Except the plane is going to survive. Only the passengers aren’t going to. On the other hand, there are going to be new passengers. Assuming we don’t blow up the plane with nukes.
And if we do blow up the plane with nukes, there will still be new passengers. They’ll just be red-hardened. Maybe even rad-metabolizing. Evolution loves well-adapted organisms!
> That you would deride Wittgenstein on a math/CS forum, when he is literally the person who thought up the concept of truth tables, seems quite egregious.
That would be Charles Peirce, in the XIXth century, not Wittgenstein.
Also, his philosophical works might be bad even if he had invented truth tables: it's not like the truth table was hard to find the way, e.g., Newtonian mechanics was.
Peirce, apparently, did develop a equivalent form of truth table earlier, but it would be misunderstand the history of computer science to attribute them to Peirce. Just because someone had the idea first, doesn't mean that work is the source of the idea going forward.
I think it's pretty clear that Wittgenstein's truth tables are those that guided the development of computer science.
>In a manuscript of 1893, in the context of his study of the truth-functional analysis of propositions and proofs and his continuing efforts at defining and understanding the nature of logical inference, and against the background of his mathematical work in matrix theory in algebra, Charles Peirce presented a truth table which displayed in matrix form the definition of his most fundamental connective, that of illation, which is equivalent to the truth-functional definition of material implication. Peirce’s matrix is exactly equivalent to that for material implication discovered by Shosky that is attributable to Bertrand Russell and has been dated as originating in 1912. Thus, Peirce’s table of 1893 may be considered to be the earliest known instance of a truth table device in the familiar form which is attributable to an identifiable author, and antedates not only the tables of Post, Wittgenstein, and Łukasiewicz of 1920-22, but Russell’s table of 1912 and also Peirce’s previously identified tables for trivalent logic tracable to 1902.
>But even if that conclusion is challenged, it is now clear that Russell understood and used the truth-table technique and the truth-table device. By 1910, Russell had already demonstrated a well-documented understanding of the truth-table technique in his work on Principia Mathematica. Now, it would seem that by 1912, and surely by 1914, Russell understood, and used, the truth-table device. Of course, the combination of logical conception and logical engineering by Russell in his use of truth tables is the culmination of work by Boole and Frege, who were closely studied by Russell. Wittgenstein and Post still deserve recognition
for realizing the value and power of the truth-table device. But Russell also deserves some recognition on this topic, as part of this pantheon of
logicians.
>In this paper I have shown that neither the truth-table technique nor the truth-table device was "invented" by Wittgenstein or Post in 1921-22. The truth-table technique may originally be a product of Philo's mind, but it was clearly in use by Boole, Frege, and Whitehead and Russell. The truth-table device is found in use by Wittgenstein in 1912, perhaps with some collaboration from Russell. Russell used the truth-table technique at Harvard in 1914 and in London in 1918. So the truth-table technique and the truth-table device both predate the early 1920s.
> The Uprising started when the Red Army appeared on the city's doorstep, and the Poles in Warsaw were counting on Soviet front capturing or forwarding beyond the city in a matter of days. This basic scenario of an uprising against the Germans, launched a few days before the arrival of Allied forces, played out successfully in a number of European capitals, such as Paris and Prague. However, despite easy capture of area south-east of Warsaw barely 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) from the city centre and holding these positions for about 40 days, the Soviets did not extend any effective aid to the resistance within Warsaw.
In 1939 there were 111 million people in today's Russian territory, in 1946 - only 97. So literally, yes, every 7th Russian was killed fighting nazis.
By the end of 1939, there was no such state - Poland. There was the Polish nation, but there was no Polish state that exercises its power within its borders. There were Soviet Union and Germany and border between them. And after the end of WWII, Poland was restored. Not just restored, but got about 20% of its current territory from Germany. Only Red army from all the Allies was present and won the battles on this territory. Would you restore a neighbour state and gift it yesterday's German territory filled with the blood of only your soldiers if you just want to conquer it?
Ahh, core dump, not "core" file. Ok, slightly ambiguous and I feel sheepish about it.
I've also looked at core files in GDB, not directly. They're about as unintelligible as a core dump from a C program. It all depends on -fno-omit-frame-pointer: with it, it's usable. Without it, good luck because it involves un-convoluting the optimizer. That's both for C and C++.
> I’m not sure how often it’s posted here but Benno Rice formerly of FreeBSD Core Team has an excellent and amusing discussion of systemd’s technical merits.
IMO he makes a couple good points (and a couple poor ones), but it’s about everything except technical merits. It’s more about social and philosophical aspects.
He talks about a lot of design decisions like the units architecture and users being able to deploy their own services, but does keep it fairly high-level.
Although true, in most cases when people talk about dead code elimination, they refer to eliminating code inside a function, whereas tree-shaking unambiguously refers to inter-procedural dead code elimination.
Probably because traditionally, unused 'objects' in static link libraries were ignored in the first place by linkers. But with LTO the term dead-code-elimination makes sense IMHO (since the LTO pass will drop any code and data that ends up being unused).
If you regularly switch languages or, even worse, use multiple languages in the same messages, autocorrect gets in the way more than it helps. In monolingual contexts it’s almost always set to the wrong language (based on the one used previously) and what comes out is just a jumble. In multilingual contexts you just spend as much time on switching the keyboard language as on the actual typing.
Also, I’m not sure how it is today, but 5-8 years ago I knew more words in my native language than iOS autocorrect and got tired of it “fixing” them.
They have the feature, sure, whether it works properly for the languages you are using is another thing altogether.
Somewhat close languages (french/english) are often not great, and adding CJK with anything other than english to the mix is also a recipe for a bad experience.
Even for just English, it gets some words wrong constantly for me. I would love to be able to watch someone type in their phone to see if I'm just using it wrong
Well, maybe it’s just personal preference, but I use Dutch and English (a closer language pair than FR/EN) on Android and iPadOS, and it works great for me.
Of course, you still need to switch for CJK languages (because they need an IME), but that’s a given.
