, the unresponsive ones will ... not.

Perhaps, for instance, because it stopped working for mobile Firefox after the last major update?

Uhh ... no. From the actual ruling:

Moreover

and

So no, one company of the group (Epic Games) breaching an agreement apparently does not entitle Apple to in turn breach an unrelated (and walled off) agreement with a different company of the group (Epic International) regarding the SDK, company who had done no agreement breaching of its own.

You need to work on your analogies a bit more, it seems. That, and someone needs to bring the slashcode up from the last century concerning unicode support (no taking bets on the last one though)

You also do not have control over their networking settings. Unless you take over the root/admin of every guest's computer? Oh, you meant mobile devices? Well, fear not, there's no option to enable DoH on firefox mobile. However, you'll still be stumped if your guests' mobile devices use some form of vpn, or even, horror of horrors, Tor. So, what were you trying to accomplish again?

Really, with that uid your post is ... rather embarrassing.

I'll skip addressing the credibility of the guy, as that particular horse has been beaten to death ages ago, but it's slightly shocking to see how Trump saying something resets the time zero in the history of that particular subject. The use of chloroquine was shown to help against coronaviruses (in particular the original SARS) before Obama was president.

For a more informative compilation than that sad WP blurb (quoting an 11 patient 'study'? really???) you might want to check out this link:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocume...

(and for the use of chloroquine in treating SARS see the very last references, about 15+ years ago)

Please stop giving Trump so much credit for things he says, he really does not deserve it.

You must have misread at least one of those definitions. From Wikipedia:

The only situation where this involves fermions is in superconductivity (or equivalent), where electrons (which are fermions) form Cooper pairs and these pairs (which are bosons) condense in the BEC state.

Awesome Rei, you've discovered that objects have non-trivial sizes. Now for your next assignment, check the sizes of std::vector, std::map (and cousins) and std::string. Oh, and before you object, in python3 int (which a=0 will give you) is arbitrary precision, so try comparing it with something like gmp's integer objects, m'kay?

As to your original point, yeah, by default it's eating memory and performance is easy to miss. When these things become a problem, go check boost::python, cython, numba and so on. Oh, and for some scenarios pypy can be rather cool.

Going along with GP's confusion between 'computers' and 'software', there are already people who use neural nets to optimize the design of other neural nets. So that last part is already beginning to be covered.

Actually, it's not (only?) a library bug, but a(lso) programmer bug. Using std::make_pair(x, x) makes a pair, duh! Complaining about it is silly. Hint: the initializer list version of insert() is faster than the pair version (at least on sane platforms, Microsoft can be weird about c++)

If only it were as simple as that. He's still right about one thing though, your initial statement about "conceptual debate between hole flow and electron flow" is misguided. It's just the reasoning that's ... inexact.

Both 'electron flow' and 'hole flow' are pseudo-particle descriptions of many-body transport phenomena. Heck, there are systems where the pseudo-electrons have anisotropic mass, charge/spin separation, and so on - hardly the behaviour of a free electron. Besides, that 'a free valence band' term you used is misleading - a vacancy is as ill-defined spatially as an extra electron in a strongly-interacting many-body system. 'Electron' and 'hole' flows both are the same concept - quasiparticle linearizations of otherwise (mathematically) intractable systems. So there is no 'conceptual debate', yet neither is a 'real boy^H particle'