Casual sentences and mathematics/logic don't go very well together, and lead to ambiguities and interpretation if there are no clear rules defined beforehand. This reminds me of those silly problems that circulate on TikTok with a series of additions and multiplications. The "correct" result depends on how you assume the operations precedence. Here, does "being a liar" mean that we have to take as a true statement the negation of "all my hats are green"? If so, is that "NOT all my hats are green"? How does that translate back to the mathematics realm? Is it {total_hats>0, green_hats>=1}, or is it {total_hats>=0, green_hats>=0}?
The correct answer to almost all of these problems that play with the hierarchy levels between English and Math is "undefined". If you want to play in English, you get intrinsically sloppy, provisional, and context-specific answers, and that is effectively by design and a feature, and anyone who insists that there is only one answer is in error. Our languages work that way for good reasons; we see the costs of the occasional misinterpretations, but the benefits of language not requiring endless precise specifications for everything that is obvious in context is taken for granted.
By contrast, if you want to play in Math space, you need to be rigorous, and provide a Math-quality conversion.
If you refuse, what this reveals about the one posing the problem is that they themselves labor under the delusion that you can apply math rules to English, that there is exactly one and only one such mapping, that everyone should know and agree upon that mapping, and that is so true that you are justified in playing "gotcha!" games with people who don't know this nonexistent mapping.
It doesn't paint a terribly flattering picture of such people, in my opinion.
In the meantime, the rest of us should meditate a bit on "The Only Way To Win Is Not To Play The Game", because spiraling down trying to figure out the exact nature of the aforementioned nonexistent mapping is just a waste of time. There isn't one, so arguing it is just a waste of time and emotional energy. Pick a lane up front. They're both fine, but anything that functions by always choosing whichever lane maximizes the "gotcha!" in the moment is not worth spending time on.
Have you tried perl or are you just judging it based on strreotypes? The only weird syntax relative to something like JavaScript is $ at the front of variables.
There's a lot of funky syntax and features available but you do not have to use any of them. If you are writing a new script from scratch it is easy to make it look almost the same as JavaScript but with every variable having a $ on front.
Also, amber is a new indie language. Perl has way more resources. I assure you amber will be harder to master including God knows what bugs are in the compiler you'll have to encounter and work around.
maybe this is outdated prejudice at this point but I learned early that perl as a language is fine, right up until you need to deal with scripts someone else wrote. particularly scripts written in anger.
> There's a lot of funky syntax and features available but you do not have to use any of them.
The problem is that it's difficult to know which features you should use and which you shouldn't. And good luck enforcing your desired style if you're working with other developers (it's possible, but painful).
Perl is a highly complicated language with many sharp edges that catch out even experienced Perl devs.
The Perl ecosystem is also completely dead: modules languish with no updates, there is no decent tooling to speak of.
Of course, this new language also has no ecosystem. But maybe one day it will. Let's not stamp out its flame for no reason.
Perl was literally reborn with "Perl Best Practices". Perl::Critic has more rules that you'd ever wish for, Perl::Tidy is the most configurable code formatter there is. This had been true for 10-15 years already. Which part do you find painful and is this your idea of "no decent tooling"?
In what way is Latin powerful, compared to other languages? Or elegant?
I've had to learn a little Latin, because it's the root of half the English language, and I would not describe it this way at all. It's overly complex and arbitrary. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciati... article is full of tables of exceptions. Over its lifetime, they not only couldn't agree on pronunciation, but whether it had lower-case letters, whether to put spaces between words, or which direction to write it.
C is Latin. It's revered because of its age and the the works written in it. It was in the right place at the right time. Half the world who came after tried to make their own improved version, and those improved versions are the languages that are actually popular today.
What spoken language is powerful and elegant? When I was in college, a friend was taking a language (I think it was Swahili but don't quote me on that) that was so simple students learned all of the grammar in the first semester. Everything after that was just learning vocabulary and getting comfortable with it. Turkish has a completely 1:1 mapping of letters to sounds, and perfectly regular conjugation. Korean also has an extremely consistent writing system. Any of those seem more Lisp-like to me than Latin.
> a language that was so simple students learned all of the grammar in the first semester.
Natural languages tend to be similar in complexity, which tends to increase to the bounds placed by a child's ability to learn. Languages with simpler grammar often have eg. more complex phonetic systems. For instance, mandarin is "simple" in that it doesn't have conjugations or tenses, but it's complex in that it has tones. Likewise, Turkish has vowel harmony.
> Korean also has an extremely consistent writing system.
