Since Cameron threatened them, they have been much more tightly under the central gov influence.
The editorial team for news has always been full of Tories (including some that either have tried running as MPs, were in the young conservatives etc).
When the left complains about the BBC they mean its news and political coverage.
The right doesn't like the diversity in its comedy shows.
I also got under 50%, started out with 10% actually, which finally went to 36%. But I feel like it's just because I threw in many of single keys in a row there.
That's what you need to do. Most people think streaks are unlikely, which biases people to void even small streaks. The algorithm expects that, so to fool the algorithm initially, you need to tilt towards streaks, and then when begins to pick up on that, tilt away.
The article is a misrepresentation, apparently "believe in a higher power or God" has risen somewhat. This is different from excitement about organized religion, which seems to be less of a thing, not more.
It's the opposite for me personally. While I still wouldn't say I believe in a tangible god or higher power in any meaningful way, I have come to grow more of an interest and appreciation for religion, specifically christianity, as I've gotten older. I'll never be a bible freak but I would like to, one day, be able to say I honestly believe in (a) god. I'm not sure what that means exactly, and it could be wrong, but if it's all the same I'd much rather be the person that believes.
I can sympathize with this. My journey is slightly different but it does feel like the world is changing like it never changed in my life before. For me personally this was due to ripple effects from COVID / shutdowns / vaccine policy etc. I know several other people who are in the same boat.
Edit: wanted to say, good luck on your journey! And I hope we meet in paradise or Valhalla or whatever you want to call it.
1. Admit you are a sinner, because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23, Romans 3:10-12, 1 John 1:10, James 2:10
2. Realize the penalty for sin, which is death, hell, and eternal separation from God - Revelation 21:8, Romans 6:23, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9, James 1:15
3. Believe that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again to pay for your sin - 1 John 2:2, Acts 16:30-31, Acts 3:19, Acts 10:43 Romans 5:8, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Peter 2:24, John 3:16, John 10:28, John 6:47, John 11:26, 1 Timothy 1:15, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Corinthians 6:11
4. Trust Jesus Christ alone as your savior, nothing else - Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 4:11-12, Romans 11:6, Matthew 7:13-14, Matthew 7:21-23
Pray this prayer:
"Dear Jesus Christ, I know that I am a sinner. I know that I deserve to go to hell, but I believe you died on the cross for me and rose again. Please save me right now and give me eternal life. I'm only trusting in you Jesus, Amen."
And if you believed this in your heart, you're now saved and have the Holy Spirit. First of all, rejoice because you've passed from death to life through the power of Jesus Christ and he will NEVER leave nor forsake you, no matter what. This is why "Gospel" means "good news". You have absolute freedom, and power over death through Jesus. The Holy Spirit will guide you into more understanding as you read the scripture, but you should first focus on knowing the person of Jesus. Jesus is also in the Old Testament symbolically and literally.
The important thing to note is that Christianity is not just doing good things, about turning your life around, etc. Christianity is first about believing the promise of God and His finished work on the cross, and then those good works can follow (but they don't have to, some are saved without works - Romans 4:5). We don't do work for Jesus or become obedient to him because we must to be saved, we do it out of love because we ARE saved.
And once you're saved, you're saved. There is no bad deed you could do to lose it, because there was no good deed you could do to earn it. Jesus says he will never leave nor forsake you, and he means it, and his promises are good forever and always.
Please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar. Regardless of your sincerity, that's what this amounts to on a large public internet forum. It's off topic, and we have to ban accounts that do it, so please don't do it again.
I fail to see how this is off-topic. The topic of the article is religious faith among young people, and the person I replied to expressed a want to find Christian faith. So how is it off topic? At least admit you're being a tad-bit dishonest.
You link the guidelines but I haven't broken a single one in this thread lmao. I admit some other times I've brought up faith may have been off-topic as it relates to the OP, but on topic as it relates to my reply.
The topic of the article is a demographic study. You swerved directly into religious material itself. That's not the same topic at all. It's also flamebait because if you advocate your religious views in this way you will provoke others into advocating their religious views in an equally (let's call it) dedicated way, and off the cliff we will go. This isn't hard to predict.
We have tons of respect for people's religious views but this is a large public internet forum.
