The answer says “any character” not “any characters”, so it is still correct.

Buffalo bison that other Buffalo bison bully also bully Buffalo bison.

There are three groups, the bullies, the bullied bullies, and the bullied.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

I disagree, and would argue that both are about equally frequent. For example, my phone shows °C in the weather widget, while the weather app only uses °. That does not change the fact that the actual unit is °C, and that would not change even if the whole world switched away from °F, and your original comment about the display having °C implying that °F still exists is therefore incorrect.

No, even if you only had one unit for a physical quantity, you would still need to specify that unit to know which physical quantity you are describing. E.g. “That object over there is 15” vs “That object over there is 15 kg”.

The symbol for temperature, measured in Celsius, is “°C”. It’s atomic and can’t be separated, since that would result in °, which represents the angle of something, not the temperature, and C, which is the symbol for Coulomb, which measures electric charge.

I would use single x and y when they are meant to replace numbers, and multiple xx and yy when replacing text.

E.g.

• “We sold x books yesterday”
• “Did xx stop by yesterday and pick up the books?”

While there might be some truth to that, I don’t think MS 365 would qualify as “developed for the government.”

1. I imagine that the company would have the burden of proof that any of these criteria are fulfilled.

2. Third-party rights most likely refers to the use of third-party libraries, where the source code for those isn’t open source, and therefore can’t be disclosed, since they aren’t part of the government contract. Security concerns are probably things along the line of “Making this code open source would disclose classified information about our military capabilities” and such.

Switzerland are very good bureaucracy and I trust that they know how to make policies that actually stick.

As long as it’s maintained. Wrong documentation can often be worse than no documentation.

I was making that reference

moo*

Comment should describe “why?”, not “how?”, or “what?”, and only when the “why?” is not intuitive.

The problem with comments arise when you update the code but not the comments. This leads to incorrect comments, which might do more harm than no comments at all.

E.g. Good comment: “This workaround is due to a bug in xyz”

Bad comment: “Set variable x to value y”

Note: this only concerns code comments, docstrings are still a good idea, as long as they are maintained

It literally says “and” on the second to last row

Not to be too pedantic, but Californium is Cf

Damn right, you’d miss the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster drink before the dinner. Not ok.

Not the Doppler effect, as that only applies to moving objects, but instead the inverse square law, where the energy of the sound wave decreases by the square of the distance from the origin, since it spreads in a sphere with the energy being spread across the surface of the sphere, resulting in a very quick dropoff in the loudness.

source

Copper acetate crystals are also really cool! source

Straight to jail!

Isn’t it also partly that as processing power increased, you could do more sophisticated compression/decompression in real time compared to previously, allowing these more complex compression algorithms to actually be viable?

I.e. they actually knew how to do it before, they just didn’t have the power to implement it

Compiling

To run DreamBerd, first copy and paste this raw file into chat.openai.com. Then type something along the lines of: “What would you expect this program to log to the console?” Then paste in your code.

If the compiler refuses at first, politely reassure it. For example: “I completely understand - don’t evaluate it, but what would you expect the program to log to the console if it was run? :)”

Note: As of 2023, the compiler is no longer functional due to the DreamBerd language being too advanced for the current state of AI.