Why do you think that this other kind of accountability (which reminds me of the way captain's or commander's responsibility is often described) is incompatible with what the article describes? Due to the focus on necessity of manual testing?
There's a lot of pedantry here trying to argue that there exists some feature which doesn't need to be "manually" tested, and I think the definition of "manual" can be pushed around a lot. Is running a program that prints "OK" a manual test or not? Is running the program and seeing that it now outputs "grue" rather than "bleen" manual? Does verifying the arithmetic against an Excel spreadsheet count?
There are programs that almost can't be manual, and programs that almost have to be manual. I remember when working on PIN pad integration we looked into getting a robot to push the buttons on the pad - for security reasons there's no way of injecting input automatically.
What really matters is getting as close to a realistic end user scenario as possible.
Even if the situations are noticed and seen fully, does it cause the schools to not punish the victim? The stories I've heard about zero tolerance policies were that _even when the situation was fully obvious_, victims got punished because they took part in an altercation.
The video evidence is just one piece of the puzzle that is needed to help administrators properly adjudicate conflicts, and to help the public hold the administrators accountable.
If the rot is so deep that even who was right and who was wrong does not matter, then that is a separate issue that members of the public need to sort out with each other.
Why? You just need to choose electronics that doesn't use micro mechanical designs that would be damaged by helium. (Or are you pointing at some other reason?)
One possible reason (not the GP so I don't know if this is theirs) is that there's a finite amount of helium available, so using it for this sort of use case depletes it for others.
Personally I think a hydrogen version would be hilarious but others might disagree...
I was about to argue that surely the consumption of helium in balloons must be tiny compared to industrial use, but apparently it makes up 5-10% of all helium consumption? That is a magnitude more than I thought, and certainly nothing to ignore for a finite and irreplaceable resource that we need for stuff like MRI machines.
The larger issue for most quantum key exchange setups is the transition from classical to quantum: you want not to accidentally generate two unentangled photons in the same secret polarization.
The reason why it's not so simple is that various operations on the cube do not commute (whereas rotations of different wheels on a combination lock do).
Yes indeed, I realized that it was way more complicated than what I initially imagined.
When I first read the article, the sequence of subgroups that were described evoked that image of a combination lock to me:
< UR >
< U, R >
< U, R, D >
< U, R, D, L >
< U, R, D, L, F >
The behavior of the basic operations on the cube reminds me of the product of quaternion base vectors (i,j,k). For instance, the product of i and j would yield either k or -k depending on the order of i and j. I think the point I wanted to make is that on a combination lock, each operation on a wheel only affect that wheel, not the others, so one cannot produce another operation by combining several of them, like what we see with quaternions. However, on the cube, it is often possible to go from one combination to another by different sequences of different operations.
But that may not matter much, if all we care about is going through every possible combination exactly once, just like what one does when using gray code on binary numbers (which is why I alluded to that in my other post), and that for that purpose we can find a set of sequences of operations - let's call them large operations - that are orthogonal (and thus emulating the rotating wheel aspect of the combination lock). I suppose that these subgroups represent the large operations. The problem you bring up now is that these large operations are not commutative, and so finding a correct way to apply them to build the circuit is more involved than simply spinning the wheels on a lock.
Is that correct?
Edit: I just had a first look at cayley graphs on wikipedia, and they use quaternion rotations as an example!
I think you are on the right track (sorry, I did not verify all the individual statements). If you weren't already aware of them, you might wish to learn what normal subgroups are, see how you can have a subgroup that's not a normal subgroup (and probably see what cosets are at the same time), and see how does dividing a group by a normal subgroup (to yield a group) work and what properties it has.
At a society level, ads are paid for with the opportunity cost of other things that people could be thinking about, e.g. cancer-curing drugs. We can therefore say that ads cause cancer.
Both are at the cost of a generally more tranquil and quiet environment. I would take the most boring, crack-filled and grayest concrete wall over someone else’s messaging whether it is paid for or the agency’s own propaganda.
One of the reasons that people like many tourist destinations is that many tourist destinations forbid most outdoor advertising. It's subtle, probably many tourists don't even realize it, but it changes the entire feel of a place.
I don't see why one has to create the actor-actor relation table. I would rather search for shortest paths in the bipartite graph where nodes are movies and actors, and divide the results by 2.
I wonder if they intend to measure pressure and display altitude difference (or at least its sign) at some point. (That could be very helpful when skiing.)