Why do I deserve to go to hell? My life was and continues to be pretty boring: as a child I went to school, I did my homework and got good grades, later I went to college, and later still I got a Ph.D.. Then I got a job, I got married, got kids. I continue to go to work, I get paid, pay my taxes (if you prefer, "I render unto Caesar what's due to Caesar"). I don't steal or con people. I don't cheat on my wife. I don't take Lord's name in vain, because I don't swear in general. I honor may parents. I don't observe the Sabbath, I don't even know if it's supposed to be on Saturday on Sunday. I don't worship idols, either 2D or 3D, because I'm an atheist.
You can live a good life, but if you've transgressed the law at any point you're guilty of it all. Jesus himself said if you even look at a woman with lust your heart is guilty of adultery, or if you're angry at your brother your heart is guilty of murder.
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” - James 2:10
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." - Revelation 21:8
"The thought of foolishness is sin: And the scorner is an abomination to men." - Proverbs 24:9
"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." - Isaiah 64:6
I don't know about you, but I've BEEN unbelieving in my past, I've lied and sometimes still do, and I've thought foolishness and still do. So I've transgressed God's law, but it has been forgiven of me because I accepted God's plan of salvation, which is faith in Jesus Christ through His substitutionary death on the cross and bodily resurrection.
If you never broke God's law, you'd never die and you would completely earn your salvation. It's impossible for us, but it was possible for Jesus because he was God and born to a virgin, therefore he was fully man and fully God. His work on the cross makes it possible to be born again in this life, with his same duality (having our flesh and our spirit), and the promise that we will one day receive a new body without sin.
The point is, God is so entirely holy that we cannot be reconciled by anything that we do with our bodies, or "works". Faith is required to receive the gift Jesus Christ paid for, which is not something we do with our body, it's a spiritual transaction.
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." - 2 Corinthians 5:21
“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” - 1 Peter 2:24
I can't say that you had me at "hello". In fact you lost me where the fearful deserve to burn in fire and brimstone just the same as the murderer. Really? The punishment for fear is to burn?
All people will be punished by eternal hell if they do not accept Jesus Christ. The default state of man is death and hell since the fall of Adam, but we can reconcile our sin with God through Jesus, who is called "the true and better Adam".
"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." - Romans 5:18
When we trust in Jesus Christ our sin no longer defines us, and no longer has any power over us, because we've accepted Jesus Christ's atonement for those sins, and all of the sins of our life. We can never defeat sin on this earth, for as long as we have the flesh it has some power over us, and that is the struggle of the Christian life.
I've been fearful, I've been a liar, I sometimes still fear and still lie. But I trust in Jesus, that since through his power he defeated sin and death, and was resurrected, that he can do the same for me. So though I've lied, I'm no longer a liar, though I've feared, I'm no longer fearful. Until you are reconciled to God by belief in Jesus Christ, you are defined by your sin, and punished for your sin after death.
"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:" - John 11:25
You say this like step 3 is something you can choose to do. I couldn't make myself believe in the resurrection even if I wanted to, in the same way I can't make myself believe in any sort of afterlife, or believe that the sun won't rise tomorrow, or believe that I'm more handsome than Brad Pitt was in his prime.
I'm not ragging on you for your faith, but I've seen a few religious people suggest that belief is a choice and I don't see how belief possibly could be. I at times genuinely and deeply wish I could believe in the resurrection and in a compassionate god... hell right now I have a close family member whose health is degrading and is suffering in a way I feel is undignified and that they don't deserve. I wish so acutely that there was some sort of heaven and that they will be restored and I will be with them again. Even if there wasn't really a heaven I'd feel better right now believing that there was.... that's the rub though. These things are so fundamentally disconnected from my understanding of the world, I quite literally am incapable of believing in them.
I was exactly where you are for a majority of my life, my brother passed away when I was 14 and it didn't lead me anywhere good, only further from God. I was saved when I was 19 by accepting those steps outlined in faith, and praying that prayer. I didn't intellectually accept them as you suggest, I didn't say "that makes sense to me", I just simply took it on faith, and prayed that prayer to Jesus, asking to be saved.
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." - Proverbs 3:5-6
By praying that prayer earnestly in your heart you commit your soul to Jesus, it's just like the thief next to Jesus on the cross:
"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." - Luke 23:42-43 KJV
And I know it's hard to recognize your sin, and believe in the penalty for sin, without first believing in Jesus. Maybe I shouldn't put them into steps, because it's something that happens all at once. By accepting Jesus you accept the truth of God's word in the Bible, because Jesus is "the word made flesh".
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1
I can tell from your paragraph that you are not incapable of believing, so I will pray earnestly for your salvation.
