English definitely has rules.
It’s why you can’t say something like “girl the will boy the paid” to mean “the boy is paying the girl” and have people understand you.
Less vs fewer, though, isn’t really a rule. It’s more an 18th century style guideline some people took too seriously.
No.
There’s two types of grammar rules. There’s the real grammar rules, which you intuitively learn as a kid and don’t have to be explicitly taught.
For example, any native English speaker can tell you that there’s something off about “the iron great purple old big ball” and that it should really be “the great big old purple iron ball”, even though many aren’t even aware that English has an adjective precedence rule.
Then there’s the fake rules like “ain’t ain’t a real word”, ‘don’t split infinitives’ or “no double negatives”. Those ones are trumped up preferences, often with a classist or racist origin.
Ish.
There’s precisely zero skill involved in e.g. roulette.
Poker, fantasy football, and horse betting though, are influenced by skill. But they’re all clearly still gambling.
The important thing in those 3 is that you’re not betting against the house. You’re betting against other players, and that you’re the smart enough to come out on top even after the house takes their cut. Unless you’re Nate Silver, though, chances are you’re not the smartest person in the room.
Better yet:
Give me $1, and I’ll roll two six-sided dice. If you roll two sixes, I give you $20.
Yeah, projects also exist in the real world and practical considerations matter.
The legacy C/C++ code base might slowly and strategically have components refactored into rust, or you might leave it.
The C/C++ team might be interested in trying Rust, but have to code urgent projects in C/C++.
In the same way that if you have a perfectly good felling axe and someone just invented the chain saw, you’re better off felling that tree with your axe than going into town, buying a chainsaw and figuring out how to use it. The axe isn’t really the right tool for the job anymore, but it still works.
C is not how a computer truly works.
If you want to know how computers work, learn assembly and circuit design. You can learn C without ever thinking about registers, register allocation, the program counter, etc.
Although you can learn assembly without ever learning about e.g. branch prediction. There’s tons of levels of abstraction in computers, and many of the lower level ones try to pretend you’ve still got a computer from the 80s even though CPUs are a lot more complex than they used to be.
As an aside, I’ve anecdotally heard of some schools teaching Rust instead of C as a systems language in courses. Rust has a different model than C, but will still teach you about static memory vs the stack vs the heap, pointers, etc.
Honestly, if I had to write some systems software, I’d be way more confident in any Rust code I wrote than C/C++ code. Nasal demons scare me.
Right tool for the job, sure, but that evolves over time.
Like, years back carpenters didn’t have access to table saws that didn’t have safety features that prevent you from cutting off your fingers by stopping the blade as soon as it touches them. Now we do. Are old table saws still the “right tool for the job”, or are they just a dangerous version of a modern tool that results in needless accidents?
Is C still the right tool for the job in places where Rust is a good option?
Sometimes in colonial America, people named things in honor a Duke who funded/controlled the place.
For example, after NY was captured from the Dutch, it was a proprietary colony of the Duke of York.
Better York sounds like it’s just antagonistic towards the guy.
Yes, uncountably infinite sets are larger than countably infinite sets.
But these are both a countably infinite number of bills. They’re the same infinity.
That’s not really how counting infinite sets works.
Suppose you have the set {1,2,3} and another set {2,4,6}. We say that both sets are of equal cardinality because you can map each element in the first set to a unique element in the second set (the mapping is “one to one”/injective), and every element has something mapped to it (the mapping is onto/surjective).
Compare the number of integers to the number of even integers. While it intuitively seems like there should be more integers than even integers, that’s not actually the case. If you map 1 to 2, 2 to 4, 3 to 6, 4 to 8, …, n to 2n, then you’ll see both sets actually have the same number of things in them because that mapping is one to one and onto.
There’s similarly the same number of real numbers as numbers between 0 and 1.
But there’s more numbers between 0 and 1 than there are integers.
That would be “cut homelessness in half” or “cut the number of homeless people in half”. That’s very different from “cut all homeless people in half”, which would be bisecting each homeless person. This is clearly a joke about conservatives being heartless monsters, right?
Or is this a dialectal grammar difference between UK and US English?
Really?
Conservatives don’t actually want to murder homeless people by sawing them in two? But killing homeless people is a great idea?
Keep in mind, though, AI progress is often more like punctuated equilibrium.
Each new approach gets you much further, and polishing each approach gets you slight improvements until the next approach comes along. Improvements to chatgpt might plateau until the next big breakthrough architecture. Or maybe not.
MicroSD cards are better, here. They’re 250mg; a pigeon can transport 75g. That’s 300 microSD cards, ignoring the weight of the SD card enclosure.
It’s a real quote, from the 80s, published in a networking textbook.
It’s amusing, but it’s always been a serious and occasionally practical observation.
IPoAC is a joke about printing actual IP packets, sending them by pigeon, then scanning them.
You do the whole usual TCP ACK/SYN thing, but with pigeons.
It’s not the same as ‘sneakernet, but strapping microsd cards to a pigeon’. It’s way, way sillier.
Levelized cost averages the fixed costs over the lifetime of the generation
They’re generally comparing utility scale installations, not home rooftop solar though.
Right.
As described, for you to get two books, someone else got zero. For you to get three books, two people got zero.
The median person gets zero books. A few lucky people get 2-36 books.
Edit:
She gives one book to her upline. She then sends out post to 36 more people to give her 36 books. Each one of them then needs to find 36 people each, which is now 1296 people in that level if they each want 36 books. Thus the exponential pyramid.
If sounds like the book goes to your upline, and you only get as many books as you recruit people.
If everyone is putting in one book, for you to get 36 books, 35 other people have to get 0 books.
One important thing to realize is that different dialects of English have slightly different grammars.
One place where different dialects differ is around negation. Some dialects, like Appalachian English or West Texas English, exhibit ‘negative concord’, where parts of a sentence must agree in negation. For example, “Nobody ain’t doin’ nothing’ wrong”.
One of the most important thing to understanding a sentence is to figure out the dialect of its speaker. You’ll also notice that with sentences with ambiguous terminology like “he ate biscuits” - were they cookies, or something that looked like a scone? Rules are always contextual, based on the variety of the language being spoken.