The goal of giving money is not to make those who receive it more educated, better parents or making them politically active. I mean, why did I have to say that?

(The amount of money is also unlikely to enbale to make savings for the future.)

The goal is that their immediate poverty decreases. Why is the author insistent on the measurement of unrelated stats? Because he has an ax to grind.

While it could be useful to have a "fast" variation that offers no guarantee at all, what you would end up with (because people are vain) is that too may people would use those instead "because perf", even though the actual usage is not performance critical, and have code that breaks whenever the compiler or platform changes.

IOW, you're saying that among the study results, all that agree with your POV are valid, all that don't are invalid. That's quite some bias there.

IOW, we did not merely "read and trusted one random article" but assessed the presented evidence. You OTOH, merely provided ad-hominem attack on both the author and anyone who dared believe the presented evidence, which smacks of trying to shame people in not voicing their opinion.

Everyone judges people who do less about subject X, Y, Z to be criminal, lazy slob, and everyone doing more to be inflexible annoying zealots.

Woe those who are not me and do things differently, for they are worthless.

You can embed/tunnel any network transport into another. There is nothing magical about the internet and IP. It is actually being tunneled when you're using a cable modem. WiFi is a horrible hack that encapsulate IP in a very ugly way to make it onto it's wireless tech.

You could have tunnel ATM over IP, I'm pretty sure of it. The depiction seems to me like a flattering extolment of IP.

I'd bet that if LOGO had used RETURN, like many other languages, then the children's reasoning would be likely be more accurate. Or go the other way and make them tell you what this or that brainfuck[1] program does. So, to me, this research says more about LOGO choices than anything.

[1] https://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck

So their claim that "T t;" will "do nothing" is incorrect.

    class T
    {
    public:
        T(int);
    };
    T t;

On one hand, the article claims that Diophantine equations are polynomials. On the other hand, it claims that when JR is true, a Diophantine equations grows faster than a polynomial.

How can a polynomial grow faster than polynomial? That seems like a contradiction to me.

length 3: fixed-point 495 length 5: 2-cycle containing 59994 length 6: fixed-point 59994

Similarly for digits 6, 1, 4, 7:

length 4: 6174 length 5: 4-cycle containing 61974 length 6: fixed-point 631764

The real interesting bit, is that Paul Graham somehow thought it was worthwhile to stick his neck out and improve Sam Altman public image by clarifying he was ever fired from YC.

Imagine that you have a container of potential limitless capacity. The container starts with smalls capacity, equal to the real limited capacity that the real algorithm uses. As you add elements, when the container is full, its capacity is doubled, but all elements are then placed in a random position.

When you're done, you're told the occupancy of the subset of the large container corresponding to the initial size and how many times the container size was doubled. Multiplying that occupancy by the power of two of the number of doubling gives you an approximation of the real size.

The small catch is that in the actual algorithm, due to the discarding, the final number of elements, the occupancy, is somewhat erroneous.

EDIT

Another way to say this: you got a container of limited capacity S. When full, you "virtually" double its size and then randomly move elements over the full "imaginary" size of the virtual container. So after the first filling, you end up with about 1/2 the elements. After the second filling 1/4, etc. Also, since now your "virtual" container is larger, when you add a new element, there is only 1/2^n the it will be place inside your limited-capacity view of the entire virtual container.

At the end, the approximate real count is the number of elements you got multiplied by 2 to the power of the number of size doubling.

Again, it is as if you have a small window into a limitless container.

But him, the director, yeah, he could approach talk, whatever. He's in another classssssssss, you see...

For example, in "Implementing a Workflow" the execute_activity refers to Purchaser.purchase, which is not declared anywhere.

If the execute_activity times-out after 1 minutes, the status does not seem to be updated anywhere.

In "Running a Worker", do_purchaser is passed as an activity, without explanation. (I guess I'd need to read the fundamental Temporal docs?)