Not only that, but the gylphs actually represent the mouth movements necessary to make the sounds. It's like that because Hangul is a relatively new writing system that was designed with discoveries in linguistics in mind, unlike English and French that have things like vestigial spellings (eg. "through"). So I'd say that Korean would be like an up-and-coming like, uh... Rust. Of course, writing systems aren't really part of a language itself: you can write any language in IPA.
Here is a powerful and elegant human language:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto
(although it should be said that its power is mostly hypothetical until it becomes widely used, which may be never)
I find it strange that people here are fixated with the solving software part. What's really cool to me in the project is the mechanical solution; fitting all the motors, axles, MCU, sensors and battery inside a customized cube.
The solving algorithm is no big deal at this point. Experienced cubers can solve them in under 10 seconds. There are machines that can solve them in < 1s. [1] Again, the innovation there is the accuracy and precision of the machinery involved.
Why don't we see the Moon's shadow projected over the Earth in the pic? I guess it has to do with the relative distances of the 2 bodies to the Sun and the Moon's penumbra or something. Can someone make a digital image simulation of this to verify?
One rarely sees earth and moon to scale at the correct distance. I think this leads many of us to often have a broken intuition about these things. And while these new images are spectacular, the distance between moon and earth is not obvious here. Look at e.g. [1]. It becomes immediately obvious why the shadow of the moon will only hit the earth rarely (during an eclipse). If it's not obvious, try holding two real objects at the correct scale / distance in your hands and make one throw a shadow on the other.
At scale, if the earth was the size of a basketball and the moon the size of a baseball, they would be about 7.5m apart.
But the satellite is at the L1 Lagrange point which is between the earth and the sun. So if you see the moon pass in front of the earth from L1 shouldn't the moon then also be directly between the earth and the sun?
And as someone in another post noted: you can see the suns reflection in the ocean. And the moon passes directly over this spot.
All you can take away from the moon passing over the sun's reflection is this. The moon crossed over the sunlight reflected from the earth. To create a shadow, the moon must cross through the light emitted from the sun.
This image might better help explain. Since the earth's orbital plane is in a different xy plane than the moon's, the moon crossing over the reflection guarantees nothing about whether it crossed the sun's emitted light.
Ah, yes of course. And as cyanoacry noted in another comment, the satellite isn't actually in the Lagrange point - it is orbiting it. Thanks for clearing that up.
The lunar orbit is inclined to Earth's ecliptic plane by 5.1°. That is enough to throw the shadow of the Moon outside the Earth most of the time (expect in cases of solar eclipses, which are rare)
DSCOVR actually is in a "halo orbit" around L1, which means it's not sitting in the plane of the Earth-Sun orbit. From the DSCOVR site[1]: "The spacecraft will be orbiting [L1] in a six-month orbit with a spacecraft-Earth-sun angle varying between 4 and 15 degrees."
As some other folks have mentioned, the Moon's orbit is tilted a total of 5.2 degrees[2] relative to the Earth-Sun plane, so DSCOVR will see quite a number of DSCOVR-Moon-Earth alignments, but never a Sun-DSCOVR-Moon-Earth alignment.
I thought the dark edge at the top-left of the moon was a shadow, but there was no solar eclipse in the time-frame reported for these pictures.
So, even though a perfect alignment of DSCOVR (at L1), the moon, and Earth would mean a shadow and thus eclipse, the moon must be a little off that alignment on this pass, throwing its shadow into dark space, even though it looks very nearly aligned in the photos.
That dark edge is an artefact of the delay in capturing the three monochrome pictures through the different RGB filters.
The article says :
"Combining three images taken about 30 seconds apart as the moon moves produces a slight but noticeable camera artifact on the right side of the moon. Because the moon has moved in relation to the Earth between the time the first (red) and last (green) exposures were made, a thin green offset appears on the right side of the moon when the three exposures are combined. This natural lunar movement also produces a slight red and blue offset on the left side of the moon in these unaltered images."
It also says "A thin sliver of shadowed area of moon is visible on its right side." which is a better explanation. It's not a shadow on the Earth, it's the dark part of the moon.
What shadow? When is the last time you walked out the door in the daytime and it was dark because the the moon was casting a shadow? That only happens during eclipses.
Well that's the problem, no body has studied it so no body knows. And with DNA matching now available, there's little point wasting time and money studying it now. Future cases can use DNA matching, as can historical cases (and if the hair samples are no longer available, even if the technique were studied and found to be valid there is no way to verify that it was applied properly in the first place).
