Since I work in a strongly typed languages the last two will fail to compile and are thus not worth the bother - those who don't have that luxury of course need to test the edge cases that apply to them. The first are maybe, in my experience they are rarely a problem, but we need to go from the abstract to the particular algorithm before we can have a discussion on if they are potentially a problem or not.
In compound noun phrases, nouns serve as adjective-like modifiers.
By the way, modifying compounds generally must not be plurals, to the extent that even pluralia tantum words like scissors and pants get forced into a pseudo-singular form in order to serve as modifiers, giving us scissor lift and pant leg, which must not be scissors lift and pants leg.
An example of a noun phrase containing many modifying nouns is something like: law school entrance examination grading procedure workflow.
The order among modifying nouns is semantically critical and different from euphonic adjective order; examples in which modifying nouns are permuted, resulting in strange or nonsensical interpretations, or bad grammar, are not valid for demonstrating constraintsa mong the order of true adjectives which independently apply to their subject.
For instance, red, big house is strange and wants to be big, red house. The house is independently big and red.
This is not related to why entrance examination grading procedure cannot be changed to examination entrance grading procedure. The modifiers do not target the head, but each other. "entrance" applies to "examination", not to "procedure" or "grading".
Did you read the second sentence of that paragraph? The same thing would happen with a legit adjective, like if the forum had been named "FinancialBets": "Guys, this is financial bets, not financial prudent hedges."
It's possible those arguments are correct. I wouldn't give up Google and SO, but I suspect I was learning faster when my first stop was K&R or a man page. There's a lot of benefit in building your own library of knowledge instead of cribbing from someone else's.
Of course no-one's stopping a junior from doing it the old way, but no-one's teaching them they can, either.
Not unless you wanna punch a nail in with your fist.
"AI" only does things we can do, because to do otherwise would be evidence against the general, human level intelligence that the marketing behind these abominations are so desperate for. The catch is they do it quicker, sometimes much quicker, but always much worse.
Nah, cranks post inscrutable incorrect proofs (and/or bizarre unified theories) to math forums regularly. They often lack the vocabulary to even format it in a way the community can read and correct.
I recall there was a mathematician that was cataloging all the 'squaring the circle' methods people kept mailing him (it's been proven to be impossible).
If their idea were legitimately revolutionary and they had the vocabulary to express it, they could simply publish.
Just a poor memory translation. Yeah, generally is incorrect - though I think the correct phrasing also implies an average age of natural death, rather than an upper bound. There were certainly plenty of people living past 80. In the aforementioned study of Ancient Greeks, there were at least 3 centurions - Aristarchos, Democritos, and Gorgias. Granted 1400BC is a thousand years yet prior to that already ancient time, but life peaks seem to be relatively unmoving for humans, and so I don't see any major reason to think there would have been a major difference between 400BC and 1400BC.
reply