But that’s not what’s happening here - the model here is that every piece has a uniform probability of being selected next, in which case every possible subsequence appears in the limit.
There are a number of things that make code hard to reason about for humans, and combinatorial complexity is just one of them. Another one is, say, size of working memory, or having to navigate across a large number of files to understand a piece of logic. These two examples are not necessarily expensive for computers.
I don't entirely disagree that there is code that's objectively difficult to work with, but I suspect that the Venn diagram of "code that's hard for humans" and "code that's hard for computers" has much less overlap than you're suggesting.
> People from Sydney who move to London come to hate it, once the novelty wears off, just as they would with New York
Just sharing a different perspective, I'm from Sydney and have lived in all 3 and don't agree with this generalisation. I know plenty of Sydney-raised people who've lived in London or New York for decades, love those places, and don't plan to move back to Sydney any time soon if at all.
In this arrangement you don’t yet own the deferred compensation when you leave the company. It does not belong to you. Instead your contract with the company might say “we will set aside an amount of money (which isn’t yet yours) and portion it out to you for 1-2 years after you leave, conditional on you not joining a competing firm in that period. If you join a competing firm, we will stop paying you.” Alternatively, the company will just pay you your full salary (plus maybe a fraction of what you used to get in bonus) for this period.
Essentially you’re being paid an income not to work for the competition. Most people take this deal as it tends to be pretty good — think several hundred thousand dollars for you to take an extended holiday or work on personal projects.
If you do take a competing offer during the non-compete period, the company might also use legal action against you, which is another story entirely and one whose threat most people would prefer to avoid.
What a bizarre take. Who do you work with? The majority of people I’ve worked with of all ages at various companies default to all-lowercase in casual communication, including some of the most intelligent and expressive people. As the other commenter said, it’s perceived as friendlier and more casual. Messages with capitalisation and completely correct grammar in these settings comes off as stilted and corporate.
As other commenters have said, this could be burnout. In my personal experience, improving from burnout requires two things: an extended break from anything mentally demanding (preferably more than a month, but at least a few weeks), and a change in circumstances when you return (whether it’s a different team, different job, different project, etc). Both are necessary. If you just take a holiday without changing up your work, then you’ll spend the whole time dreading returning to the usual grind. It’s important to have something different to look forward to when you return. While you’re away, you can think about your work and whether you genuinely find it rewarding.
A lot of people go through this. I’ve been through it twice, and both times it felt like it hijacked my brain. It probably feels like you’re doing something wrong or you’re a bad employee, but most likely you’re just in a temporary rut.
Any name can contain a space. For example "Ana Maria" is a common first name which contains a space. On official documents, generally a name will be separated into a given name and surname. In this case "<A> <B C>" and "<A B> C" are considered separate names.
Source: I have a space in my name and some of my different identity documents have the name as "<A> <B C>" or "<A B> C", which causes all sorts of administrative problems.
If an investor wants returns that are orthogonal to the market or that avoid exposure to specific factors, then ETFs aren't really an option. This is why pension funds etc. will have some investments in index funds but will also diversify into hedge funds and alternative investments.
Hedge funds and related investment vehicles aren't for most people, but they do perform an important function in the markets. Not everyone can invest passively -- someone has to actually enable price discovery.
As another commenter mentioned, your description of type #2 clubs in London misses the mark completely, and I suspect you aren't actually aware that type #2 clubs as described actually exist (which is fine - many people outside the scene won't know about them).
A hen or stag party would not be allowed in. The few tourists who are there are generally there becaus they know the scene and came specifically for the night. These aren't venues that you'd stumble into on a drunken night out. They're often holes in the wall in quiet-ish streets in Tottenham or Hackney or Elephant & Castle, and you generally have to buy a ticket for 15-25GBP in advance.
Slimelight is truly special. There was a period of a few months where I'd go almost every Saturday night. That dancefloor is really something special at 5 or 6am, like being on another planet.
Sadly it's still mostly quiet these days (well now it's completely quiet, but pre-Covid it was also quiet). But I went to one of their birthdays two or three years back and it was packed. London's whole goth scene descended on it.
Where in the UK are you? In London the type 2 clubs (Fabric, Village Underground, Oval Space, Pickle Factory, Corsica Studios, The Cause, Egg, E1, etc.) only open their doors around 23:00, and it'd be weird to show up before midnight - the place would be deserted. Peak time is 1:30-3:30am. At some of these places, almost everyone is on drugs.
I feel like there are at least two very distinct notions of "nightclub" (not counting gay clubs), and in online discussions people generally talk past each other without realising they're referring to very different things. I see this happening already in this comment section - the clubs some of you are talking about have nothing to do with the ones being discussed in the article. Let me quickly list the attributes of the two main categories of club:
1) Dressing up in a button-down or a suit or a dress and high heels. Sitting down at tables around $300 bottles of Grey Goose. Pop music, hip-hop, electrohouse. Crowd is mostly straight, most attendees are there with the intention of meeting a sexual partner. You stay for 1-3 hours, mostly talk and get wasted and dance a bit.
2) Dressing in casual clothing or streetwear-oriented fashion with comfortable shoes for dancing. Few or no tables - the dancefloor is the primary attraction. More drugs than drinks. Crowd skews alternative with strong LGBT presence. People are there for the music, which is generally repetitive electronic music, house or techno or DnB etc. You stay for 3-8 hours, mostly dancing and talking to friends, drinking but probably not getting drunk.
This article is mostly discussing the second category, but I'm not sure how familiar American readers will be with this style of club - my understanding is that it's primarily a European phenomenon, with outshoots in some key non-European cities (NYC, Detroit, Sao Paulo, Tokyo to name a few). These clubs are closer in concept to American raves, except at dedicated club venues. These spaces have historically been incredibly important for minority communities (queer, black, latino) also for musicians. They foster the cutting-edge of underground electronic music, which eventually filters down to shape the next generation of radio pop. Berghain, the club mentioned at the start of the article, is the prototypical example of such a venue.
I don't care for the first category of clubs and I don't attend them, but it would be a huge loss to culture if the second style of club disappears. It was already struggling pre-Covid, with many clubs in London doubling as event spaces or art spaces during the day in order to raise more money.
This doesn't mean that the original funds didn't exit the positions. It's likely that there are many new participants who are taking short positions in the last few days because the stock is obviously overvalued.