Depends no? If your "100%" is based on the after value rather than the before value, you have added 100%. Though I guess there is an implicit expectation that it is the before value that is used.
It went from having 0 pattern matching to having 1 pattern matching -- that seems like '100% more of this thing we are talking about' to me. This of course only makes sense if you see '1 pattern matching' as a precisely defined abstract construct, but I guess the 100%-more joke usually requires that perspective (and is a joke precisely because it's so non-sensical to think this way).
That really is a weird one, because here in the UK we say 'fortnightly' (for 'every other week'); so 'biweekly' would definitely be taken to mean 'twice per week'.
That also matches 'biannual' (an event that occurs every other year is 'biennial'), so 'biweekly' as 'fortnightly' is certainly to be proscribed, in my book.
I only have Collins' concise to hand, which gives the definitions I have and doesn't even mention (not even proscribed or US etc.) other uses. And Collins is pretty permissive.
And no they're not. 'Biennial' events occur once per two year period; 'biannual' events occur four times per two year (twice per year) period.
For example, in horticulture 'a biennial [plant]' is one that has a single flowering/reproduction cycle over two years. (Cf. 'annuals', 'perennials'.)
Except you do. If you go from 10 to 15, would have 50% more. The math: (15 - 10)/10. If you go from 0 to 1: (1-0)/0. Well, that is not gonna work, but it tends towards infinity as your starting number gets closer and closer to zero.
This has nothing to do with cryptographic security or predictability.
This is about whether the output of the PRNG passes statistical tests for randomness. In a previous blog post by John D. Cook we saw that it failed the PractRand statistical test suite [1], and now we see that it also fails the older TestU01 suite, too.
When Xorshift128+ and Xoroshiro128+ were launched, they were claimed to be statistically excellent. Those claims have been shown to be false.
It looks like they used an automated tool to add copyright notices to files in the repository. Probably were required to do that by legal. So it's not 100% faithful history, but close.
This raises some interesting legal questions. If I start a git repo and only add a license in the Nth commit, does that license apply retroactively to a checkout of the first N-1 commits? What if I start out with one license but I change it in the Nth commit? If someone clones the git repo with the Nth commit in it and then checks out an earlier commit, which license applies?
(For simplicity, assume I am the only author of the repo, so I can always change the license arbitrarily whenever I want to.)
"does that license apply retroactively to a checkout of the first N-1 commits"
No, unless you explicitly state it somewhere (and even then, I'm not certain).
If they add a license to the older commits via rewriting history then yes, those older commits will now be licensed. If they don't do so, then copyright will be default i.e. you can't do anything with it.
Now, if they had a large history and didn't retroactively license files, but just pushed the repository out all at once, I have no idea if the license on the latest commit would apply to the older commits. In the end, the question is all about whether or not Apple has the legal ability to sue you for copyright infringement.
Is there any legal precedent for this? It seems like one could make a reasonable legal argument for either interpreting a repo as a single distribution or as a bunch of separate ones.
If I am the sole owner of a work, I can change the license of newly distributed copies from any previous license to any new license that I want to, even if the new license is more restrictive. The new license doesn't retroactively apply to copies that were distributed under the old license, only new copies distributed under the new license.
However, my original question still stands. If I hack privately on a git repo and never distribute it, and then I only add a license in commit N right before first releasing it publicly, what is the license of commits 1 through N-1, which do not contain a license themselves (or perhaps contain a different license) but were never distributed separately from the license contained in commit N?
Unspecified, so legally murky. But there's a notion of "implied license", so someone using the code could argue that "openly putting it somewhere publicly" constitutes and implicit license grant.
Note by the way that you are ALREADY explicitly granting some rights by putting it on GitHub:
We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.
Arguing that this constitutes an implicit license to use this code probably wouldn't be too hard. However trying to relicense/redistribute is less likely. In the end this will have to be decided by a judge in court.
I'm a law student but not an expert, and I haven't researched the caselaw (yet?). Rcthompson, I apologize for taking this opportunity to go way beyond your question (see below). [This also reflects my assumption that you are coding within the US. And also this is not legal advice, merely hypothetical musing.]
Whatever you write, if copyrightable, automatically achieves copyright protection when fixed in tangible form - and you automatically obtain authorship rights. That gives you the right to grant licenses for any of the rights you've obtained (including to produce derivative works). Swift's license (https://swift.org/LICENSE.txt) allows you to modify the license of your additions (your right under federal law anyway), but not the sections you didn't author.
