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?
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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).
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.)
As with race conditions, making things faster doesn't change things but only exposes preexisting problems. The preexisting problem I see here is sloppy definition of existence for the message: if you can see the message on a burning piece of paper, it should be considered to still exist (just as a message being sent with smoke signals does not disappear the moment it's committed to smoke).
E: The obvious way to fix this is to stop talking about messages existing/not existing, but talk in terms of messages being stored in X (or having been deleted from X), for some value of X.
HOAs require more than (or a very specific extension of) freedom of association to exist: they require an ability to bind any future owners of a piece of land to join the HOA (regardless of how they acquired that land: via sale, inheritance, bankruptcy, ...). For property that's not real estate that's usually not possible (see e.g. inability of companies to provide binding promises on how the data they have are used after they go bankrupt). Given that this ability applies very inconsistently across types of property, it doesn't seem like an essential part of freedom of association.
To steelman the GP's POV: there are other parts of solutions to problems where similar levels of rigour are required and cannot be filled in by using a preexisting library (state machines for distributed business logic come to mind as an example). Eliminating the need for that here doesn't help that much in general, and might even make things worse, because it gives people less experience with tasks demanding rigour before they tackle ones that are both subtler and harder.
I have a power meter that sits in front of my kettle (that I also use as a teapot) that notifies me when the tea has finished brewing (i.e. when it finished boiling + a fixed delay).
I don't see why subjective morals cannot be realistically followed. Do you mean that it will mean sufficiently different things for different people that they any promise of this shape will not communicate much to strangers, or something else?
> The only variable inside its own table is yolAbejyiejuvnup=Evjtgvsh5okmkAvj, which in this context serves as a kill switch.
This seems false? The trie contained also strings like `WAYLAND_DISPLAY=`, so IIUC the backdoor would remain dormant if someone tried to run sshd from something that looks like an interactive session.
I don't understand what happens when the sensor is bent in more than one location.
At the beginning you mention a ToF sensor, which made me think that you're looking at reflections from the bends and measuring distance to them, but this seems not to be the case. ISTM that if you bend the sensor in two places, you'll simply get the sum of the logattenuations from both. If we assume that the "strength" of the bend continuously changes attenuation, ISTM that you need as many strands as there are gap locations to be able to disambiguate between any two sets of bends.
Am I misreading something or is this intended to operate in cases where we know only one bend is present?