Terminology is not always unambiguous. The spin quantum number is discrete for electrons {-1/2,1/2}, but spin also means the physical entity that gives rise to the so-called intrinsic angular momentum, which is a vector.
I thought he was pretty unambiguous there. If we wants to talk about the underlying wave function before collapse, fine, its path in 2D space. But the measured spin only requires 1 bit. Note that the spin is NOT a 2D vector, but a path, which itself can described by a sequence of vectors.
Yes yes, Bell's Theorem, EPR, collapse, and all, but I still think it was sloppy.
Honestly I'm not sure what your complaint is here. Or at least you seem to be very adamant that some particular interpretation/ontology is obviously the right one.
In standard quantum theory, electron spin can be modeled by a 2 dimensional complex vector. It's also possible to model the spin of an isolated system using 3 dimensional real vector (the "Bloch sphere").
GDPR does not require any banners or consent dialogs at all for cookies that are necessary for authentication, navigation, or keeping track of shopping cart contents in the current session, etc.
It's only the unnecessary tracking that needs explicit consent. So it's a good thing if such sites are slow to load and have to present irritating banners for legal reasons. This will hopefully put them at a competitive disadvantage compared to sites that don't insist on tracking their customers.
I too have had great experiences from doing recursive descent. I don't understand why so many people don't like it. The techniques for handling left- and right associativity of infix operators have been well known since many decades, so I am surprised that the original article thinks it is still an issue. But I have met some people who felt uncomfortable by recursive descent parsers that were implemented via recursive procedure calls, just because they didn't quite understand recursive procedure calls in the first place. So maybe that's part of the reason.
My experience has been that those who don't like RD have a mostly theoretical/academic background and are likewise similarly unimpressed with "simple" or "unsophisticated" code in general.
For the author his case against RD is not for the implementation. At the end of the articles he calls for LR reference grammars (I imagine both for fuzzy testing and documentation) to ensure that your perfectly usable RD parser with nice error messages does not miss some edge cases.
> I don't understand why so many people don't like it.
2 reasons:
- it doesn’t warn you about ambiguous grammar, so you don’t know when you screw up
- it requires a lot of boilerplate for operator precedence (one function for each level), in a LR parser generator that’s trivial so I can spend time on more important things
I am reminded of the "Pokémon Shock"[0] incident in 1997 that triggered epileptic seizures in a number of viewers, resulting in 685 people requiring medical attention.
It's even worse. Putin's failed attack on Skripal ultimately resulted in the murder of Dawn Sturgess[0] four months later. This was a case of using illegal chemical weapons on foreign soil, which puts Russia squarely in the same category of rogue nations as North Korea.
Yes. I just discovered that I have done it by mistake, twice during the past six years. I'll blame glitches on the trackpad on my previous laptop. I wasn't even aware of the feature.
Do you have any practical suggestions for how to accomplish that?
I'm not rich, but I'm thinking that anything a billionaire can do with $1 billion can also be done by ten thousand households who have $100k each. So the middle class could perhaps get richer if they only knew the secret?
The problem is really (1) having money lying around that you can afford to "play around" with without, say, putting your retirement or mortgage in jeopardy, and (2) having professional advice from people who know what the hell is going on (including borderline or overt insider info). A hedge fund, for example, isn't going to touch someone wanting to invest $100K.
There are however google search results for "Happy people don't need to tell themselves they are happy, they just are". So maybe it transformed telling into asking, on a grammatical level?
