I'm not stating that they should be. I first want to make sure this is not just a question of the "Real ID". I can think of a couple of reasons that would throw a wrench in the works:
- passengers on no-fly lists or criminals
- anyone who is underage -- do we let 10 year-olds fly alone? how do you assess age without ID? what if the child gets lost while traveling, and you can't even determine whether the child boarded their flight or not? (if you attach ID to the ticket, then that just seems like ID with extra steps? I could be missing something)
- baggage claim: if there is no link between ticket and person, what's to stop me from claiming anyone's luggage as my own?
I'm not firmly attached to any of these objections, actually -- and perhaps they're not even issues, because I'm missing something fundamental about the assumption. I admit my personal bias is that "taking a plane = passport" even when traveling domestically (I'm not a US citizen), so I have not thoroughly considered the possibility that "taking a plane = taking a bus".
I think this is where my confusion lies. It seems like many people are saying no ID of any kind -- passport, "real ID", driver's license, ... -- should be provided, period. So ostensibly a 10 year-old could show up at the airport and decide to travel on their own (and if we only ID "young-looking people" then we get into a similar discussion as to why one should always ask for proof of age when buying alcohol).
To be clear, I'm refraining from judgment on this (despite what the downvotes seem to suggest), I just want to make sure I'm understanding the distinction is not plain driver's license vs. Real ID. I don't like it very much that I have to show my ID (such as passport or European ID card) when I'm on a train in Switzerland. It seems like the majority perspective is that we shouldn't _at all_ be controlling the ID of people who get on a plane, and that's just interesting to me (it would force me to articulate what the difference is between a plane and a train ride).
I think I must be confused, but after reading many of the replies, I can't figure this out. Is the standard American perspective that one shouldn't have to show any form of identification to go through security, get on a plane, and travel anywhere within the United States? How does anyone associate your ticket to your identity?
Seconded. This looks like a fun toy, but it solves a problem that I don't have (and I believe I am the target audience). Modern typesetters are very good (e.g., TexMacs). There is also a limited set of characters by design, and I would have to remove my hand from my keyboard only for those.
I throw these quotes by Y. Oono into the mix because they provide viewpoints which are in some tension with those who take -\sum_x p(x) log p(x) definition of entropy as fundamental.
> Boltzmann’s argument summarized in Exercise of 2.4.11 just derives Shannon’s formula and uses it. A major lesson is that before we use the Shannon formula important physics is over.
> There are folklores in statistical mechanics. For example, in many textbooks ergodic theory and the mechanical foundation of statistical mechanics are discussed even though detailed mathematical explanations may be missing. We must clearly recognize such topics are almost irrelevant to statistical mechanics. We are also brainwashed that statistical mechanics furnishes the foundation of thermodynamics, but we must clearly recognize that without thermodynamics statistical mechanics cannot be formulated. It is a naive idea that microscopic theories are always more fundamental than macroscopic phenomenology.
I am a Canadian currently on an H1B visa, valid until November 2026. I can probably recapture time until early 2027. I just got an EB2-NIW approved, but my priority date is in August 2024, and currently we are serving people in Apr. 2023. It will take at least until next year until I can file my I-485 and get my GC.
I am wondering what my options are in case I need to find a new job. My understanding is that the EB2 doesn't help me much unless I can truly demonstrate that the new job continues to advance the national interest in the same way, and that any deviation from what I wrote in my application is grounds to deny the I-485.
In case I can't find a new job that fits the exact description I have on my EB2-NIW, and I have to move out of the US, can I still file my I-485 once my priority date becomes current (and therefore get a GC)?
Sure. I do algorithm development at a biotech company, it is 100% computational work. I am not a software developer by training, my background is in mathematics.
> but having to switch between IDE and Jupyter for code formatting seems like unnecessary overhead.
You're right about this. I don't love my setup (and have not put enough effort into optimizing it -- hence my reticence at learning Yet Another Tool), but the main reason I use notebooks is for objects that persist in memory. I can load up some huge dataset, keep it open, and jump back to it whenever I want over the next day/week/month without having to "reload" it (fetch data from some server and do processing).
I'd love a robust Jupyter-in-Sublime experience, where I have all the editing/hotkeys of Sublime along with this persistence of objects.
Quarto looks cool, might check that out. If there's any specific part of it you think is awesome, please do point it out. Thanks.
