JonC

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262046305/introduction-to-algorithms/

This one is pretty hardcore. I bought the 2nd edition of it over 20 years ago when I started my career as a developer due to not doing a CS degree.

Also take a look at the Specification Pattern for something similar.

That’s something I would only use if the logic becomes very complex, but it can help break things down nicely in those cases.

Why the assumption that reactivity is only a front-end thing?

I’ve used it plenty on the back-end when dealing with streams of data that need to trigger other processing steps.

I mean, why does anything have value?

In the strict financial sense, something is only worth what somone else is willing to pay for it. That’s the whole premise of financial trading. Getting a bit beyond ELI5 now, but most exchanges use something called a Central Limit Order Book (CLOB) to let the participants in the market see who wants to buy and sell what and for how much, and also to match those buyers and sellers. This is a good intro: https://optiver.com/explainers/orders-and-the-order-book/

In terms of shares in companies, then they do have some fundamental value according to the market. If you buy a share in the company, you get a share of the profits (paid as dividends), which gives those shares some value. Obviously, there’s a lot of speculation too as people are involved, so emotions and wild predictions can come into play!

Financial instruments that get traded aren’t limited to shares in companies though. There are all kind of other financial instruments that get traded every day, some are pretty basic like buying and selling different currencies. Others involve all kinds of crazy financial engineering , like the sort that caused the crash in 2008!

Most have some fundamental value based on their attributes, so it’s a little different to the likes of an NFT. The big issues come if the values that the market has agreed upon don’t match reality, which is what happened in 2008.

If you strip things back, the most fundamental point of a market is to bring buyers and sellers together and to enable price discovery.

The price of a financial instrument you see on a stock exchange or similar is simply the last traded price between a buyer and a seller. If you want to buy or sell something, then the price you get depends on who wants to sell/buy on the other side and what price they have put an order in for.

The more trades going on in the market, the more likely it is that you will be able to buy at a price close to what you see as the last price in the market.

If you only allow trading every hour, then you lose some of that price discovery.

Additionally, as already mentioned, trades would likely still happen, but away from the designated marketplace. If I want to sell something, then I may just ask who else has the thing I want to sell and try to negotiate a price directly with them.

That way, fewer trades happen in the marketplace and more trades happen in private away from there.

That sort of limited trading does happen for some very niche products that don’t have a lot of potential buyers and sellers. For common financial instruments, have a lot of participants wanting to trade, having a centralised marketplace helps avoid the issues that would come otherwise.

Now, you can argue that in practice it doesn’t work as well as the theory, and I would agree there. If you are a HFT, then you can make money by getting in milli or microseconds ahead of others.

For a lot of market participants, that doesn’t really matter though. The big banks typically don’t do that sort of trading. They are buying and selling on behalf of their clients, both individuals and companies that want access to the market. The bank makes their money by charging a margin to their client (similar to how it works for pretty much any retailer), and the fact that the HFTs are making all these trades helps them with price discovery and liquidity (ensuring there is someone to buy what they want to sell, or sell what they want to buy)

What a guy!

First Contact main theme > all

Yeah, it’s one of those scenarios that happens so infrequently that people rarely think about it.

Until it does happen and then everyone gets confused!

Technically, the line is at the second to last opponent in the direction of attack.

The usual case is that the goalkeeper is the last opponent, so the line is at the last defender. If the keeper comes forward past some of the defenders, then the line would be at the second last defender.

The attacker also has to be ahead of the ball to be offside, which doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the link. You could have two attackers, both in offside positions, but if the one with the ball passes to the second attacker and the second is behind the ball when the pass is made, then it is not offside.

Specifically, this is Eixample

The roads in the old city are much more chaotic.

This book digs deeper into that sort of stuff:

The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity https://a.co/d/fZhHVrG

Worth a read

Maybe let’s just say that you and I have different senses of humour and leave it at that.

For me, the humour comes from the fact that I pretended not to understand the image and point out that there are no plugs in the image. It’s a bit of wordplay that relies on the fact that people sometimes call plug sockets plugs.

I’m from the UK.

It was a joke. Don’t take things so seriously

Sure, there’s a lot of plug sockets there, but I don’t see a single plug in that image

And at this point, the extended crew of the Discovery was thoroughly sidelined: Burnham’s personal relationships took priority over everything else.

This is the part that I’ve never got on well with in Discovery.

In TNG, it’s not a show about Picard, or Riker, or any of the other individuals. It’s a show about the crew. I’ve even seen it said that the actual star of the show is the ship.

Whereas, with Disco, it’s a show about Michael Burnham and everyone else has a bit part. That always felt weird for a Star Trek show. I want to see how the crew works together to solve problems and overcome things with everyone on an equal footing regardless of their rank in the show.

And I think that’s why there was such a warm reception to season 3 of Picard. It brought the crew back together. Picard alone isn’t satisfying enough. What we wanted was him as part of the crew.

And he created Trello

Fun fact. The river that these falls are on turns into the infamous Bolton Strid a little further south.

Same, using Chat GPT 4. It explained the steps without prompting, which is different from the single line answer shown in the post too. I got this…

Let’s break this down step by step:

1. Sally has 3 brothers.
2. Each of those brothers has 2 sisters.

Sally is one of those sisters for each of her 3 brothers. Therefore, the second sister that each brother has would be the same other sister.

This means that Sally has only 1 other sister, making a total of 2 sisters in the family (including Sally herself).

So, Sally has 1 sister.

That one’s actually really easy to prove numerically.

Not going to type out a full proof here, but here’s an example.

Let’s look at a two digit number for simplicity. You can write any two digit number as 10*a+b, where a and b are the first and second digits respectively.

E.g. 72 is 10 * 7 + 2. And 10 is just 9+1, so in this case it becomes 72=(9 * 7)+7+2

We know 9 * 7 is divisible by 3 as it’s just 3 * 3 * 7. Then if the number we add on (7 and 2) also sum to a multiple of 3, then we know the entire number is a multiple of 3.

You can then extend that to larger numbers as 100 is 99+1 and 99 is divisible by 3, and so on.