639 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2025
  2. Jul 2025
    1. Based on Figure 9.3.29.3.2\PageIndex{2}, we see that the hypotenuse equals 555, so sinθ=35sin⁡θ=35\sin θ=35, sin θ=35sin θ=35\sin θ=35, and cosθ=−45cos⁡θ=−45\cos θ=−45.

      I believe there is a divisor missing therefore based on the triangle sin(x) = 3/5 opposite over hypotenuse and cos(x) = -4/5 adjacent over hypotenuse

    1. If you use a random URL then option b won’t work because you can’t invalidate a random URL using that method.

      I think you mean option a (invalidating fetch url) won't work. Option b (depends('posts')) should work fine, because it's a static string that's easy to invalidate.

  3. May 2025
  4. Jan 2025
  5. Dec 2024
    1. This topic provides an overview a traditional application development, then explain the shift in thinking needed shift to serverless development.

      Lol. Should probably have been proofread maybe?

      Should say:

      This topic provides an overview of traditional application development, then explains the shift in thinking needed to shift to serverless development

  6. Nov 2024
  7. Sep 2024
  8. Aug 2024
  9. May 2024
    1. Suppose instead that N = 3F + 1 , then a correctagreement is guaranteed as before but the agreement will have 2F + 1 nodes (quorum size) anddespite some F of those 2F + 1nodes becoming unresponsive, the remaining F + 1 honest andresponsive nodes will be able to propagate that correct safe agreement to the next round

      The reason behind N=3F+1, is that F nodes may behave duplicitly. So we need ((N-F) / 2) + 1 to have it safe.

    2. But there is no guarantee that the nodes in agreement (quorum) will knowthey came to agreement in a subsequent round because as many as F of the nodes in agreementin a given round may subsequently become unresponsive in the next round

      But we have f+1 for agreemend, so it will be live.

  10. Apr 2024
    1. (a+b)5(c+d)6=∑5r=0(5r)arb5−r+∑4s=0(4s)csd4−s(a+b)5(c+d)6=∑r=05(5r)arb5−r+∑s=04(4s)csd4−s(a + b)^5 (c + d)^6 = \sum_{r=0}^{5} \binom{5}{r} a^rb^{5-r} + \sum_{s=0}^{4} \binom{4}{s} c^sd^{4-s} .

      This equation is not the same as quation 4) in Exercise 3.3.1.

  11. Mar 2024
  12. Feb 2024
  13. Jan 2024
  14. Dec 2023
  15. Nov 2023
  16. Oct 2023
  17. Sep 2023
    1. A nice property of the above process is that we can sample xt at any arbitrary time step t in a closed form using reparameterization trick. Let αt=1−βt and α¯t=∏i=1tαi: xt=αtxt−1+1−αtϵt−1 ;where ϵt−1,ϵt−2,⋯∼N(0,I)=αtαt−1xt−2+1−αtαt−1ϵ¯t−2 ;where ϵ¯t−2 merges two Gaussians (*).=…=α¯tx0+1−α¯tϵq(xt|x0)=N(xt;α¯tx0,(1−α¯t)I) (*) Recall that when we merge two Gaussians with different variance, N(0,σ12I) and N(0,σ22I), the new distribution is N(0,(σ12+σ22)I). Here the merged standard deviation is (1−αt)+αt(1−αt−1)=1−αtαt−1.

      https://x.com/BlackHC/status/1702989939984503063?s=20

      typo in second line of equation

  18. Aug 2023
  19. Jun 2023
  20. May 2023
  21. Mar 2023
  22. Feb 2023
  23. Jan 2023
  24. Dec 2022
  25. Nov 2022
  26. Oct 2022
  27. Sep 2022
  28. Aug 2022

    Tags

    Annotators

    URL

  29. Jul 2022
    1. Stop autoclosing of PRs While the idea of cleaning up the the PRs list by nudging reviewers with the stale message and closing PRs that didn't got a review in time cloud work for the maintainers, in practice it discourages contributors to submit contributions. Keeping PRs open and not providing feedback also doesn't help with contributors motivation, so while I'm disabling this feature of the bot we still need to come up with a process that will help us to keep the number of PRs in check, but celebrate the work contributors already did instead of ignoring it, or dismissing in the form of a "stale" alerts, and automatically closing PRs.

      Yes!! Thank you!!

      typo: cloud work -> could work

  30. Jun 2022
  31. May 2022
  32. Apr 2022
  33. Mar 2022
    1. The model to be estimated by TSLS using the general sales tax and the cigarette-specific sales tax as instruments hence is

      Typo in the equation: the subscript should be 1985 in the LHS: \(-log(Q^{cigarettes}_{i,1985}\)}

  34. Feb 2022
  35. Jan 2022
    1. Special case: Can be used instead of 404 to avoid revealing presence or non-presence of resource

      eh? instead of 404? I would actually say that:

      • 404 is as good or better at avoiding revealing presence or non-presence of resource; probably better because 401 implies that we found the resource but that they needed to be signed in in order to access
      • normally one would use a 404 instead of a 401/403 (usually instead of a 403) to avoid revealing presence or non-presence of resource.

      I think they know which is the correct, as evidenced by how they said about 404 below: "User/agent known but server will not reveal anything about the resource, does as if it does not exist." — I think this must have just been a typo.

  36. Dec 2021
  37. Nov 2021
  38. Oct 2021