> If we would guess that there is a bias in the distribution based on recently seen elements, the guess is at least as likely to be wrong as it is to be right.
This is true for abstract and random data. I don't think it's true for real world data.
For example, python's sort function "knows nothing" about the data you're passing in. But, it does look for some shortcuts and these end up saving time, on average.
The name for the color doesn’t exist before the name. But, you can distinguish all sorts of colors you don’t know the name for. Look at a smooth color wheel or a wall of paint swatches.
The provided rights are called positive rights, and the not infringe rights are called negative rights. Freedom of speech is a negative right and a right to legal counsel is a positive right.
More directly than the other comments: No you can’t solve for x and y here and yes your intuition is wrong.
These are functions. I don’t know your level of knowledge in math or programming and what that would mean to you. Here’s an example.
double(x) -> x*2
So, double(3) = 6. You can’t solve for x because x doesn't have a value. It’s a placeholder for whatever you put in.
These combinators are functions that take other functions and return them unmodified. “Unmodified” is a little misleading because it can do things like drop inputs.
It’s pseudorandom. It’s predictable in theory because if you had another watch, or an amazing sense of time, you could predict it. Is that realistic? Not really.
Computers use their clock to generate pseudorandom numbers all the time (hehe). It’s great randomness for something like shuffling songs or a sorting algorithm. You don’t want to use it with some “adversarial”, like online poker.
> “It looks like” concisely signals that you have a good faith belief in your diagnosis but are not certain.
A lot of people never get past this level of sureness, so the signal is lost (or at least compressed). You can ask them for a number from a digital display and they’ll say it “looks like 54”.
One way to rectify the idea that these messages have signal (which I agree with) and what the article says is that it’s declaring bankruptcy on additional context. The extra text has so little value it’s worth removing as a rule.
Woah, you can sell it back to them? That’s normally the line that isn’t crossed. You sell it at the store next door (pachinko) or on the open market (trading card games and digital items).