Oh well. I must confess though, watching a 1.5 hour video to make sure I didn’t say something they already said didn’t seem like an appealing proposition to me.

I see. That’s not technically the first sentence though. I stopped looking once I got to line 6.

What’s the spelling mistake? I didn’t see it.

Tangent to the original discussion, but Trump is currently suing the Justice Department for raiding Mar-a-lago (back when we actually had hope that this man would be held to account for his crimes). When he takes office, he could ostensibly direct the Justice Department to settle the case and pay him a settlement.

Friday: GoDaddy CEO donates $1,000,000 to Trump’s inauguration fund

Monday: Trump takes office

Tuesday: Senate confirms new FTC chair

Wednesday: FTC announces a settlement with GoDaddy where the FTC will withdraw the case and GoDaddy agrees to a $125,000 penalty paid over the next five years

LegalEagle and Wendover Productions actually beat them to the punch (Nebula) on this. They filed on 29th December 2024, a whole 4 days earlier.

And since the US courts charge money to get these documents, I downloaded a copy of the complaint earlier on my PACER account so anyone who’s interested can read it without incurring the stupid fees. Enjoy

Edit: Devin Stone (the host of LegalEagle) is actually a lawyer on this case. His name and his law firm are listed as a lawyer for the plaintiff on the complaint.

Businesses are bound to Microsoft Office products which only reliably work on Windows and Mac. Windows is the cheaper of the two, by far, and there are way more IT professionals that are able to work comfortably managing Windows systems than Mac ones.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Epic’s main selling point was it’s lower storefront fee (15% vs 30%, if I recall). It didn’t offer any other benefits for consumers and I think Epic realised rather quickly that the people who are actually supposed to be paying money for all of this are the buyers and not the sellers, and thus they’ve resorted to strategies like making games “exclusive” or trying to bribe players with free games.

Microsoft has realised they have a captive market and are milking it for every dollar (euro, pound, yen, rupee…) they can get.

I never presented this as a dichotomy. You know, people prefer things in a certain order, right? I prefer Flatpaks and native packages over snaps and I prefer snaps to building from source.

Nothing useful for me. Given the choice I will usually pick the flatpak.

Unpopular opinion: snap is not so bad and genuinely useful for many things

I would rather have a snap than building from source or use some tar.gz archive with a sketchy install script

Taking wagers on how long it will last before Trump’s FTC revokes it

(Bets are only accepted in the form of biscuits 🍪)

In most cases, destroying evidence will result in an adverse inference being drawn against the accused. It means that the court will assume that the evidence was incriminating which is why you destroyed it.

The police can engage in rubber-hose cryptanalysis. In many countries, it’s legal to keep a suspect in prison indefinitely until they comply with a warrant requiring them to divulge encryption keys. And that’s not to mention the countries where they’ll do more than keep you in a decently-clean cell with three meals a day to, ahem, encourage you to divulge the password.

Law enforcement shouldn’t be able to get into someone’s mobile phone without a warrant anyway. All this change does is frustrate attempts by police to evade going through the proper legal procedures and abridging the rights of the accused.

If the set of all strings of composite length is a regular language, you can use that to prove the set of all strings of prime length are also a regular language.

But it’s also easy to prove that the set of language of strings of prime length is not regular, and thus the language of strings of composite length also can’t be regular.

A more formal proof.

You got downvoted here but you’re absolutely right. It’s easy to prove that the set of strings with prime length is not a regular language using the pumping lemma for regular languages. And in typical StackExchange fashion, someone’s already done it.

Here’s their proof.

Claim 1: The language consisting of the character 1 repeated a prime number of times is not regular.

A further argument to justify your claim—

Claim 2: If the language described in Claim 1 is not regular, then the language consisting of the character 1 repeated a composite number of times is not regular.

Proof: Suppose the language described in Claim 2 is regular if the language described in Claim 1 is not. Then there must exist a finite-state automaton A that recognises it. If we create a new finite-state automaton B which (1) checks whether the string has length 1 and rejects it, and (2) then passes the string to automaton A and rejects when automaton A accepts and accepts when automaton A rejects, then we can see that automaton B accepts the set of all strings of non-composite length that are not of length 1, i.e. the set of all strings of prime length. But since the language consisting of all strings of prime length is non-regular, there cannot exist such an automaton. Therefore, the assumption that the language described in Claim 2 being regular is false.

Average Matt Parker code

“at least 2 characters repeated [at least] twice” implies the string’s length is divisible by a number greater than 1.