This would be HTR (Handwritten Text Recognition) not OCR and HTR is a lot harder than OCR especially for modern scripts (i.e. student's scrawls). And at every error the reviewer now needs to check if it was due to an error in the code or due to a bad HTR somewhere in the code.
I'd say compared to just typing the code on a disconnected computer: Not worth it.
I like the law because you can quite easily formulate it without bias.
Large enough orgs will indeed get people whose job is more closely aligned with the goal vs people whose job is more closely aligned with the existence of the org. _Because_ you need to keep investing energy to keep the org in existence. You can’t just do the goal only.
But being responsible for keeping the org in existence is not the same as responsible for the goals that the org was created for in the first place.
_and_ I can see how the people whose job it is to ensure the org keeps existing will gain the majority vote.
It’s like a law of nature: the way things fall out if you’re not consciously working to have them fall out differently.
(So it can be good for google to fire them from a “let’s keep existing standpoint” even though it might be contrary to having the easiest/optimal to use product. And if that is so, the keep existing vote will have the power) I don’t use google products really that much so I can’t speak to the merits of this example.
To be fair schema.org and dublin core say “when a property is name ‘title’ it means …” and you can expect to find the following properties…
Json-ld says: if you want to know whether the “title” property means the schema.org or the dublin core variant then you can find out which it is by <json-ld algorithm>
So you’d always use json-ld _with_ schema.org or something.
You’d end up implementing your own home grown version of hash join and query pushdown (skipping parquet row groups entirely) etc and your own home grown heuristics in selecting the right one (planning)
Which can outperform a generic solution like this of course, but it’s not less work to make faster for most cases.
Also duckdb can give you access to an in memory representation (e.g. `fetch_arrow_table()`) so you have less “language data structure wrapping” overhead. And you can do filtering yourself on that. In most cases the “where” statements will win though.
They do actually. There’s a fair bit of critique you can level at the system from a country-wide economic perspective and especially from a world-trade perspective, but they did manage to get a system in place where a central government can influence both the area and speed of innovation.
The main thing they do is stack the market to be very favourable for a given industry and then have extreme competition between the companies.
Discrimination is just another word for “treating differently”. The discrimination that we generally disallow is the one where it relates to humans and where they are treated differently based on attributes they have no control over. That were either an accident of birth or faith (which is special cased as something you should not put pressure on).
When estinating a loan default, even of 99 people with a purple skin color default on a loan, the hundredth should not be expected to default on the loan just because of the skin color. Both because this is scientifically wrong (it’s not the skin color that causes them to default. There’s a confounding variable) and because it would put someone in a position that they can never get out of.
So the answer to your question is simple: you make a model where the attributes are causal factors for loan default. And you might need to special case attributes that are an accident of birth but that list is finite (listed in the law) and short and generally constructed to exclude strong causal variables.
yes, that's where a conference was held that kickstarted the group that drafted this declaration.
> In September 2025 the Lorentz Center at Leiden University in the Netherlands hosted a conference entitled Mechanization and Mathematical Research. The around 60 participants from 10 countries comprised mathematicians, computer scientists, philosophers, historians and social scientists, including those with experience in industry and in government.
Before backbone there was already knockout.js which was based on signals. Which is what all the hip frameworks are converging on now anyway. You could have bypassed all the drama.
You want an idp who verified that the account belongs to a specific citizen. There needs to be some loop closing between your bsn (akin to a social security number) and user accounts. That in itself is not something you can just handoff to auth0 or that you want different departments to self select and self-host.
Digid is used to submit taxes and for getting benefits from the government.
It’s mostly the same. But if you realize you forgot to add something to the dirst commit while you’re putting stuff in the second commit then this avoids having to create a fixup commit and then rebasing that afterwards.
It’s actually worse than that. It wasn’t always whole coubtries who decided to adopt (or not) but cities and sometimes people within cities (i.e. the protestants in the city would be lagging, or maybe I’m misremembering and this was about people who where abroad)
In any case, for awhile, the date you picked depended on who you were writing to. And then also the relative standing. If he was of much lower standing you might force your own calendar on them.
Also, I think with the previous calendar it was always a bit debatable what year december belonged to. I can’t quite remember the details.
Where I live the municipality generally has people (money-coaches) to help. Maybe just go over to yours and see what help
there is? In general, when you’re in a bad place the advice would be to go off the internet and towards actual humans I think.
One of my favourite (dutch) children’s books is “400 degrees in the shade” which explores exactly that. A human colony sticking to the terminator. (It’s quite dystopian though)
I'd say compared to just typing the code on a disconnected computer: Not worth it.