I mean... I can see it cutting both ways. On its face, it's a very fair system - you can use whatever you want but only own whatever you wrote. What becomes problematic is if companies (realistically) with wide distribution nets grab open-source code, modify it slightly, alter the license of the bundle and resell it. I know that's not a new phenomenon.
Another concern I see is if libraries or maybe files or something have proprietary names, then in theory you'd require an express license from the proprietor (in this case basically Apple).
I was concerned I didn't understand the basic question that prompted my response, which was from rcthompson, but he reframed it: commits 1 to n-1 have sort of Schrodinger's Cat licenses. They have copyright protection (regardless of any of this). And that grants you the right to control licensing of those rights (reproduction, public display, derivative works, etc.). But I don't see why you couldn't retroactively apply whatever you want. The Swift license applies itself, if you don't specify otherwise, upon submission of your work to the licensor (I guess per notice requirements). Until then it's unclear. However, federal copyright protections and state common and statutory laws would also apply (and would basically grant you the right to control licensing).
It depends on how the license was intended to be applied.
If you're the sole owner and declare the entire repository contents under XYZ, the previous commits would be available under the license, regardless of the actual commit that adds the license file. If you declare a specific revision under XYZ, then only that revision is under the license.
A different example is the case of a repository with many copyright holders changing the license, and not being able to drag all the previous code into the newly licensed version. You wouldn't be able to take all the commits in history under the terms of the new license.
That may be true for some open source/free software licenses, but I don't think it is true for all. It would depend on whether or not the license says it is irrevocable and whether or not the license is sub-licensable.
Let's suppose Alice gives Bob a copy of code whose copyright is owned by Charles, and the code was licensed to Alice under and open/free license.
If the license is revocable, Charles should be able to revoke the licenses for existing copies, and offer replacements that are more closed. Those who do not accept that replacement license should, I think, be able to continue using the copies they have but they will not have a license. Their rights will be limited to those rights that copyright law gives to owners of legally made copies. For software, that would mean they could use the code, but could not make and distribute copies or derivative works.
If the license is irrevocable, then Charles should not be able to take away existing licenses, but he may be able to stop issuing new licenses. That brings is to the issue of sub-licensing. If the license is sub-licensable, then when Alice gives Bob a copy, Alice can also give Bob a license via her sub-licensing right.
If the license is not sub-licensable, then Alice cannot give Bob a license. Bob's license has to come from Charles. So what happens if before Alice gives Bob a copy, Charles has decided to stop issuing new licenses?
I think Alice should still be able to distribute to Bob, because she has a license that allows distribution. Without a license from Charles, though, Bob would only be able to use the code for things copyright allows the owner of a particular legal copy to do without a license, which would be use it himself but would not include making and distributing copies and derivative works.
Alice might be able to argue that the terms of her license with Charles require Charles to provide licenses to those whom Alice distributes to, and so perhaps Alice could go to court to force Charles to keep granting licenses.
I don't recall enough from law school about third party beneficiaries to figure out whether Bob could sue Charles based on Alice's license to get a license from Bob for a copy he got from Alice, or whether, if Charles sued Bob for copyright infringement Bob could use Charles' contractual obligation to Alice in his defense.
You can retroactively do anything that doesn't change the status of existing copies held by others under valid licenses that don't allow you to force a licensing change.
You can remove GPL from something you yourself put GPL on, but existing copies held by others are still under GPL.
You can make something Apache licensed that was proprietary too, and old copies will remain proprietary unless you declare an exception valid for all existing copies under your copyright (which may be what you meant?).
They apply to those copies you added the notices in and any copy made from those with the notice.
If nobody ever has made a copy of a version without the notice, that effectively means that all published versions now are under that license and that nobody may use it under another license, because they have no legal source of it under any other license.
If there's already copies been made, those copies remain under the previous licenses if any (which may be "all rights reserved" as the legal default).
Whatever you write is copyright under the creator or the employer of the creator. What license you put past that is whatever you want, whenever you want.
The graphs of failures don't show the PCG scheme because their number of failures is zero.
The performance graphs show a whole bunch of PCG generators.
You absolutely can predict the Mersenne Twister after 624 outputs (there are several blog posts out there). The Mersenne Twister is also huge (2K of state) and some people claim that as a result it's not cache friendly.
But yes, it's a new thing, so it needs people to look at it.
reply