Outside of my friend group, no one uses XMPP, the internet standard for chat, they only know about walled gardens and custom protocols by VC startups now :(
I miss when Facebook Messenger let you connect to it with XMPP back in the day so you could have it together with your other msging services on Adium/Pidgin
> It was said to have been produced in 1945, and Paramount Pictures allowed showings for the public "without profit" in 1946. 21st century sources describe a 1943 production and 1947 release instead of 1945 and 1946.
The public square is a recognized American institution for political change and messaging. The first amendment covers way more than freedom of the press. This video, to me, seems to deride it.
I don't see any derision of the first amendment or of the public square (not sure which you were referring to as "it" in your last sentence). When we exercise our freedom of expression, we have zero guarantee that we will be listened to, believed, or respected.
The derision I see in this video is directed at visceral belief in whoever is shouting in the public square, especially when their message is so clearly divisive. The discussion between the Freemason and the naturalized citizen is itself a fine example of free expression in the public square.
Recently graduated math student here. The definition of the "vec" operator which turns a matrix into a vector works like this, stacking up columns rather than rows.
Vectors are traditionally written as columns, so just writing all the columns in left-to-right order into a bigger column makes sense. The confusing bit isn't the ordering of the elements in a matrix, it's that someone decided to write vectors as columns to begin with!
It took me long while to stop being afraid when people wrote vec^T where ^T means transposed. I was like "but why can we do that", and the mathematician answered - "well, because it is just more convenient this time". o_O
The plus side is that you can use row vectors with matrices acting from the right, and keep the traditional matrix multiplication. Rare case of two wrongs creating a right.
Encrypt the data and store the key on the user's device. If the user enables the feature, they transmit their key to you. If they disable the feature, you delete the key on your side.
> Joachim himself declined to provide his last name or workplace because his employer does not want to be associated with the campaign. POLITICO has verified his identity. Joachim said his employer has no commercial interest in the legislation, and he alone paid the costs associated with running the website.
Yeah, there were 119 people born in 1995 with first name Joachim, and 123 in 1994[0]. There is a pretty good chance that there is currently only one 30-years old Joachim employed as a software engineer in Aalborg.
True, but having worked for quite a few software companies in that city, most probably agree with him. Hell, he'd probably get job offers.
But I don't blame him, the Danish minister of justice who is pushing for this bill is a complete nut job. So technically it go hurt him if he needs a security clearance with Danish police or military intelligence.
Yeah, a quick search says there's 21000 men aged 25-34 in Aalborg. Let's say an equal spread of 2100 men in each age, how many would be named Joachim? Probably a few dozens...
There are 119 people born in 1995 with first name Joachim, and 123 in 1994. So probably somewhere around 120 30-year old Joachims in Denmark right now. About 3.75% of the population lives in Aalborg. So assuming an even distribution of 30-years old Joachims, we would expect 4-5 people in Aalborg. There seems to be a very good chance that there is only one possible software engineer named Joachim then.
The fake anonymity journalists often give to sources (‘Richard D , from small town X, aged 34, works as a carpenter specializing in 16th century house renovation’) is something I find rather striking.
What’s not clear to me though is whether they’re deliberately tricking their source, or whether they genuinely don’t understand that their source is not anonymous when they give that many details.
If you're trying to compete with some country who can do things that you can't and there's nobody to be found who knows how to do the thing, isn't teaching your people the obvious thing to do?
The cost of not doing so will be cumulative, so sooner or later the ROI will be there. It's just a matter of how bad things need to get first. That is, unless there's something else we've got going for us that we can fall back on, but I'm not sure what that thing might be--we've been busy dismantling contenders for the job lately.
