Not sure if everything is correct, seems a bit too easy -
Let y be the horizontal width of the bottom-left-most rectangle, and x be the horizontal width of each of the rectangles directly adjacent on the right to the first one, so that the rectangle marked at the top right as having a vertical width of 3 now has a horizontal width of x + y.
Then, the area of each rectangle is 3x + 3y, as all rectangles have the same area.
It follows that the vertical width of the bottom-left-most rectangle is (3x + 3y)/y, and that the vertical width of each of the two stacked rectangles is (3x + 3y)/x.
Note now that the stacked rectangles have the same horizontal width, and therefore must have the same vertical width. Thus, the vertical width of the bottom-left-most rectangle must be 2 times the vertical width of each of these stacked rectangles, so (3x + 3y)/y = 2*(3x + 3y)/x.
From this, we get 1/y = 2/x (noting that 3x + 3y cannot be be zero), so x = 2y.
This means that the vertical width of the bottom-left-most rectangle is then (3(2y) + 3y)/y = (6y + 3y)/y = 9y/y = 9.
Therefore, the entire left side width is 3 + 9, or 12 units. Since the overall shape is a square, the entire square's area must be 144 square units.
> Note now that the stacked rectangles have the same horizontal width, and therefore must have the same vertical width.
This is the most important thing to use and what, were it included in the system in the OP, would simplify it quite a bit with not much more complexity. But the value of the approach I guess is the use of only pre-defined constraints.
Another route is to use that h_1 * (x+y) = 3A = 9 * (x+y) so h_1 = 9
Ironic how the first thing you're greeted with upon opening this link on mobile is a huge popup covering the entire page asking you to allow cookies, with no easy way to decline.
> The listing status of Alibaba’s shares in New York and Hong Kong won’t be affected, people familiar with the matter said. Alibaba’s Nasdaq-listed American depositary receipts climbed more than 6% in premarket trading on Tuesday in New York.
Wouldn't the middle ground be to have ISPs ban TikTok? The US doesn't need to create a firewall themselves, they can just rely on the fact that internet providers are in effect an oligopoly, and simply tell all 5 or so of them to prevent their users from accessing the website/service. This would, of course, be circumventable by a VPN, but that's a degree of rigor good enough for China, so it should be fine here.
The issue is under what authority does the government have to put such a ban in place. There isn't one today. The article discusses some attempts to work around that issue, all of which are problematic.
The article does not mention it but all the work arounds also rely on the fact that ByteDance is a Chinese company. So far they have been reluctant to change that but they could easily incorporate in the US. The parent company today is Chinese but the parent could become a US or EU company and then all of this banning talk gets even more dicey to pull off.
What's your reasoning for why import/export controls are insufficient legal grounds?
I haven't dug into it, but I'm not aware off the top of my head of any court ruling that such controls cannot apply to software, e.g., encryption export controls in the 1990s.
2^57 seconds is about 4.5 × 10^9 years, which is the age of the universe. They would only need that many stills because it would be possible to do a binary search on the footage, as each frame either has the bike in it or does not.
Maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't see how that would work. The bike's presence is not a monotonic property -- so you never know which half of the search space you need to descend into.
(In fact, you don't even know if a bike was ever there without already having identified a frame with the bike in it. After all, the physicist could be lying.)
Probably exaggeration for effect, don't take it too literally. But if the bike had been there from the beginning of time, finding the second where it disappeared requires no more than 57 frames to be checked. So if searching billions of years of history only requires checking 57 frames, why is it so hard to check a day or a week or a few hours worth of data? (Of course, if this was before digital video records it could actually be tedious, but hardly impossible, to check even a few days worth of data since that may force a linear scan at least partially.)
Given that they knew when the bike was there (presumably the physicist knew when they locked it up or near enough) they could have found that point and looked forward, and it would have taken far fewer than 57 frames to identify where it disappeared if you're only interested in getting down to the second.
So if they knew the bike was present at 1pm, and it was gone by 3pm (hypothetical since not enough information is given) then they can do a binary search on that 2 hour window, that's only 7200 seconds worth of frames. Start at 2pm, is it present? Flip to 2:30, else 1:30. Repeat. Even a week is only 604k seconds, which would require no more than 20 frames to be checked.
Ah I believe the confusion was thinking that 57 snapshots over said billion years would be enough to deduce the second. But instead they mean if you used binary search (or similar) across ALL of the images you could find it within 57 or so.
Is he usually worse? This is terrible writing and thinking on every level, full of self-contradictions:
> In nearly all circumstances, our intuition (crafted by millions of years of evolution) ... are much better guides to life than the scientific consensus, despite them being "irrational" (and sorry, religion is part of this too).
very next line:
> When someone guzzles down some newly fabricated energy drink or gallons of soda, they're nearly certainly damaging their bodies in ways science does not yet understand.
"millions of years of evolution" is what gave us the craving for sweetness, science is why we now know it's bad.
Intuition is not a reliable compass, and is built around local circumstance. For example, "gut feelings" like disgust are often how people justify acting on their morally corrupt behavior.
Yes, a lot of his speaking and writing is wrapped up in inside jokes and asides to himself that obfuscate his points to everyone not in on the joke. He usually appears to be arguing against some concept he believes to be widely held (e.g. "irrational"), which sometimes comes off as a straw man. Especially because he usually states these suppositions, explicitly or implied, rather than demonstrating them with evidence. And the points he makes don't seem fully self consistent.
That said, this style of speaking in asides and nonsequitors actually works well on vlogs on YouTube, since jumping around can keep people's attention better than something straightforward and boring. Plus, visual cues can help tie things together.
On that note, considering that he's been promoting "the dissolution of the United States into its [racial/ethnic] component parts" in videos (viewable on his Peertube) makes me think that this article is supposed to prime the reader to be more receptive to the concept and implementation of ethno-states.
The point of the piece was to point out the issue with this way of thinking. Science exists to find flaws in a hypothesis, not find evidence to support it.
> > not a single scrap of hard evidence [[ EDIT: this was to the commenter ]]
>
> The point of the piece was
You seem to have attempted to respond to my criticism of a HN comment by speaking for the author of a website piece who didn't write the HN comment I was talking about
.
> Science exists to find flaws in a hypothesis, not find evidence to support it.
Not really, no. Most science proceeds without a hypothesis. Also, believing this makes me wonder why you're speaking up.
Standing my ground: people who don't have a formal degree in science shouldn't sit on the web announcing what science is for, because they genuinely do not know, themselves.
There is an actual "science exists to," and people who are scientists know what it is.
I understand that you're going to tell me I'm wrong if I don't teach you the scientist secret handshake, and that anything you say is truthful unless another internet person invests significant effort in taking you apart, or that I must provide reference regarding your claims. I'm okay with that.
I believe that my point stands.
The post makes a wildly long list of testable claims, and doesn't test them. A five minute look through the literature shows that almost every claim they made has been tested and come back "no, of course not."
If you find yourself attempting to speak for science as if it's a person, please consider not doing that, unless a college or university has degreed you in a science field.
Anyone who can discuss the type 1a/1b/2b split without the help of the internet can also tell you why science does not, in fact, exist to find the flaws in a hypothesis. None of those are hypotheses. Ample similar situations are hanging from the tree in literally every branch of science. That one's just common enough that I expect a typical internet user to know what I mean.
Thanks for understanding.
Dear journal: today, I saw someone attempt to correct me on that science is little interested in evidence. Also, I had some lovely tacos in the mission.
Tetris games (quick-paced modern Tetris clones/block stackers like TETR.IO) are good for improving pattern recognition and, at higher levels, memorization (as in openers, perfect clear setups, etc ).