- Re: continuously running a notebook server, how about an alias in your ~/.*rc file that just launches a new JLab? Personally I don't find the startup time so high, so it doesn't seem to me 'startup time' is the strongest lead to sell the product. (Of course, if most people find that the startup of a notebook is indeed a large cost then it's a fine point to make. )
- Re: command palette, gotcha. As you say, classic notebooks are going away (and I haven't touched one in a while).
- Re: formatting, I take it back. You're right, there's been plenty of times I've wanted to have nicer formatting in a notebook/lab, that's nice.
I use Jupyter Lab every day on OSX in scientific/academic work, so I feel I am your target audience. In case it helps you gauge my impression, I spent about two minutes reading the post and scrolling through the website.
I feel I did not understand the main advantages of this notebook aside from the AI integration. I don't understand how "start-up" time is a cost; I have a Jupyter server running at all times and use it as a scratch-pad throughout the day, so it is always available.
I don't understand the "modern command palette". As far as I can tell all the commands are available to regular Jupyter Labs, and either way I always use hotkeys for them.
The code formatting using black isn't bad, but notebooks are for scratchy ideas, not real code. If I'm at the point of formatting code, it's going in an actual IDE. I'd even argue providing formatting inside of a notebook encourages bad habits for scientists, who prefer to stay entirely within a notebook, but are then sometimes unable to reproduce their results.
I don't see the advantage of the copy-paste; I can copy paste directly from Labs to Slack/online editing pages, and certain Latex typesetters.
Pros: it looks pretty, the site has nice demo videos (in terms of quality; I didn't understand the content).
I want to like this but I don't see any benefits for a power user except for the AI integration; if AI is the only selling point then I prefer to get it differently.
I like your formulation of this as a "distributed measurement problem", but I'm not sure I follow. Could you elaborate? Specifically, I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with the post you are replying to. Thanks in advance.
Could you demonstrate with an example how Ascii math is easier to read and takes less time and effort to type? The example on the main page,
sum_(i=1)^n i^3=((n(n+1))/2)^2
looks to me no less complicated than
\sum_{i=1}^n i^3=((n(n+1))/2)^2
so if the goal is it quickly communicate mathematics in plain text (without rendering), I see no difference. If the advantage is that the outer parentheses are automatically resized, why not write a renderer that uses Latex and puts \left, \right everywhere? Better yet, why not go straight to TeXmacs?
I'd love to see an example of a mathematical expression where Ascii math is visibly simpler than Latex and is not just about parenthesis resizing.
I think the statement that "You'll enjoy the music a lot more by adding the physical movement to it" is unlikely to apply to everyone, and may not even apply to a majority of people. Not because humans don't have a natural inclination to "move to the beat" (they might), but because a dance club may be much more intimidating for many people than, say, a music circle.
I don't think the comment was sarcastic or rude. They are pointing out the following inconsistency: you've basically attached "dx" to every integration sign, making the "dx" essentially irrelevant.
Moreover, "dx" does not mean "a small change in x". "dx" is a differential form; it is in particular the "d" operator applied to the function f : x --> x.
As I revisit your comment, I think the point Rota is making about physics notation -- which I _do_ agree with -- is that one should use density functions instead of measures, in general. So, for instance, using the Dirac "density"
\int f(x) \delta(x) dx
instead of
\int f(x) \mu(dx)
where \mu is a point mass at 0. This happens again in the context of stochastic differential equations, where mathematicians shirk away from writing dB_t = xi(t) dt, where xi(t) is "white noise". One can make sense of this in the sense of distributions, and then everything happens in a nice inner product space. Indeed, the physicists are much more competent at actual calculations, and the density representation of things (e.g., in terms of "xi") is very useful for those.
I think I am one of these mathematicians that doesn't understand the logic. How can I write μ(x)dx instead of μ(dx) without risking the confusion that dx is Lebesgue measure? You may have explained this in your other reply, but I don't quite follow.
I think I may share confusion with the other poster. I don't understand the following step:
> Then white would win (and in particular not lose) by skipping the very first move and then playing blacks strategy
I understand the other comment, that there do exist setups in which colors can be effectively switched by e.g. 1. e3 e5 2. e4, but that requires cooperation on black's part. How does white "skip" the first move? Thanks in advance.
Edit: it may be that the statement "without Zugzwang" implicitly (or perhaps by definition) means you are allowed to skip moves? If so, that clarifies my confusion.
- what if you're on a no-fly list? wanted criminals?
- underage?