In Towers of Hanoi, you're only allowed to pick up one disc at a time, so it's not completely trivial. It's simply operation intensive... kinda like Reverse the List of Integers
Of course I'm suggesting picking up multiple discs at a time. That's the whole idea.
Compare thih9's comment:
> Like tower of hanoi[1], but you can add or remove empty pegs, blocks are the same size and can be stacked in any order, you can move as many blocks as you want and you cannot have towers with the same amount of blocks.
All my comment did was to point out that this description doesn't work, because the rules here are not similar to the rules of Towers of Hanoi.
Under the rules of the original comment, here's how you reverse the list [7, 5, 3]:
+++++++ +++++ +++
+++(----) +++++ +++(++++)
It's a simple, one-step process, and this will be true for any list of three integers. A list of four or five will take two steps, a list of six or seven will take three, etc. In all cases, reversing the list is completely trivial, because thih9 introduced a rule, allowing you to simply swap two numbers, that isn't present in the original ruleset.
It has been tested. So far all the tests have failed.
Let me know when they can cryonically freeze a live mouse, then reanimate it a month later. If the process works at all then that should be easy, right?
The main argument against making ransom payments illegal is that it simply drives ransom payments underground. Legislating something, similar to vices like drugs, alcohol or gambling, doesn't make it go away.
I assume they mean make it illegal for corporations to pay the ransom. It's obviously unjust and ineffective to punish private individuals for paying ransoms, but that's not where the money is. OTOH, corporations have budgets and can be prosecuted if X millions dollars disappears out of it.
I don’t view it as obviously unjust as applied to individuals. That may suck for that person, but turning off the revenue demands substantially reduces the odds others are subject to ransoms. If all you do is focus on the individual case, you never actually address the root cause.
Make hiding ransomware attacks a criminal offense mandatory and offer whistleblower programs to companies that try to conceal it. This is an issue of national security. Individual alcohol problems are irrelevant and not comparable to large corporations.
And then you've just created a chain of legislation with the associated loopholes and confusion which will allow corporations to hide and deny any of it happening and then using legal fog to stonewall any Govt investigations and force people to risk their careers to call it out.
Forcing people to be whistle blowers is not a scalable enforcement plan. Very few people are willing to be one.
We need to legislate with the goal of corporate transparency not for more hidden behavior.
If you make it a felony to pay ransoms (which I strongly support), there will be far fewer ransom demands. Yes, some of it will go underground, but in my view it’s the only way to actually decrease the demand side of the equation.
How will you know if the total amount of ransom payments goes down? How will you know how much is under the table vs over the table? This argument seems to be "the over the table stuff goes down therefore the total goes down" which is faulty logic.
It would follow logically that it'd go down. It's like saying making murder illegal would only push murder under the table.
A company currently performs a simple mathematical equation when deciding to pay a ransom. Does the reputational and financial cost of not paying the ransom outweigh the price of the ransom? In a world where ransom payments were illegal, then those same companies would also have to include the legal penalties and probability of being caught as part of that equation.
Obviously, some companies would still see a net benefit in paying the ransom, but fewer would, so less ransoms would be paid.
It seems to me like you're trying to use 'war on drugs' logic on ransoms. The key difference is that companies don't want to pay ransoms, but do so out of necessity.
Sure, but what you’ll end up with is that the fewer people who still do it while is illegal are those in the most desperate and sympathetic sounding straits.
It’s like prostitution, if it’s illegal you find that most sex workers are the most vulnerable in society. When it’s not, sex workers can be anyone who doesn’t want to drive 6 hours for Uber on the weekend for extra cash.
I think you need to listen. There's little differences between Peter Serafinowicz as Fred Sassy and Trey Parker as Al Gore. There's tiny little mistakes in the voice. I think you need to watch it again, but this time watch with your ears. </s>
well you specifically said 2:30 tomorrow.. it sounds like it triggered at 2:30 next day
And never-mind the literal interpenetration of the command - it's far more usual to set up an alarm very early in the morning (got to catch a plane, unusual event) rather in the afternoon.
I think they don't have that return option because if Amazon were to present a return option that lets you signal sellers sending you counterfeit goods, that'd be tantamount to Amazon admitting they sell counterfeit goods.
They'd never sell you counterfeit goods, so that option on the pulldown doesn't even need to be there in the first place!?!? wink wink right?!? RIGHT??!
As someone who's received a counterfeit board game, I do have to say that they were exceedingly prompt in getting me a replacement item. I know it's probably an uphill battle, but I hope they're able to make some progress on that front.
