

No, they’re not sure. You’re correct.
No, they’re not sure. You’re correct.
Definitely not.
All people. 320kbps mp3 is completely audibly transparent under all normal listening conditions. It’s a low-tier audiophile meme to claim otherwise but they will never pass a double-blind test.
Dawg you’re unhinged
It’s not the “where” specifically I’m correcting, it’s the “when.” The model is trained, then the query is run against the trained model. The query doesn’t involve any kind of internet search.
It doesn’t search the internet for cats, it is pre-trained on a large set of labelled images and learns how to predict images from labels. The fact that there are lots of cats (most of which have tails) and not many examples of things “with no tail” is pretty much why it doesn’t work, though.
That’s what the /etc/foo.conf.d/ is for :DDDDD
It means they admit they were wrong and you were correct. As in, “I have been corrected.”
Not the same issue
If you take immortality, you also probably need to take healing. Being mortally wounded and unable to die sounds, uh, bad.
The argument describes an algorithm that can be translated into code.
1/(1-x)^(2) at 0 is 1
(1/(1-x)^(2) - 1)/x = (1 - 1 + 2x - x^(2))/x = 2 - x at 0 is 2
(1/(1-x)^(2) - 1 - 2x)/x^(2) = ((1 - 1 + 2x - x^(2) - 2x + 4x^(2) - 2x(3))/x(2) = 3 - 2x at 0 is 3
and so on
Let f(x) = 1/((x-1)^(2)). Given an integer n, compute the nth derivative of f as f^((n))(x) = (-1)(n)(n+1)!/((x-1)(n+2)), which lets us write f as the Taylor series about x=0 whose nth coefficient is f^((n))(0)/n! = (-1)^(-2)(n+1)!/n! = n+1. We now compute the nth coefficient with a simple recursion. To show this process works, we make an inductive argument: the 0th coefficient is f(0) = 1, and the nth coefficient is (f(x) - (1 + 2x + 3x^(2) + … + nx(n-1)))/x(n) evaluated at x=0. Note that each coefficient appearing in the previous expression is an integer between 0 and n, so by inductive hypothesis we can represent it by incrementing 0 repeatedly. Unfortunately, the expression we’ve written isn’t well-defined at x=0 since we can’t divide by 0, but as we’d expect, the limit as x->0 is defined and equal to n+1 (exercise: prove this). To compute the limit, we can evaluate at a sufficiently small value of x and argue by monotonicity or squeezing that n+1 is the nearest integer. (exercise: determine an upper bound for |x| that makes this argument work and fill in the details). Finally, evaluate our expression at the appropriate value of x for each k from 1 to n, using each result to compute the next, until we are able to write each coefficient. Evaluate one more time and conclude by rounding to the value of n+1. This increments n.
I don’t think you need permission to send someone an email directly addressed to and written for them. I don’t have context for the claims about Kagi being disputed, but I’d be frustrated if someone posted a misinformed rant about my work and then refused to talk to me about it. I might even write an email. Doesn’t sound crazy. If there’s more to the “harassment” that I don’t know about, obviously I’m not in favor.
Don’t think you can stack 2.4 million bananas on top of each other. By volume you’d need like 10^16 bananas to form everest
You can also get a bluetooth amp/dac and plug your wired headphones into there. I use a Qudelix 5k for my IEMs at home and I can just put it in my pocket if I want to take them out.
Your first sentence asserts the claim to be proved. Actually it asserts something much stronger which is also false, as e.g. 0.101001000100001… is a non-repeating decimal which doesn’t include “2”. While pi is known to be irrational and transcendental, there is no known proof that it is normal or even disjunctive, and generally such proofs are hard to come by except for pathological numbers constructed specifically to be normal/disjunctive or not.
Web of trust
This has gotta be responsible for some awful mistreatment of alien gut fauna
I’m ok with accepting this as canon
The actual problem was to determine the shape of the largest sofa that could fit around a given corner. The shape had been known for some time as the largest known shape, but only recently was it proved optimal.