You don't appear to be claiming copyright as you state that you don't know if they copied code.

Are you saying that your prior art invalidates a patent? If so, would you mind pointing out what patent?

Otherwise, it just seems that you're claiming that you had a similar idea to one that someone at Anthropic had. That's not really something they have any need to acknowledge.

We work globally so practical things like timezones aren't really a factor; we have plenty of experience working around them. That even goes as far as things like personal security in locations that are particularly dangerous. In my line of work that usually means risk of kidnapping. It will be a factor we take into account but wouldn't usually be decisive.

Having said that, I have been involved in setting up multiple offices in new locations. But only where we're expecting to have a significant presence over the long term. Essentially, where we can amortise the costs of legal and tax expertise.

Source: reasonably senior executive at a very large, global financial organisation.

It could of course. It can do pretty much any pattern matching it likes. But I doubt very much it would because that pattern is way less common.

As the article points out, the XOR saves 3 bytes of instructions for a really, really common pattern (to zero a register, particularly the return register).

So there's very good reason to perform the XOR preferentially and hence good reason to optimise that very common idiom.

Other approaches eg add a new "zero " instruction are basically worse as they're not backward compatible and don't really improve anything other than making the assembly a tiny bit more human readable.

I have a few:

What's the "Hypothetical Institute of Mathematical Physics"?

What does 'a reflection of the total phase space or ”complexity weight” of the minimal aperiodic vacuum.' mean?

phi^-7 !~= 0.035998811... it's ~= 0.0344418537...

Section 3.2 is just gobbledegook.

You probably need to get a better bot but it was a fun read. Thanks.

That'll definitely help. But you need a certain amount of forced re-distribution to reduce relative poverty significantly below 30% because it's defined as 60% of median.

Either that or find a way to significantly reduce the number of children that people in the bottom 30% are sprogging.

The most coherent explanation I've heard was from Feynnman [0]. As far as I understand it (and I may well not have understood it at all well), at the quantum level, all paths are taken by a particle but the contributions of the paths away from the stationary point tend to cancel each other. So, at a macroscopic level, the net effect appears to be be that the particle is following the path of least action.

> a proof of the equivalence to Newtonian mechanics

The Lagrangian method isn't really equivalent to Newton's method. Again, Feynman talks about this in [0]. It's that for a certain class of action, the Euler-Lagrange equations are equivalent to Newton's laws.

It's perfectly plausible to come up with actions that recover systems that represent Einsteinian relativity or quantum mechanics. This is the main reason (as I understand it) why it's considered a more powerful formalism.

[0] https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html

As it says she flew from Japan to the Aleutian islands, it would have probably been safer to fly via the Kamchatka peninsular instead of direct.

The owned memory may be on a stack frame or it may be heap memory. It could even be in the memory mapped binary.

> Why would a stack frame want to move ownership to its callee

Because it wants to hand full responsibility to some other part of the program. Let's say you have allocated some memory on the heap and handed a reference to a callee then the callee returned to you. Did they free the memory? Did they hand the reference to another thread? Did they hand the reference to a library where you have no access to the code? Because the answer to those questions will determine if you are safe to continue using the reference you have. Including, but not limited to, whether you are safe to free the memory.

If you hand ownership to the callee, you simply don't care about any of that because you can't use your reference to the object after the callee returns. And the compiler enforces that. Now the callee could, in theory give you back ownership of the same memory but, if it does, you know that it didn't destroy etc that data otherwise it couldn't give it you back. And, again, the compiler is enforcing all that.

> Why can mutable reference be only handed out once?

Let's say you have 2 references to arrays of some type T and you want to copy from one array to the other. Will it do what you expect? It probably will if they are distinct but what if they overlap? memcpy has this issue and "solves" it by making overlapped copies undefined. With a single mutable reference system, it's not possible to get that scenario because, if there were 2 overlapping references, you couldn't write to either of them. And if you could write to one, then the other has to be a reference (mutable or not) to some other object.

