> if you think of all people as people, even Republicans
The OP didn't accuse Republicans of being non-people. They specifically made a -- true, incidentally -- factual claim:
> > That's why they spread lies about refugees and other legal immigrants, right
It is notable, though, that it is the Republican candidate that has very directly been using dehumanizing language. And you are here asking people to get into a both-sides argument. The situation isn't symmetric: the arguments shouldn't have to be.
> I understand you might not able to think in these terms when it comes to the hated enemy
Also notable it is that one specific candidate is using the term "enemy within" to describe US residents. It's not the Democrat.
> Or even that they don't hate illegal immigrants, but think that laws are a good idea and criminals should be punished, not rewarded.
Again, your statement has nothing to do with what you're responding to.
> Also notable it is that one specific candidate is using the term "enemy within" to describe US residents. It's not the Democrat.
It's also notable that one whole media and political morass has been calling a candidate "literally Hitler" and he's been shot by a would-be assassin. Almost... more notable.
> Again, your statement has nothing to do with what you're responding to.
What do you mean? If someone says the OP's friends and relatives hate a group of people, it's worth mentioning that they may not hate them at all.
(To reproduce exactly the scenario being discussed, you fit a constant-only model to the data using least squares: that gives the average as the best fit. Then, you measure the leverage of each point of interest.)
I once heard Pat Hanrahan (who among other things was involved in some of the early realistic hair rendering work) claim that L'Oréal funded some of that work, exactly because they were interested in what the models said about the (control of) appearance of real hair.
To quickly determine passive vs. active voice, you can add the phrase, “by zombies” to the end of the sentence.
If it’s clear the zombies are doing the action (subject), then the content is passive voice. Otherwise, if the zombies are an adverbial phrase, the sentence is in active voice.
Passive voice: “Content is synced by zombies”
Active voice: “NotesHub syncs the content by zombies”
When I started grad school and was learning how to write effectively, I struggled with passive/active voice differentiation… until I learned the zombies tip. It’s so absurd that you can’t forget it, and it’s simple enough to differentiate the two in a split second!
Specifically, this brings to mind Observable Framework, which takes the "jupyter-like" UI of observablehq.com and makes a static site generator out of it, where you write Markdown, and add "reactive Javascript" bits to it: https://observablehq.com/framework/. (see https://observablehq.com/framework/javascript specifically)
Note that there's nothing stopping you from embedding the Obervable runtime straight into scripts littered throughout a HTML document, see https://maxbo.me/celine/ (my own work).
Yes, up until recently. The Vera Rubin observatory will change that quite a bit, and soon. Most observatories and telescopes are currently aimed at deep field (very long exposures of tiny portions of the sky). There are a few surveys meant for transients (supernovae, variables etc) and those are also well suited for near earth objects: look at the Catalina sky survey and the zwicky transient facility. When I was (very mildly) involved, the Vera Rubin observatory expected its first 25% of the mission to be overtaken by observing new near earth objects, even as its mission was to catalog variable stars and spot supernovae and other transients.
Some interesting stories about how these surveys work today and how they will work in ~10 years. Right now, it’s so rare to spot a weird thing in the sky that the alarms are all verified by grad students in graveyard shifts. When the new observatories come online, there won’t be enough grad students in the world :) so it’ll all be ML.
(In case you didn’t know, it’s fun that) Jacob Collier plays a 5-string guitar in a tuning that takes advantage of this trick exactly. IIRC, from lowest to highest he tunes them a fifth, a fifth, a fourth and a fourth apart. By flatting the middle string a dozen cents or so, you can get a root-fifth-perfect tenth voicing of a major chord. Neat trick.
Speaking of Jacob Collier, this is a good time to mention the song where he “hacks” equal temperament to modulate to G-half-sharp without anyone noticing.
One more Jacob Collier mention: also generally releases albums using just intonation, I think, and especially does hand-tuning of thirds etc. I like his description of having to "monkey swing" when an e.g. flattened third needs to become a new root note.
The vibe of CACM also has changed significantly over the decades it's been around. When it started in the late 1950s, and through the mid 90s, it was really a "Journal of the ACM"-lite; the research articles were quite good! Then it morphed into a trade magazine and, by the late 2000's, it was kind of an embarrassment.
To Vardi's credit (the previous CACM EIC), CACM clawed back some of its technical chops in the 2010s. I wouldn't claim it's near the quality of 1970s CACM, but it actually has technical content in it again. Equations, even, gasp!
It’s a well known exercise in prob textbooks (edit: it’s the algo referenced in the other reply) to convert one distribution to another. If you can generate gaussians (or any other distribution) you can generate uniform variates. It’s a very simple application of rejection sampling that involves some efficiency loss, but that’s irrelevant at the time you’re getting your OTPs.
The OP didn't accuse Republicans of being non-people. They specifically made a -- true, incidentally -- factual claim:
> > That's why they spread lies about refugees and other legal immigrants, right
It is notable, though, that it is the Republican candidate that has very directly been using dehumanizing language. And you are here asking people to get into a both-sides argument. The situation isn't symmetric: the arguments shouldn't have to be.
> I understand you might not able to think in these terms when it comes to the hated enemy
Also notable it is that one specific candidate is using the term "enemy within" to describe US residents. It's not the Democrat.
> Or even that they don't hate illegal immigrants, but think that laws are a good idea and criminals should be punished, not rewarded.
Again, your statement has nothing to do with what you're responding to.