It's really quite cool how we can implicitly know all these linguistic rules without consciously being aware of them. Just another reminder that our conscious self is just a layer on top of a big and complex processing machine.
I think they added multi-page support in the previous point release[0]. I only use inkscape to make graphics though, so I'm not sure how user friendly the implementation is.
Side note - it would be if Github squished all of those down into reactions and next to the reaction added a line saying "we squished the following comments to reactions (show squished comments)".
YouTrack kind of has support for that https://www.jetbrains.com/help/youtrack/server/Workflow-One-... and I thought they muted the notification email for the comment, but I couldn't find any evidence to support my recollection. Similarly, I thought they had a whole series of "low value comment" handlers but also similarly I wasn't able to find any evidence of my hallucination
Cryptic crosswords usually provide the lengths of each word in the solution as part of the clue. If that were done here it would have spoiled the ambiguity because either answer would have had (3,4,7) or (7,7) in the clue.
I think this site probably deals more with the cryptic crosswords, so that aside probably made more sense for regular readers.
TIL that you can disable ? and readonly in mapped types using -. So in the above code, every Key will be mandatory (-?) even if the original one in KeysType was optional.
In this formulation, isn't p^N the probability that ALL places where life is possible, actually has life? It makes sense for that to approach zero.
What we want is the probability for at least one other place other than ours to have life. This would be 1 - (1-p)^N, which does tend to 1 as N gets arbitrarily large.
To get that formula: (1-p) is the probability that life does not exist in a place, so (1-p)^N is the probability that ALL places where life is possible, has no life. Therefore, 1-(1-p)^N is the probability of the opposite of that (where at least one place has life).
For a random variable X taking on non-negative integer values (here, the number of occurrences of life elsewhere in the universe), by Markov's inequality the probability that X = 0 is >= 1 - E[X]. Here, E[X] = Np, so if Np is very close to 0, the probability that X = 0 will be very close to 1.
That the probability goes to 1 as N goes to infinity FOR FIXED p is just another example of assuming p can't be "too small". The probability also goes to zero as p goes to zero. Why are you fixing p and not N? Why are you assuming p is large enough that N is in that asymptotic range where the probability has approached 1?
That seems right, but from a scientific point of view (as opposed to, say, a certain sort of theological view), two occurrences is not much more than one (even though one is so much more than zero.)
Two occurrences would actually be much more than one! Our own existence is useless due to observer selection, but discovery of even a single other independent OoL event nearby would allow us to infer OoL cannot be too uncommon.
Observer selection does not eliminate us as evidence for the proposition that life can exist. As for whether it is rare, you added the qualification 'nearby', and while it is true that it is most likely that any extraterrestrial life we detect will be nearby, the post I was replying to was arguing about the universal probability of life coming into existence, not about whether it will be discovered by us.
Furthermore, proponents of an extraterrestrial origin of life on Earth will doubtless argue that nearby life may have had a common origin.
Observer selection means p > 0 (ie the inequality is strict) but it can't tell us any more. Bayesian reasoning from our own solar system can put a reasonable upper limit on p but that isn't very helpful.
However, if we found life on Mars that same Bayesian reasoning would imply a meaningful lower limit on p as well, since life on Mars is independent of our existence to observe it.
If we found life on Mars that was independent of life on Earth it would imply a meaningful lower bound. Even finding a fundamentally different biosystem on Earth (life that didn't use nucleic acids, say) would be informative.
Just finding life on Mars that's the same kind of life as on Earth would not tell us much, as it could be explained by panspermia. There are Mars rocks on Earth, so transfer of life in those rocks should have happened constantly. If early Mars were habitable it almost certainly had life, due to this transfer.
I think an extreme example might help: if there are 100 software developers but 98 are single, and 2 are married to each other, then 100% of software developers(that are married couples) have married software developers, even if only 2% of all software developers are married at all.
Modern browsers partition caches by site nowadays - at least, Chrome started doing it last year[0], and Firefox followed soon after I think [1]. That means there's no longer any caching benefit for multiple websites using jQuery - each site will download and cache it separately.
Interesting. Reading Mozilla’s justification it does make a lot of sense, however it is kind of unfortunate to lose something that was pretty beneficial in terms of performance because of some bad actors. It’s not really viable to maintain a whitelist of trusted libraries either, and doing so would create a whole new class of problems.
Ideally CDN’s are powerful and ubiquitous enough these days that at least when you have the end user going and asking for JQuery from Cloudflare or whoever the CDN probably has a very fast location right next to them distance wise and that data should get over the wire pretty dang quickly. It’s still another performance hit though since you know at least the first time on the site they have to go and get it and if you are hosting your own stuff it might make more sense to just webpack everything together and hand it off to the CDN instead of having something like JQuery be on its own. Less overhead for opening another network request and all that.
