I don't see a link between that Bloomberg article and these kidnappings happening mostly to married men cheating. Nor is it the case that "love motels" are primarily used for cheating. We have plenty of those in Argentina. As the Bloomberg article indicates, they serve a social need because of the traditional multigenerational family homes people live in.
And hardly will find in other article due the fact that cheaters will lie to protect their identify if they ever come across a survey or interview. The "love motel" being used for cheating is a known thing across brazilians and still is not easy to find in writing. Also, BR motels are different from the Argentian ones (at least the ones that I saw in Buenos Aires).
the list was to give some sort of reference to the statement "they arrange dates on empty or far away places, late night and don't communicate where they're going" posted above
I think k8sToGo's point is that she never "joined Alphabet", Alphabet did not exist when she joined Larry and Sergey. She joined concurrent with Google's founding as a company, she probably joined when the search engine was named Backrub. Alphabet would be created decades later.
* There's almost always a simple geometric intuition, and low-dimensional intuition can get you quite far even in high dimensional cases.
* You can surprisingly often get by with closing your eyes and saying "my problem is linear" three times. See: All of neural networks.
* Linear problems have practically all nice properties you could ever ask of any function.
Has made linear algebra by far the most bang/buck mathematics topic I've studied in my life. Close behind is asymptotic analysis.
That seems a weird use of the word. By that notion, every convicted criminal is a victim, because the court imposed a sentence that they, presumably, do not like. This removes practically all meaning from the word "victim". In common parlance, well-understood consequences of one's own actions occurring does not make one a victim.
> This removes practically all meaning from the word "victim".
No, it removes the personal judgement from the word "victim," where we decide whether a particular victim deserves their punishment as a preliminary to discussing their situation.
-----
edit: i.e. where sympathetic people who are killed are victims, and unsympathetic people are killed are being portrayed as victims. It's an attempt to distract from the material facts of a situation with arguments about language.
edit 2: In the spirit of tripling down, I'm also giving this discussion more credit than it deserves. This is about someone saying that the word "cancel" implies the word "victim." So here's the implied argument afaict.
1) Using the word "cancel" to refer to an imposition on your work means that you're implying you're a "victim."
2) A "victim" is someone who is undeserving of what has happened to them.
3) This person is deserving of what has happened to them.
But your original reply didn't say "he didn't call himself a victim," it tried to argue why he was a victim. The gp to this reply was pointing out how absurd your definition of victim is. It's not making an argument about whether or not he called himself a victim, it makes an argument about what you yourself defined as a victim.
I've made that argument, and you can accept it or not. The larger point is that accusing people of playing victims is always a distraction from actual argument, and the entire thread is evidence of that. It started with irrelevance and ended nowhere.
If a court ignored the law and imposed a criminal sentence merely because it didn't like the defendant, then that would be an injustice and you would call the convicted person a victim.
Consider a disconnected domain (say, union of a few open balls in R^n), and f being constant in each connected component, but having different values in each ball. The differential is indeed everywhere 0 in the entire domain.
Oh, these kind of problems happen time and again in real-life maths: you use a lemma until someone points out that you are assuming something which may not take place (like connectedness of the domain, here).
Yea, but like I said, it's a poor example as a "false belief" in this context, because as stated, it isn't false for some unwritten assumptions and is false for other unwritten assumptions. In mathematics, well and actually everything, the importance of assumptions is paramount. The problem is just ill-stated.
This happens in engineering and software all the time. Time and time again, issues being resolved usually revolves around clarifying assumptions.
I've always found the definition of monoid objects in a category of endofunctors to be tougher to grasp than the Kleisli-category definition of a monad, at least if one is being formal about "monoid object", and checking that the necessary diagrams commute.
Given a functor m of Hask, we define a squiggly arrow ~>, where a ~> b is a -> m b. If these ~> are the arrows in some category (which we call the Kleisli category for m), then we call m a monad. Here id :: a ~> a in that category is what we call return :: a -> m a, and the composition (.) :: (b ~> c) -> (a ~> b) -> (a ~> c) in that category is used to create bind :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b, where bind x f = (.) f (const x) (return ()), where (.) is the squiggly arrow (.) we just mentioned. Bind is what's spelled >>= in Haskell, and is what's behind the "x <- f" do-notation.
Specifying raw or cooked rice gets you the right answer. Given that it gives you the info to correct instantly, this isn't too bad. NLP is hard.
We had a similar idea, but for automatic handling of whole recipes that you can adjust to your dietary needs (http://www.tweakeats.com). I have to say I prefer the feedback for individual ingredients that spelt has though, given the ambiguity of a lot of ingredients (raw vs cooked, chopped ingredients measured before or after chopping, red peppers, etc.). Seeing quickly how is was interpreted is helpful.
