If you are just measuring the quantum effect to turn it into a classical random number before using it, then how does that help you over a less expensive way of generating a classical random number for quantum computer simulations?
If you are just measuring the quantum effect to turn it into a classical random number before using it, then how does that help you over a less expensive way of generating a classical random number for quantum computer simulations?
That’s completely fair. I personally really like the site because it feels like being part of a creative community, but that also makes the selection of games that are available more eclectic.
I prefer RAID -1, which is like RAID 0 except that you routinely yank one of the drives so that only the fittest of the bits survive, greatly improving the quality of your data!
Hey now, you should be thanking your teachers for this incredibly valuable early life lesson on the difference between what the customer says that they want and what they actually need, and which of these two you are going to get paid more for!
Remember: the customer is always right!
/s
I think you meant to say:
I knew it, no comments yet, everyone’s a sheep
Every one had already been launched.
Easy: recognizing bird calls on my phone.
Because some of us are bitter at the trees for generating so much pollen at this time of year and want revenge.
Spotted the INTERCAL programmer.
The way I structure my commits, it is usually (but not always) easier and more reliable for me to replay my commits one at a time on top of the main branch and see how each relatively small change needs to be adapted in isolation–running the full test suite at each step to verify that my changes were correct–than to be presented with a slew of changes all at once that result from marrying all of my changes with all of the changes made to the main branch at once. So I generally start by attempting a rebase and fall back to a merge if that ends up creating more problems than it solves.
I’m not the one you asked, but what I like isn’t really about PHP itself, but the fact that I can get dirt cheap hosting with PHP and MySQL.
Oh, wow, I looked a little into this and hosting really is dirt cheap! That is a benefit that I genuinely was not expecting.
Either way, it’s an awesome language, happily been using it for decades now
Mind taking a moment to share why you like it? I am not very familiar with it.
If the appellate court is unhappy with the lower court’s ruling, then there is no reason for it not to reverse it and tell Microsoft to stop the process of merging with Activision until the proceedings have completed. Admittedly this outcome might be inconvenient for Microsoft and Activison, but it is not the job of the court to care about this.
Yes, of course they have complained to the courts. That’s not the point.
That is moving the goalposts. In your other comment, you said, “What is the FTC going to do about it? Most likely do nothing, or issue a stern warning.” I have demonstrated that they are doing neither of these things but instead are going through the courts to get injunctive relief.
This simply will go nowhere, or do you expect that the court will somehow separate Activision out of Microsofts hands again to fix this?
If the appellate court decides that the lower court erred in its reasoning, then there is no reason why it could not issue such an order. It is not like this would be the first time that the government broke up a company.
Or punish the managers at Microsoft and make them withdraw the execution plan to remove redundant jobs?
There is no reason why the court could not issue an injunction preventing it from executing this plan until the proceeding concludes.
At the end of it, Microsoft will eventually pay a small, symbolic sum which they consider “cost of conducting business”. Nothing more.
If the FTC considered this to be a sufficient remedy then they probably would have settled with Microsoft by now rather than taking this to the courts.
This news story is literally about the FTC actively suing for injunctive relief; the “complaint” in question is actually a formal legal letter addressed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court.
Edit: fixed typo
The explanation given to you makes it sound like ==
was deliberately designed to be a more convenient version of ===
, but what actually happened was that ==
used to be the only equality operator in JavaScript, which meant that if you didn’t want it’s auto-coercing behavior then you needed to go out of your way to add additional type checks yourself. Because this was obviously a tremendously inconvenient state of affairs, the ===
operator was introduced later so that you could test for equality without having to worry about JavaScript doing something clever underneath the hood that you weren’t expecting.
Sure, but it is also a very gratuitous and pointless design constraint.
Land mines are painted red in my shop. You want to change the language to remove a land mine that everyone competent already knows enough to step around. The problem has already been solved, so why are you continuing to complain about it?
Just to be clear, I’m not actually calling for JavaScript to change, I’m just pointing out that people are right to point out this as being a problem. Having said that, if everyone competent uses linters now so that this feature isn’t used in practice anymore, then getting rid of it shouldn’t even break anything, and arguably code which would break is already broken because it uses an operator that no one should be using, so you shouldn’t be using this code anyway.
That’s a little bit like saying, “I don’t understand why people continue to complain about the landmine sitting right there on the ground. We’ve painted it red so you can easily walk around it, so how has the problem not been solved?”
That makes sense. I had thought that you were implying that the quantum nature of the randomly generated numbers helped specifically with quantum computer simulations, but based on your reply you clearly just meant that you were using it as a multi-purpose RNG that is free of unwanted correlations between the randomly generated bits.
Out of curiosity, have you found that the card works as well as advertised? I ask because it seems to me that any imprecision in the design and/or manufacture of the card could introduce systematic errors in the quantum measurements that would result in correlations in the sampled bits, so I am curious if you have been able to verify that is not something to be concerned about.