If you shut it down for too long and there is a lapse in reopening it, planes are grounded for an extra bit of time.
If you shut it down for too short and there is a lapse in extending the grounding, planes are getting shot out of the sky (or whatever threat it was).
edit: I would add that maybe there are forms for shutting down airspace of various specific time lengths and a convenient time for something of unknown duration would be 10 days. 10 days might also be enough time to be sure whatever resources need to be brought to bear on this are available where an hour or day might not be. Shut it down basically indefinitely, or at least long enough that the crew who handles this extraordinary situation will be on hand to turn it off.
> There's so many things in games that are taken for granted at play time but which actually take a lot of thinking and work to get right.
I have a small list of these things in game dev. Over the years, I found some games that were more playable (in my opinion) than I thought they deserved to be. Kind of like a well written book with a bad story.
For me at least, the number one most important thing is how well the character -- person, car, spaceship, whatever -- moves. Does it handle well, as expected. I'm at the point where I think this may be the single most important aspect of a game that finds itself in a competitive space.
I think blizzard stands out for this with Overwatch and World of Warcraft. They avoid the jerky start and stops with their characters. Their characters feel both performant and natural at the same time, adhering to reality but breaking physics as necessary (air strafing for example).
Building out roads correctly feels like an offshoot of this for games which include cars. A car should be able to navigate a turn without going through weird contortions as it hits pinch points, or unnatural wiggles when roads join.
I'm of the opinion that the teen novel has stunted literature in general.
As a kid beginning to read in the 70's I jumped from what were clearly kids books to Lord of the Rings (pure chance -- I liked the cover). There wasn't that watered down in between. It was a jump to real books with real consequences (spoilers: Boromir dies).
I've witnessed the rise of the teen section and seen how kids -- who are reading less in general -- never leave it.
It feels like the fantasy adventure lends itself a lot more to these teen novels and has a knock on effect into the mainstream. I for one could do without anther book about someone born to be a prince(ss) up against the evil realm who can't choose their way out of their romantic triangle.
I'm not knocking anyone's choices. There are more books already than I'll ever read. But it should would be a blast to get another Dune out of nowhere.
I would posit that the issue lies not with YA novels or fantasy in general, but with the continuously declining sense of agency, opportunity, and self-realization among teens and adults. There are deep-seated needs that reality can increasingly no longer meet, which results in rising dependency on simplistic escapism.
I remeber reading tons of junk and pulp as a teen decades ago. If anything, the teen section is more complex then pure hero fantasies and repetitive scary stories that used to make the bulk of reading. Yes, lord of the rings was popular before and now. But the stuff people read en masse was not lord of the rings and certainly not some kind of smart complex stuff.
What used to be read a lot was literary equivalent of a sitcom or slash fantasy.
> What if we allow representations beyond plain data types? Since we want representations to remain computable, the most general kind of representation would be a program in some programming language. But the program must be small enough to fit in 64 bits.
If you bring in a whole programming language, you bring in a lot more than 64 bits. This all seems to be the math equivalent of saying you wrote a program in 2k when the first line is "import 'megalibrary'".
Juggling 3 is a skill that is way easier than people think until they do it. But the very next question is will be, "how many can you juggle?" as they apparently think juggling 4 is just 33% more difficult than 3.
It’s also fun that you can tweak it without the layperson even noticing the change in relative difficulty.
Cascade pattern = easy difficulty
Shower pattern = normal difficulty
Box pattern = hard difficulty
As someone who loves to run their hands up and down in the piano in grand sweeping arpeggios, I'm a huge fan of patterns where the perceived difficulty is higher than the actual difficulty.
For those wondering: to juggle 4 balls, you either have to decrease the time between catching a ball and throwing it again or increase the time a ball is in the air.
Unless you start throwing feathers or balloons, the latter requires you throw higher. That requires you to either spend more time launching them up (bad for the ‘decrease time between catching and throwing’) or use more force (bad for throwing accuracy.
Also, even assuming you juggle 4 balls keeping “time in hand” equal, you have to throw it higher by a factor of (4/3)². That’s almost 2.
And even if you manage to make those throws with the same accuracy in angles, the errors in location by the time you catch the balls scale by the same factor.
> you either have to decrease the time between catching a ball and throwing it again or increase the time a ball is in the air
I think you might be thinking of 5 ball juggling.
4 ball juggling (or at least it's most common variant, "The Fountain" [0]) is fascinating because it's really juggling two balls in each hand in a way that makes it appear similar to the standard cascade. Though this may sound "less hard" than what people initially imagine, it's a very different feeling than all the basics you learn using only 3 balls.
They're not wrong. Assuming alternating hands are doing the throwing (rather than both hands throwing a ball simultaneously), 4-ball patterns mean each ball is in the air for 4 beats, while 3-ball patterns only take 3 beats each.
And once one realises that many juggling patterns can be understood by the number of beats each ball takes to return to a hand, one can then think in siteswap (https://juggle.fandom.com/wiki/Siteswap).
In my experience people can’t even tell how many balls you’re juggling after 3. 4, 5, 6, 7 all get “how many balls is that”, silly stuff like 3 ball factory blows more minds than 5 ball site swaps
Also, with a three ball pattern, most of the time there's only a single ball in the air. With four, there are almost always two. The odds of a mid-air collision increase significantly, and go up as the number of balls increases.
That also forces you to have much more consistent throws which, as you note, gets harder because you also have to throw higher which scales up any error in the force you're applying.
The threshold rates for a lot of credits, deductions and exemptions are not. Like the Roth IRA is $153k for single, $242k for married. Child care credits have a similar problem if I remember correctly (or they did before my kids grew out of it).
Portland, OR metro gives a $125k threshold to single and only $200k to married filing jointly for supportive housing taxes, which is a 1% tax on income above the threshold.
I have no idea why households that tend to demand less housing (married usually live together) are charged more than singles, who typically demand their own housing at that income level. It makes no sense!
The thought being it's okay to steal from married households because they intentionally set themselves up for lower per partner overhead? Why don't we charge single taxpayers with roommates on the same schedule?
By living in a single house, a married couple demands less housing, which reduces the cost of housing against a fixed supply. Why are we taxing the people making housing cheaper under the guise of "affordable housing"? Shouldn't we treat affordable housing taxes like the carpool lane and reduce the burden of those that are reducing the burden on the constrained supply?
The other side of the voters has happily expanded the power of the executive for decades while demonizing those who would put in some restraint. Both sides do this and here we are. The people voting against Trump still gave him power, just not while he was in office.
I like having a gridfinity grid on my desk with a number of various sized boxes for at-hand storage of things like paperclips, tacks, pens, etc...
In the garage, I have one that I can slap down anywhere, with a couple boxes that I can load for the screws, nails, washers, nuts, and bolts, etc... used in my current project.
Having the grid makes the boxes sit firmly in place.
If you shut it down for too short and there is a lapse in extending the grounding, planes are getting shot out of the sky (or whatever threat it was).
edit: I would add that maybe there are forms for shutting down airspace of various specific time lengths and a convenient time for something of unknown duration would be 10 days. 10 days might also be enough time to be sure whatever resources need to be brought to bear on this are available where an hour or day might not be. Shut it down basically indefinitely, or at least long enough that the crew who handles this extraordinary situation will be on hand to turn it off.
reply