You don't appear to be claiming copyright as you state that you don't know if they copied code.
Are you saying that your prior art invalidates a patent? If so, would you mind pointing out what patent?
Otherwise, it just seems that you're claiming that you had a similar idea to one that someone at Anthropic had. That's not really something they have any need to acknowledge.
In my experience, legal and tax complexities are more than sufficient to restrict the countries that we have remote workers living in.
We work globally so practical things like timezones aren't really a factor; we have plenty of experience working around them. That even goes as far as things like personal security in locations that are particularly dangerous. In my line of work that usually means risk of kidnapping. It will be a factor we take into account but wouldn't usually be decisive.
Having said that, I have been involved in setting up multiple offices in new locations. But only where we're expecting to have a significant presence over the long term. Essentially, where we can amortise the costs of legal and tax expertise.
Source: reasonably senior executive at a very large, global financial organisation.
It could of course. It can do pretty much any pattern matching it likes. But I doubt very much it would because that pattern is way less common.
As the article points out, the XOR saves 3 bytes of instructions for a really, really common pattern (to zero a register, particularly the return register).
So there's very good reason to perform the XOR preferentially and hence good reason to optimise that very common idiom.
Other approaches eg add a new "zero <reg>" instruction are basically worse as they're not backward compatible and don't really improve anything other than making the assembly a tiny bit more human readable.
That'll definitely help. But you need a certain amount of forced re-distribution to reduce relative poverty significantly below 30% because it's defined as 60% of median.
Either that or find a way to significantly reduce the number of children that people in the bottom 30% are sprogging.
> why we define the Action as this object and why we should expect it to be minimised for the physical trajectory in the first place.
The most coherent explanation I've heard was from Feynnman [0]. As far as I understand it (and I may well not have understood it at all well), at the quantum level, all paths are taken by a particle but the contributions of the paths away from the stationary point tend to cancel each other. So, at a macroscopic level, the net effect appears to be be that the particle is following the path of least action.
> a proof of the equivalence to Newtonian mechanics
The Lagrangian method isn't really equivalent to Newton's method. Again, Feynman talks about this in [0]. It's that for a certain class of action, the Euler-Lagrange equations are equivalent to Newton's laws.
It's perfectly plausible to come up with actions that recover systems that represent Einsteinian relativity or quantum mechanics. This is the main reason (as I understand it) why it's considered a more powerful formalism.
Sure but, in fairness, the HN title is a bit misleading. The paper says that the bodies are emitting light in the visible part of the EM spectrum not that the light is visible. And the intensity isn't really high enough to see the light without instruments.
It means that the current system provides free child care if your household income is less that 4x the federal poverty level. The new scheme doesn't restrict by income.
> in the UK you can be detained for 36 hours without the right to a lawyer, or 48 hours for suspected terrorism cases
That's if you've been arrested which doesn't apply in this case. He was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act which allows up to 6 hours of detention without cause and up to an hour without legal advice.
> During that time, ...then your lack of answer can be used by a court to infer guilt
I don't believe that's true in the case where legal advice has been restricted by the police. As per PACE Code C. It is however true if you have legal advice or if you've refused legal advice.
Edit: This last bit wrt PACE Code C applies to someone who is arrested. Under Section 7 it can be a criminal offence to not answer the examining officer's questions, as Craig Murray mentioned.
Under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act you can be detained for up to an hour without access to legal advice. That's very likely why they were so diligent in keeping it to an hour.
Let me know which banks you've worked at with this attitude. I just want to check I have no accounts with them.
This most definitely is not the view taken at the financial companies I've worked in/with including a number of banks.
They take internal security very seriously. There's the obvious threat of some form of break-in (no-one I know seriously believes that an unbreachable connected system is buildable). But there's also the issues of insiders taking stuff, Chinese walls and regulatory restrictions on access. It simply doesn't make economic sense to take security lightly any more.
Indeed not. The first ever electric motor was an axial flux motor built by Michael Faraday in 1821. It's definitely not a new idea.