This is a false dichotomy between spending the first third of your message on niceties and being maximally blunt. I don't agree that you do not owe other people a modicum of consideration about their emotional state.
I advocate a middle ground and also empathy and curiosity. I think you can keep in mind that you might be wrong and treat people with respect without wasting their time. Something like "please check these lines/this function/whatever again. I think it will have such and such an effect. I did this test, here's the output". Seems fine to me.
Use zotero and betterbibtex. By all means type a comment so you know which ideas came from where but I'm a big advocate of taking notes by hand when you really want to understand something, as opposed to reminding your future self about something you already understand.
Same here! This poem and Anthem for Doomed Youth lodged deep in my memory. We all had to perform a poem from one of those GCSE collections and I chose Anthem for Doomed Youth. The silence in the classroom afterwards... We were lucky with English teachers though.
The creativity and range of newgrounds content was mind blowing. The focus on fun as opposed to money making was really clear to me even as a kid. I've always had this little conspiracy theory that they killed flash because it was a threat, too easy for us to make our own culture and fun without a wealth extraction step in the middle. I know it's not true but it's just a weird little feeling I have.
Probably best to avoid the word ring in a mathematics discussion unless you're talking about the algebraic structure. It's very much a mathematical `keyword`.
Though I suppose you could say he's lying, it's staged etc. In the same way that the religious attribute every good thing to their god and every bad thing to their devil.
Someone else may have said this but strictly speaking breakfast is something like a cone in a vector space, unless you want to explain to me how to eat negative eggs.
I think I will attempt to just eat the negative eggs because at least I recognize, and can define what both "negative" and "eggs" mean. Can't say the same for literally half the words in the OP's graph.
There’s a guy in overalls in a Brooklyn bistro who used to scramble them but that was very late-summer 2025 and you’ll get funny looks for asking about them.
Barycentric coordinates are the local coordinate system inside a simplex. A simplicial complex is what you get when you glue multiple simplices together along shared k-faces for k = 0 … n -- vertices (0-faces), edges (1-faces), triangles (2-faces), tetrahedra (3-faces), and higher-dimensional faces -- to form a larger state space.
It's not possible to have negative eggs, but you can apply the same machinery to many other things, like facial animation mesh blend shapes (Apple ARKit, Blender Blend Shapes and the FaceIt plugin, Unity SkinnedMeshRenderer, etc), where weights are often allowed to be overdriven >1 or even underdriven <0 for exaggerated or monstrous effects.
(Eric "Irk" Hedman designed and created the character animations and objects in The Sims 1, and as you can see is extremely skilled and delightful to work with! Hire him if you need professional high quality creative artwork and animation, and can pay him in bananas: https://erichedman.artstation.com/projects/8wJDgw )
Faceit: Facial Expressions And Performance Capture (Blender):
ARFaceAnchor.BlendShapeLocation:
Identifiers for specific facial features, for use with coefficients describing the relative movements of those features.
I was just referring to one of the early sentences saying breakfast is a vector space. If you allow arbitrarily many (say) eggs so that two eggs and one egg are different breakfasts, you get a cone inside R^d. If you normalise and consider the ingredients as fractions of a whole (so that 1 egg and 2 eggs are both represented by the 1.0 egg breakfast) you get this simplex structure and the coordinate system you mentioned. But that's still not a vector space as there are not inverses in general. At best it can be embedded in R^d.
Amazing that when ai "solves" an erdos problem by finding the solution in an existing paper it gets hundreds of points and comments, but when ai fails a more rigorous test designed by practitioners (i.e. a much better test of the claim that ai will soon do research level mathematics) it gets zip.
reply