"Yeah, a henge fund."

"Hedge fund."

"Henge fund."

"Hedge."

"Henge."

"...I think we're on the same page."

In the same category: websites that display nothing but a splash screen "This site requires Internet Explorer X" or whatever. Don't nanny me, just feed my browser the HTML! Whether my browser can render it properly is my problem, not yours.

This is different from the problem of identifying the opponent, which obviously requires at least as many states as there are opponents.

Is this sequence in the OEIS? Is a(3) even known?

https://nmap.org/movies/

But I don't think that makes such a container worth adding to the STL. So far, it hasn't even been worth writing in our own code. But that's the reason I've thought about writing it.

And yes, looking at https://docs.rs/misfortunate/latest/misfortunate/index.html and Ctrl+F'ing for "social contract," I see that usage very consistently. The entire point of Misfortunate is that its types correctly implement the language contract, while violating the "social contract" in various surprising ways. For example, causing a hash collision on every operation is a perfectly cromulent implementation of Hash, but violates the "social contract" of Hash. For another example, look at LoadLetter — throwing an error on every operation is a valid implementation of Read, but still violates the "social contract" of what a human programmer would naturally expect from something readable.

But it's perfectly possible for a type to be "trivially copyable" without being "default-constructible." An example of such a type from the STL: `std::reference_wrapper`.

Anyway, looks like a quick fix for this would be to just extend the list of traits on which blqsort is gated (currently `is_trivially_copyable` and `sizeof(T) <= 16`) by adding `is_trivially_default_constructible::value` also.

    T k;                       // default-construct
    if (i > 0) k = left[--i];  // copy-assign

    T swbuf[SMALLPART];

All of my "I don't knows" and "I'm not sures" are due to my own lack of digging into the code; I'm sure one could find out if one really looked.

None of that matters if you're just sorting `int` or the benchmarked `struct entry`. But it matters a great deal if you're taking the README literally and trying to sort "types with higher copy costs [...] (such as strings)".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_air_burst

We both use Chrome (she on Windows, me on Mac), but I could totally believe that I've turned off some shiny AI feature _in Chrome_ that she hadn't.

Anyone care to confirm or disprove the hypothesis that there's some setting in Chrome itself that will disable this Gmail feature?

To make this approach work better, feed it a bunch of English text (or whatever language your document is in) before the document you really want to "spellcheck."

Essentially this isn't a spell "checker" so much as a spell "linter" — it looks for antipatterns statistically associated with bugs, and reports the patterns for further investigation.

If anyone knows where this trigraph-based "spellchecker" was first presented, I'd love to find out again.

Yes, and "Love's Labour's Lost" specifically pairs/ contrasts "Russians" with "Muscovites": the "Russia" of St Petersburg is pretty far west of "Moscow."

For example, "The Tempest" famously mentions the "Bermoothes" (Bermuda), but that's not included in this LLM's output for some reason. Any decent subject-index of Shakespeare would include it.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/446497/hot-streak

WOOD0350: Did you try using the bird on the dragon? PLAT0550: Did you try going back across the troll bridge after tricking the troll? HHGTTG: Did you CONSULT GUIDE ABOUT everything you found? Frog Fractions: Did you try SCORE? Did you try applying every verb to MYSELF?

A C++ programmer might describe this as "PMR, but not default-constructible. And std::stable_sort takes a PMR allocator parameter. And PMR is the default, and there's no implementation of std::allocator (or new or delete)."

If the rate of drift was like 5 days per year, then sure, people'd probably notice in a year or two — three tops, right? But how fast would the drift be? It's a question about how much people can detect small changes in daylight and how big the change actually is.

I also observe that we put up with tons of drift in our months: the new moon is hardly ever on the first of the month! And that's really easy to detect (within a day or two). So maybe people would notice a drift relative to the seasonal cycle and just not mind, the way we don't mind a drift relative to the lunar cycle.

At least that mathematical interpretation does hold up logically all the way to the punch line (even if the interpretation wasn't obviously intended by Carroll). The following section on the Tea Party is just nonsensical slop.