And I just want to add as a physicist: The most interesting manifolds are the differentiable ones, because there you can do general relativity! But manifolds are also relevant in other, more unexpected places, like a pendulum: It moves on a submanifold of R^3 due to the constraint of the string.

They probably decided on 10 or below, but it didn’t sound as catchy in the marketing

I don’t think anyone’s doubting the performance, it’s about efficiency.

There was no iPhone 9.

That’s because it just sounds cool… But for Valve, I assume the reason is that it’s like the counterpart to Proton (protons are in the nucleus, and electrons are leptons)

I’m German and I didn’t know we can count to 720 with our hands…

!Explanation: An exclamation mark marks factorial, and 6 factorial is 720.!<

So you’re saying waves and particles are projections into 4D spacetime from some higher-dimensional spacetime?

The use of watashi wa would give it away. Japanese people basically never say I at all

The fermion number conservation would be violated anyways.

But I think it’s better for it to fail from expected behavior vs unexpected behavior. Your storage being full is very transparent and expected, but that a file reaches max size and starts cutting off is unexpected and would surprise a lot of people.

I myself use supercomputers and the log files can get into a lot of GB, and I would hate it if it just cut off at some point.

Well, Linux is also made for servers and super computers, and just imagine it refusing to keep logs because the file’s too large

Die*

I used to run Debian Testing and it borked my install - never had that problem on e.g. Arch. I feel like because it’s not a rolling release as the default but explicitly for developers, it’s less stable. But that might just have been bad luck.

Honestly, also the latter. If you are using hundreds of thousands of cores for over 100h, every single second counts.

It really depends on your field. I’m doing my master’s thesis in HPC, and there, clever programming is really worth it.

Also related, I had a psychology teacher with a PhD in psychology. But because in German schools, you need to teach two subjects (with the exception of the arts), he also taught physics. He was a terrible physics teacher, but a pretty good psychology one.

I do understand it differently, but I don’t think I misunderstood. I think what they meant is the physicist notation I’m (as a physicist) all too familiar with:

∫ f(x) dx = ∫ dx f(x)

In this case, because f(x) is the operand and ∫ dx the operator, it’s still uniquely defined.

That reminds me of a story my bachelor’s supervisor in astrophysics told me: One of his best PhDs applied at an insurance company. They got an Excel sheet with data that they had 1 week to analyze. All the other applicants took the whole week. He just put it in Python, solved it in a few hours, and got the job.

I’d say the $\int dx$ is the operator and the integrand is the operand.

I think you mean operator. The operand is the target of an operator.