It gives it a different implication. As I read it, an article titled "Lewis Carroll Computed Determinates" has three possible subjects:
1. Literally, Carroll would do matrix math. I know, like many on HN, that he was a mathematician. So this would be a dull and therefore unlikely subject.
2. Carroll invented determinates. This doesn't really fit the timeline of math history, so I doubt it.
3. Carroll computed determinates, and this was surprising. Maybe because we thought he was a bad mathematician, or the method had recently been invented and we don't know how he learned of it. This is slightly plausible.
4. (The actual subject). Carroll invented a method for computing determinates. A mathematician inventing a math technique makes sense, but the title doesn't. It'd be like saying "Newton and Leibnitz Used Calculus." Really burying the lede.
Of course, this could've been avoided had the article not gone with a click-bait style title. A clearer one might've been "Lewis Carroll's Method for Calculating Determinates Is Probably How You First Learned to Do It." It's long, but I'm not a pithy writer. I'm sure somebody could do better.
"How Lewis Carroll Computed Determinates" is fine and not clickbait because it provides all the pertinent information and is an accurate summary of its contents. Clickbait would be "you would never guess how this author/mathematician computed determinants" since it requires a clickthrough to know who the person is. How is perfectly fine IMO to have in the title because I personally would expect the How to be long enough to warrant a necessary clickthrough due to the otherwise required title length.
I've done some of the problems in R. Vectorized-by-default can avoid a lot of boilerplate. And for problems that aren't in R's happy path, I learn how to optimize in the language. And then I try to make those optimizations non-hideous to read.
I'm not a big user of LLMs, but instead of AI in everything, I'd like to see more web services and local software offer APIs that LLMs (and my own code) can access. Hopefully, "embedded AIs" only become as prevalent and required as "embedded browsers."
>The US invading Canada isn't a realistic possibility. Any attempt to do so would trigger a civil war within the US
If you had told me this last year, but replaced "invading Canada" with "sending armed military forces into cities under false emergency declarations", I would've also agreed. But here we are. Which state wants to be the first to defect and pit it's national guard (half of whom would probably desert) against the US military?
>If Canada had serious concerns about the US invading...
It's best course of action would be the same as any individual preparing for a doomsday scenario: make friends with those around you. If the US invades or even just encroaches on Canada, I wonder if every European country would realize they're next. Canada can't beat the US alone, but it's allies could make it an extremely painful and unpopular war for the American public.
I haven't read that book, but I might now. It's refreshing to see such a realistic assessment of the problems. IMO, the most important line from that page:
>The problems of boys and men are structural in nature, rather than individual; but are rarely treated as such.
This is why shame does nothing productive, whether it's shaming boys for displaying "masculine" traits or displaying "feminine" traits. We can't address a social problem by asking every individual to change. That's just not feasible, even if there weren't a "man-o-sphere" and "radical feminism movement" working against it. Heck, even if the root problem was a personal one that each man could solve for himself, our options would still be a society-wide solution or tossing our hands up in resignation and hoping for the best.
>Because drug cartels are a huge problem and local governments are often very bad at handling them.
True, but the legal precedent this sets is very important. The requirement for sound legal justification is the only leverage the Judicial branch has. Today's Supreme Court may be too deferential to the President, but that's not to say they don't have a line (listen to yesterday's hearing on tariffs). Also, the Supreme Court a decade from now will rely on today's justifications.
I do not want to give any President the power to unilaterally conduct military killings of people he considers a terrorist. For this specific President, remember that he's declared Antifa a terrorist organization. And that he has very casually accused a lot of citizens as being in Antifa before.
reply