Why can’t anyone develop said features? Should the competitor worsen themselves just because no one is able to develop the same features? As far as I remember, valve doesn’t patent something ridiculous like regional pricing or family sharing, so anyone is welcome to develop it themselves. They even make proton open source but apparently Epic doesn’t like the idea of them on the linux market.
So let me get this straight. Any client that wanted to have steam features, like the forum, hosting, workshop, chat, and all the jazz, should be able to do so without paying steam any fee? Why didn’t they develop it themselves? Or should steam sell that as a service to those who wanted it? Say for example, epic wanted to have family sharing. Steam should sell their family sharing feature to epic as a service?
Genuinely curious, why do you hate public cameras/cctv?
What if… we add more dimension?
Emulation time it is!
Lol I fucking love that successor of zero
Thanks for the information! Unfortunately, linux users are small in my country. There are rarely any events held here. But this is giving me an idea on how to help people revive their old hardware!
Oh my god this is a great idea. Why is there no more event like this‽
So modern math is proven to be incomplete and we cannot prove that it is consistent either. Those 2 words, incomplete and consistent have a very technical meaning here.
The first is that there is a statement in modern mathematics, which is true, but cannot be proven. And even if we expand it, there will always be such a statement. Hence, incomplete.
And the second, we cannot have a system that proves everything as that system will be inconsistent. Basically if a system can prove everything, then we can easily prove 1=1 AND 1 ≠ 1. If both are proven, then we lose meaning since there is no “truth”. But a consistent system cannot prove its self consistency. Ergo, with modern math, we cannot know if math is consistent.
Now, the problem lies in that we use math to model our perceived reality. It means there is a limit to human knowledge, or put simply, there will be something in the universe that we may never know the answer to.
My favorite is the busy beaver function. There exist, at a certain number, that our modern math cannot make any meaningful statement about the function. Here is a great video about it. (youtube link warning). But you can also look at veritasium video for more in depth explanations.
Our current understanding is not enough to state that with confidence. We used to be so confident with classical mechanics and even claims that physics is almost complete. God knows how long our current probabilistic model will last before we find another better model. It may be probabilistic, or it may not.
Gödel Incompleteness Theorem and the boundary of our understanding of the universe.
It is worse in HW prototyping where sometimes loose wire is all over the place
Not at all. It is indeed helpful to differentiate between an iterable and literal list. After all, sometimes it will bite you in the ass when you don’t differentiate between the two.
Good
Edit: Oh shit nvm. It still requires dedicated HW (FPGA). This is no different than say, an NPU. But to be fair, they also said the researcher tested the model on traditional GPU too and reduce memory consumption.
No problems. Learning a new concept is not stupid. So you are familiar with C. In C term, you are likely to do something like this:
int a[10] = {0}; // Just imagine this is 0,1,2,etc...
int b[10] = {0};
for (int i=0; i < 10; i++) {
b[i] = a[i]*2;
}
A 1 to 1 correspondent might looks like ths:
a = range(10) # 0,1,2,etc...
b = []
for x in a:
b.append(x*2)
However in python, you can then simplify to this:
a = range(10) # Same as before, 0,1,2,etc...
b = [x*2 for x in a]
# This is also works
b = [x*2 for x in [0,1,2,...]]
Remember that list comprehension is used to make a new list, not just iteration. If you want to do something other than making a list from another list, it is better to use iteration. List comprehension is just “syntactic sugar” so to speak. The concept comes from functional programming paradigm.
You can. Whatever the method returns will be the element of that list. So if for example I do this:
def mul(x):
return x*2
list = [mul(value) for value in range(1,20)]
It will have the same effect. But this:
def mul(x):
return
list = [mul(value) for value in range(1,20)]
Will just makes the list element all None
Edit to add more: List comprehension works not from the range function. Rather, the range function is returning a list. Hence the name, “list comprehension”. You can use any old list for it.
What it did under the hood is that it iterates each element on the list that you specify (the in ...), and applies those to the function that you specify in the very first place. If you are familiar with the concept of Array.map in other languages, this is that. There is also a technical explanation for it if it helps, but it requires more time to explain. Just let me know if you would like to know it.
List comprehension is not whatever you’re doing there. An example of list comprehension:
list = [value*2 for value in range(1, 20)]
See, list comprehension is used to make a list from an existing list. The value of the new list is defined by a function. In this case, the value of a will be 2,4,6, etc.
Your current syntax list[...], is trying to access an element of a list.
I think valve is silently collecting the data for their internal team all this time when they didn’t act. It’s always a cat and mouse game after all, but if the cat is patient, then he may catch a lot of mice. And remember, they don’t have as invasive anti cheat as any other game of the same genre.