In fairness, that sounds apocryphal. If it were really common then there would be no money in doing it because the market would have factored in days before the event the fact that the price were going to fall.
It might be the reason that Apple are infringing on the patent is that they are selling, not just using, a product which contains something which infringes the patent.
If the two larger circles had that ratio then it would imply that the two circles in the bottom left and bottom right would have the same radius. Which they don't appear to. So the ratio between the two larger circles must be slightly smaller, 1.5ish maybe.
I'm not really sure what you mean. If company X allows customers to pay for goods/services with bitcoins then they would be able to pay the wages of their employees using the bitcoins.
> Can someone else explain, why i'd take time off of work to do this job interview? Why not take a day off and interview with Google/Apple/Microsoft instead?
Surely it depends on the job. Maybe it's paying twice as much as Google/Apple/Microsoft for the same role.
But that's precisely the point, if they're all "highly logical" then in the island-wtih-3-brown-and-1-green case the person with green eyes can't correctly know their eye colour so can't kill themself. But they are in exactly the same situation as a person with brown eyes in the island-with-four-brown-people case. So if the green eyed person in the first case can't deduce their eye colour, then neither can the brown eyed person in the second case.
If you don't agree, please explain to me what extra piece of information the brown eyed person in the second case has which means he can kill himself on day four. As far as I can see they are both in the situation that they can see three people with brown eyes, and no one has yet killed themselves. What is the extra piece of information that allows the brown eyed person in the second case to deduce that he has brown eyes?
OK, so we agree that if there are X <= 3 people then they're stuck and cannot kill themselves.
You claim that if X = 4 and everyone has brown eyes then on day 4 they will all kill themselves. Suppose I am one of these islanders. I can see three people with brown eyes. On days one, two and three no one kills themselves. On day four I get up and kill myself because I know that I have brown eyes.
Fine, now let's consider the case where there are three people with brown eyes, and one person with green eyes:
As I think we've agreed above, the three people with brown eyes cannot infer that they have brown eyes (i.e. the X < 3 case). So they are not able to kill themselves.
But consider the green eyed person: he can see three people with brown eyes and no one kills themselves on days one, two or three.
He is in exactly the same situation at this point as the brown eyed person we considered in the four-brown-eyed-people case. So at this point, by your logic, he must know that he has brown eyes. Which is a contradiction.
I think you are wrong that induction is not involved in establishing eye colour. (unless you can convince me in the X = 4 case that is :) ).
This isn't a problem I'm unfamiliar with it, a colleague asked me it when I was being interviewed for my current job, and it gets rediscussed periodically. I really do think you're wrong I'm afraid.
Suppose instead of being 900 brown eyed people there are X brown eyed people.
Suppose X is one, then the brown eyed person appears to be stuck, all the blue eyed people are dead so he knows he doesn't have blue eyes, but he can't determine what colour his eyes are (are they brown?, are they green?).
If X is two then we're left with two people after all the blues are dead. Each one can see a brown eyed person, but again, this doesn't help them determine what colour their own eyes are. Again, why can they not be green?
The case for X>2 seems similar to the case for X=2, there's no magical point at which they can suddenly all say 'I don't have green eyes, I must have brown eyes'
With all respect, I think you are underestimating the problem. :)
You originally said that the people with brown eyes would commit suicide after 900 days. Can you explain to me how any of them can know for sure that they don't have green eyes?
> It's only a short reprieve though; because either the browns know that only two colours exist (and so on day 100 immediately know they are brown) or they face the same conundrum as blue, and commit suicide on day 900.
In the case where they aren't told that only two colours exist, why would they kill themselves on day 900? Suppose instead that one of the brown eyed people had green eyes, I don't see how the brown eyed people or green eyed person could deduce the colour of their own eyes.
I wouldn't really agree that it doesn't work out in practice. For the systems that I work on, the concept of privacy is extremely useful, perhaps we're doing things 'the wrong way' to believe that but I don't think that's all that likely.
What would you suggest as a better alternative, outside of a purely functional approach? Just as an example, suppose that Java's LinkedList class didn't have a cached size and that instead it went and iterated its elements to calculate its size each time someone asked for it. I might write a wrapper around LinkedList with two private variables, the LinkedList and an int to cache its size in. Then I would update the int each time an operation was performed on my member list. If I can't make those two members private, how can I ensure that no one accidentally updates the list without updating the size, or vice-versa. It mightn't be an unreasonable mistake for someone to think calling mylist.size = 0 would empty the list. What is the 'safe' way of constructing this concept?
I'd have to politely disagree; if your class has mutable state and you want to maintain some invariant relationships amongst the elements of your class then as far as I can see you really need to be able to specify that some operations can only be performed within the class. If your class is immutable then I'd agree that in most cases privacy offers you few benefits.
I haven't followed the story that well, and only skim read this article, but there was a four-ish hour outage in the morning last week. I think the LSE came up OK for about half an hour but then went down (although it might not have come up at all; I can't remember). It seems unlikely that that was caused by data vendors not reporting end of day close prices correctly.
So they're not falling over themselves to fix a bug which no one has noticed for 10+ years, and which hardly anyone is going to hit in actual use. Maybe they're spending their time fixing problems which are actually affecting developers.
IntelliJ's IDEA IDE has excellent Scala integration in the Community Edition (i.e. the free version).
I've been working with Scala for about two years now and in my experience IDEA has always been ahead of Eclipse for Scala development. That being said I prefer IDEA for writing Java code too so this may just be personal preference.
Nope, you can only apply to one college at either Oxford or Cambridge per year (you can't apply to both universities, which probably makes sense as almost everyone who applied to one would probably apply to the other). There is a clearing system I think where if the college you apply to doesn't want you then other colleges can look at your application and choose to interview you, but I think that's fairly rare.