There are also optimisation opportunities if you know 2 objects are distinct. That's why C added the restrict keyword.

> If I'm only using a single thread

If you're just knocking up small scripts or whatever then a lot of this is overkill. But if you're writing libraries, large applications, multi-dev systems etc then you may be single threaded but who's confirming that for every piece of the system at all times? People are generally really rubbish at that sort of long range thinking. That's where these more automated approaches shine.

> hide information...Why, from whom?

The main reason is that you want to expose a specific contract to the rest of the system. It may be, for example, that you have to maintain invariants eg double entry book-keeping or that the sides of a square are the same length. Alternatively, you may want to specify a high level algorithm eg matrix inversion, but want it to work for lots of varieties of matrix implementation eg sparse, square. In these cases, you want your consumer to be able to use your objects, with a standard interface, without them knowing, or caring, about the detail. In other words you're hiding the implementation detail behind the interface.

And as tritium has a relatively short half life, it makes sense to research ways to generate, recycle and store it.

There's no reason to wait for a self-sustaining reactor to be online before you start to research other technologies that would be needed for a commercially viable setup. There's no obvious reason why this shouldn't be done in parallel.

The value of the basic research aside, it strikes me that it's as least as valuable as any current fusion research.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42793454

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

However, there was a census of Judea ordered by Quirinius when Herod Archelaus was kicked out in 6AD. And that makes sense because, prior to that time, Judea was a client state so Rome would not have directly taxed it. Once it became a province, it would be subject to direct taxation and, hence, would have needed a census to determine the taxable population.

So, by far the most likely scenario is that the author of gLuke was referring to this census but got his facts a bit wrong. He made way bigger whoppers than that one.

It's fair to say that there is general consensus amongst Biblical scholars that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Calling it a scientific consensus is a bit of a stretch though. As far as I'm aware there's zero scientific evidence for His existence. Just that the surviving textual evidence makes little sense if He didn't.

Gladys, who had previously converted to Catholicism and Christian Science, had firm ideas about how her conversion to Islam should go. She wanted it performed ‘on no earthly territory’ so in 1932 she chartered a plane to fly from Croydon to Paris and Khalid performed the ceremony over the Channel

So yes, she was already investigating religions and this appears to have been her idea.

Warning! Unnecessary nit-picking incoming...

Jesus isn't a mispronunciation of Yeshua, it's a transliteration. Initially the Hebrew/Aramaic ישוע was transliterated to the Greek Ἰησοῦς which is essentially a phonetic transliteration with the ending changed to the Greek masculine singular.

That was then transliterated to the Latin Iesus with basically the same deal ie phonetic with an ending change.

And that morphed into Jesus, probably about the 16th century, when the swash 'I' became a 'j' sound.

> more accurately be "Joshua"

It wouldn't really be more accurate; it would just be a transliteration through a different route. The most that can be said is that there are fewer hops.

It would still likely have most of the sounds wrong, esp if Jesus' name was originally pronounced in Galilean Aramaic. As I understand it that wouldn't have pronounced the final 'a' like an 'a' but more like a glottal stop. But that's right on the edge of my knowledge so I could have made the last bit up.

That's implementation defined (more or less) ie teh compiler can do whatever makes mst sense for its implementation.

Undefined means (more or less) that the compiler can assume the behaviour never happens so can apply transforms without taking it into account.

> to allow compilers to use it as an optimization point

That's the main advantage of undefined behaviour ie if you can ignore the usage, you may be able to apply optimisations that you couldn't if you had to take it into account. In the article, for example, GCC eliminated what it considered dead code for a NULL check of a variable that couldn't be NULL according to the C spec.

That's also probably the most frustrating thing about optimisations based on undefined behaviour ie checks that prevent undefined behaviour are removed because the compiler thinks that the check can't ever succeed because, if it did, there must have been undefined behaviour. But the way the developer was ensuring defined behaviour was with the check!