A warning IS graceful degradation, an error or unexpected behaviour would be ungraceful. The channel that warnings come over is separate from the channel the content is being rendered in and it shows, for those that look at it, that the system is degraded and an action would need to be done to restore it to a non-degraded state.
This is not about graceful degradation. An HTML document without any CSS should never be in a degraded state. It should be perfectly usable and perfectly well accepted.
I agree; a HTML document without CSS should be perfectly usable and OK (and ideally CSS should never be required; if CSS is disabled it ought to still work OK, too).
However, if CSS specifies some things and omits others that are related to it (one example is specifying the font size for one heading level but not another one; another example is specifying the background colour without specifying the foreground colour or vice-versa), then it makes sense to be a warning.
I can't articulate it and I could very well be on the wrong vibe, but this feels like the bad practice of relying on the failure mode within a try/catch for normal functioning.
We were seen as failing a security audit recently for having firefox installed on some of the development laptops and got ordered to remove it by IT who conceeded that it was stupid but had to check boxes for insurance is ISO standards.
This causes the majority of people to only be exposed to Edge/IE or Chrome at work, and use their phones the rest of the time.
SI doesn't have a prefix for 1x does it? Doe you'd need a non-SI like macro or meso, or just to jump from milli to kilo.
Or call it Editor One or just Editor.
NJW posits that Real Numbers and Set Theory are based on the notion that it is possible to do an infinite number of calculations which he considers disingenuous.
He highlights in some of his Youtube videos that in respected Math textbooks the definition of real numbers is left vauge.
In his opinion set theory has the same kind of holes the we are expected to accept that we can add an infinite quantity of things to a Set by describing a function or simply having a desciption of the elements of the Set.
The gist of the argument is that addition + other operations on non-computable numbers (which the real numbers contain) require infinite algorithms or something similar (unlike addition on computable irrational numbers which may require infinite work, but the algorithms are finite). You can therefore get situations where, say, the tenths digit in a sum of non-computable numbers is not defined because of potentially infinite carries, and there's no way to determine if the sequence of carries terminates or not. He discusses the problem in the context of different representations of real numbers, including infinite decimals, cauchy sequences, and dedekind cuts etc. This is just the gist of it.
This is different than saying the definition of the reals is “vague”. The models and various definitions are not vague. They are as precise as the axioms of Euclidean geometry or any other axiomatic system. His objections are reasons why he doesn’t like the axioms. One can either accept or reject the axiomatic system but it isn’t vague.
ZFC models the set of real numbers, but only provides a model for a measure-zero amount of specific individual real numbers. It just says "yeah they exist".
People like Wildberger believe that anything that exists in math should have some way of determining its exact value, otherwise, what is "it"?
That I understand. I objected to the idea that the theory was vague rather than that the theory contains objects that are vague. Even so, if one thinks the theory contains vague objects then we run into considerations such as the following:
The etymology of invent has the terms 'contrived' and 'discover' baked in.
if we take the contrived root, rather than just dead-ending to say that invent is synonymous with discover,
we find that it is rooted in the ability to 'compare' and 'imagine'.
From this we can then formulate the opening statement.
Is the time difference between the neutron experiment results due to time dilation? One of them had the neutrons moving at high speed, I.e. In a particle beam.
No. Well, sort of. The time difference has to do with how you store free neutrons. Different conditions suppress, to varying extents, the possible energy states of the vacuum field.
Just as in the Casimir experiment it was demonstrated that opposed conductive plates are attracted with a force that results from the suppression of vacuum energy states between them, so must the decay of the neutron be modulated by the vacuum field.
If you contrive the storage system to suppress the vacuum energy to a greater extent, the field will interact less with free neutrons and they will live a little longer. Likewise, the more possible energy states, the shorter they live.
This effect is apparent because the free neutron is quite unstable and short-lived. It is readily affected by the particle-antiparticle pairs that are always popping into and out of existence in the vacuum.
Protons, which are very stable and last a long time, show the same effect, but you would be long dead by the time you observed it. So not a practical experiment.
Why does a radioactive element decay at a particular time? Why is it random? Why is Schroedinger's cat a superposition of alive/dead with no way of predicting which one until you observe it and collapse the wave equation?
The answer to all of these is the same. The background state of the universe is chaotic. It visibly affects things that are unstable, while not having much effect on things that are stable.
The faster something is moving, the more mass it has. The more mass, the less it is affected by the vacuum field. This is the mechanism of time dilation. Increased mass, decreased size, increased density, surrounded by mass, all of these contrive to suppress the interaction of the vacuum field with an object by limiting the possible states it can occupy.
The outcome looks to us like order, but it's not. Everything is randomness and chaos.
Newton's laws are approximations because they apply simple math to chaos. Likewise, general relativity is a geometric theory applied to a chaotic universe. It's a good approximation of what we see, but it's only an approximation. No geometric theory can explain something that is fundamentally chaotic.
The article mentions generating a beam from a reactor core, in which case for a 'Fast Neutron' reaction they would have 2 or 3 MeV, and be travelling at on the order of about 10% of the speed of light. That's fast, but far below the level at which any time dilation effect would be significant.
Spoken like someone who only knows one natural language.
As the article stated all languages are about communication. Each language has its own syntax (ie words and word order) but the concept of a rose or money is the same, the concept of an action is the same as is the concept of a pronoun otherwise people would not be able to translate between languages. The semantics of a language are often tied up in the culture of the language.
When it comes to computer languages similar principles are at play. The concept of a list or array or matrix of values is common across a wide variety of language types for OO to Functional to Declarative. As is the concept of IO. The need to communicate with something outside of the program. The fact that some languages point out the and IO operation is about to occur does not mean that the paradigm does not use or need them.
In short: Speak English when you are in Britain, yorkshire when in Yorkshire, cockney when in London, and Mandarin when in China. Use the appropriate language for the task at hand or get an interpreter.
I speak four natural languages. I don't love the analogy, because I think differences between computer languages are more significant than differences between natural languages. That said, there are still more differences than just who you can speak with. Example off the top of my head: if you think in Mandarin, the future is behind you and the past is in front. You mention actions being the same, but the way you think about actions will be very different if you think in a language with few tenses (Mandarin) compared to one with many (Romance languages).
Obviously both computer languages and natural languages have some things in common, but they also have significant differences.
