Why bother asking? Is a recruiter going to fly out to my high school and see if they can get records? Interview a teacher that still works there?

You also are likely selecting not for high school calculus geniuses, but for people willing to lie. Presumably they ask because there is a more desired answer, so if you want to get a job you should provide the more desirable answer.

I've spent very little time on ao3, but I imagine it's slightly better than RR where seemingly a mark of value is "huge length (word count and chapters)" with weekly updates.

And for walking around - it's the traffic noise that bothers me, not people. Traffic noise can just be so loud along some roads (and at certain times of day) that it makes me not want to walk at all.

I think most people think about file access in the word processor terms, like you mentioned. You "edit," "save," "upload," and "download." Actions like that.

Then they have to use git for the first time and the terms/actions are really foreign. It's likely made worse if they have experience with auto-syncing file software, since that software does the whole remote management process for them.

'add' tells git to start tracking some file(s)

'commit' tells git to save the currently tracked files

'push' says "upload my changes to some other location." Git isn't dropbox magically 'rsync'ing the directory to some server.

'pull' says "download any changes from some other location." Same deal as push.

That should satisfy the majority of git casuals that get frustrated with it. You should learn the tools of your trade, and version control (specifically git) is one of the tools of the software trade. If you work adjacent to software why is it so hard to learn a little about git?

If OpenAI started charging all subscription users API pricing they would lose the majority of users.

If they increase the price demand will plummet. They have no moat and there are competitors.

Saying "Asians" are intellectually superior to "whites" is a thinly veiled way to say "and whites are superior to all other non-Asian/white races."

And the claim that "Asians" are intellectually superior to "whites" isn't even correct "because of race." I'm not aware of any real study that attributed racial identity to measure intelligence. Cultural differences? Socioeconomic differences? Country of origin? Sure. Race? Used as a proxy for the former.

It seems really the problem is twofold: the reference is from 1992 and cites a 1981 publication's reference to an unpublished 1958 generator. Not to say that being old makes the algorithm bad, but it's a bad implementation of an algorithm that already is questionable given more recent research.

I'll go section by section: > //Apparently the range [1..55] is special (Knuth) and so we're wasting the 0'th position.

This is a silly comment. Knuth explicitly states that "24 and 55 in this definition were not chosen at random; they are special values that happen to define a sequence whose least significant bits, {Xn mod 2), will have a period of length 2^55 - 1. Therefore the sequence (Xn) must have a period at least this long."

Then you have the initial seeding of the LCG with with a = 21 and m = 55, which is interesting. Numerical Recipes uses those values, but Knuth whom they got the algorithm from does not suggest them. The closest Knuth suggests is 24 and 55. This suggestion is from 1981, so the viability is questionable (and Knuth clearly states that this is an unpublished algorithm from 1958 - Numerical Recipes itself questions the quality).

Then they use 21 for inextp - this is wrong. Numerical Recipes uses 31, and that is significant per the period length quote above. The use of 21 should measurable lower the period.

Instead if it were a simple LCG using values found in L'Ecuyer's 1999 publication on the topic (https://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/1999-68-225/S0025-5718-99-...) I assume it would have a better distribution.

So the implementation is a questionable algorithm from 1958, and it's done incorrectly. Numerical Recipes opens the chapter on randomness almost immediately with: "Now our first ... lesson in this chapter is: be very, very suspicious of a system-supplied rand()," and then the authors of the .NET random package show exactly why that is.

Translation is hard. If you're familiar with reading translations from specific languages MTL works have a very specific smell to them, it's a bit hard to describe but it's there. A good translation is miles (kilometers, for those outside of the US) above MTL.

That's not to say that perhaps the latest LLMs will have better translation abilities, but that they are generally crap currently. Maybe they are fine for something very short, but absolutely not for longer content.