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.
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.
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
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.
That guy with the mullet looks sharp
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
It bothers me that the height chart suggests there are 10 inches in a foot
Sure, there’s a lot of plug sockets there, but I don’t see a single plug in that image
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.
A spaceman came travelling on his ship from afar
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:
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widdershins
Just because it sounds cool.