[ Politics ] Open Question : Now dems claim Trump has called COVID-19 a “hoax”. We HAVE the VIDEO of what the President said and he did NOT say that. Can’t they grasp…?

…what modern technology allows us to do?  – That we can analyze what he said, realize he was calling their accusations a hoax and not the virus? – Do they have any idea why we just shake our heads in utter disbelief? –People, HERE is the quote: -“Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus, you know that, right? Coronavirus, they’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa.”  -“They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything. They tried it over and over. They’d been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning. They lost. It’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax.”

What can be said about complexity class of a problem if there exist a pseudo-polynomial verification algorithm?

Let X be a problem for which MILP formulation can be devised. Verifying the solution of the problem is known to be weakly NP-hard, i.e. pseudo-polynomial algorithm for verification exists. What can be said about complexity of problem X?

OD&D said it could be played with 20-50 players and one referee. How was that expected to work and still be fun?

Original D&D is often the shorthand name for the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons, Vol. 1, Men & Magic, written by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. The section on “Scope” has this quote:

Number of Players: At least one referee and from four to fifty players can be handled in any single campaign, but the referee to player ratio should be about 1:20 or thereabouts.

This is mindboggling to me that a campaign, not just a one-shot, is expected to be able to work with one referee (a precursor to a Dungeon Master) and up to 50 players, although admittedly not as ideal as one referee and 20 players, which still sounds ludicrous to me. I find 8 or 10 players for one DM to be especially challenging to work with, particularly as you are trying to gauge if everyone is having fun, and I can’t imagine how this many people would be a practical or satisfying experience.

If nothing else, this many players would be a problem in that if each player is working quickly and takes an average of 1 minute (and we don’t have delays like dice rolling off the table), you’re going 20-50 minutes between turns.

How was this size of group expected to work out and still be a fun experience for everyone?

Premium Pure CBD Oil recollect how I said there was two reasons

Premium Pure CBD Oil recollect how I said there was two reasons, the first is easy. goal to eliminate your lower lower back ache, not just relieve pain. alleviation manner simply that, transient relief. in case you do no longer use all four steps to accurate your back ache, you'll best have brief alleviation from back ache. short term alleviation happens due to the fact you can't perceive the motive. unless you're shown the…

Premium Pure CBD Oil recollect how I said there was two reasons

Why is it said that typeclasses are existential?

According to this link describing existential types:

A value of an existential type like ∃x. F(x) is a pair containing some type x and a value of the type F(x). Whereas a value of a polymorphic type like ∀x. F(x) is a function that takes some type x and produces a value of type F(x). In both cases, the type closes over some type constructor F.

But a function definition with type class constraints doesn’t pair with the type class instance.

It’s not forall f, exists Functor f, ... (because it’s obvious not every type f has instance of Functor f, hence exists Functor f ... not true).

It’s not exists f and Functor f, ... (because it’s applicable to all instances of satisfied f, not only the chosen one).

To me, it’s forall f and instances of Functor f, ..., more like to scala’s implicit arguments rather than existential types.

And according to this link describing type classes:

This proposition is of existential nature (not to be confused with existential type)

What’s the difference between type classes and existential types, and why are they both considered “existential”?

[ Politics ] Open Question : Meghan Markle has said she will not meet Donald Trump on his State Visit to UK.Should US & UK women applaud this?Should we men, also applaud?

It is a risky thing to do – she’s a new entry to the Royal family, but sets herself on a collision course that could affect the future UK’s Royal family relationship with the USA.

[ Politics ] Open Question : Once Trump’s dementia becomes undeniable, will his disciples still be proud of parroting everything he said as gospel truth?

He’s showing signs of it now, you know! https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/09/does-donald-trump-have-dementia-we-need-know-psychologist-column/3404007002/ More evidence, from almost a year ago, excerpt from his Montana rally: “I have broken more Elton John records, he seems to have a lot of records. And I, by the way, I don’t have a musical instrument. I don’t have a guitar or an organ. … No organ. Elton has an organ. And lots of other people helping. No we’ve broken a lot of records. We’ve broken virtually every record. Because you know, look I only need this space. They need much more room. For basketball, for hockey and all of the sports, they need a lot of room. We don’t need it. We have people in that space. So we break all of these records. Really we do it without like, the musical instruments. This is the only musical: the mouth. And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth. Right? The brain, more important than the mouth, is the brain. The brain is much more important.” https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-goes-on-nonsensical-rant-about-elton-john-organs-and-the-brain/ Lol. Nobody needs to parrot the mainstream media, or be any kind of a sheep, to see that Something is wrong here! I maintain the sheep are those that swallow everything Trump says as gospel truth! Trump did have a dementia test, yes. He had to draw a clock, repeat three numbers backwards, and recognize a camel. That screens out severe dementia, I guess, but is it strict enough for the leader of the country??