Well... "it appears to have fallen on Fedora and GCC developers" suggests they are are forced into doing this. But it's the reverse: they decided this is a sensible goal. OK, they are free to do that, but painting it as if they are unfairly left alone in their plight is framing it rather strongly.
Well Clang also did this for clang 16 and tried to ship it with 16. Most of these were K&R C constructs that were deprecated in c89. c23 kinda removes and in one case even repurposes the code. So on GCC and Clang side, it was c23 compliance and on fedora and gentoo(which also helped) force by compiler defaults.
A bit off-topic, but: I am somewhat confused by the claim “Subversion was created by Jim Blandy”. I was around back then, and the names I think of when it comes to “who created Subversion” are Ken Fogel, Ben Collins-Sussman, and Mike Pilato. And certainly many other people, including Jim Blandy. My recollection seems to be supported by e.g. https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/the-apache-software... and also by looking at the early subversion repository history and mailing list posts.
But I was only a bystander (and early adopter), so maybe something went on "behind the scenes" that warrants this attribution? Or maybe it is a just a bit careless and was meant to be more like "... he was one of the creators", which one probably could justify.
Coincidentally, I just checked the Wikipedia page for Subversion and was surprised that there is basically nothing on the history of Subversion and who created it, which I find sad.
"Weakly solving" a game is a technical term. If you have weakly solved a game, you can play perfectly (achieve the optimal result) when the game starts from its initial position. If you have strongly solved it, you can play perfectly starting from any position.
Sorry, I was unclear: I know what weakly solved means. What I find curious is that the title and abstract refer to "solved", and don't mention what they actually mean. To me "solved" would suggest "strongly solved". But perhaps equating "solved" with "weakly solved" is default in this area? Still, I would like expect an abstract to say something like that explicitly.
But given the overall state of that paper I think this is a side concern at best anyway.
> To me "solved" would suggest "strongly solved". But perhaps equating "solved" with "weakly solved" is default in this area?
It's the default for all reasonable games - statespace is huge (i.e. tic-tac-toe is childsplay) and simple strategies don't exist (that'd make bad human game). You can't even iterate all positions - even less prove them all for one outcome.
And you can go further Heads Up (ie two player) Limit (ie you decide to raise or not, the size of the raise is fixed) Texas Hold 'Em (the style of Poker most played today) is essentially weakly solved.
The process used generates a statistical approximation and tells you how close it is to correct, in theory a perfect solution would beat this by that amount, in practice of course Poker is a game of chance, and so over any realistic game it wouldn't matter because the deviation from correctness they've computed is tiny. Could they make an even smaller deviation with more compute used? Sure, but why bother.
Cepheus is instructive also because some humans have played against this and believed they were outplaying it, which indicates there are real human poker players who misunderstand their own variance so much (and/or discount real variance from others so much) that they're completely unable to successfully rate their abilities.
If you lose 12Bb over 100 hands you are not, in fact, "winning except that it sometimes gets lucky". You're just losing, of course it sometimes gets lucky, that's how luck works, it's a game of chance.
Poker being one of my favorite hobbies (probably 300k hands played lifetime), it's wild how much variance matters. Like a 4BB/100 winrate (aka you win 4 big blinds every 100 hands) is very much an "I can be a professional" winrate.
You have a ~10% chance over 100k hands to be <0 dollars earned. Likewise, 10% of time time you'll make twice that. Poker is fascinating in that there are a ton of people who never actually hit the true law of big numbers hands and walk around thinking "I'll never be good enough to play at X level" or "I'm a poker god with big winnings" not knowing how good they really are.
Professional players do actually get in statistically significant sample sizes, but for amateur players, most don't get enough hands to really understand their skill level.
Is it really Cloudflare? There is no branding and all the other Cloudflare sites have stopped using Google's reCaptcha and switched to in-house solution.
> "Publications Mathématiques de l'IHÉS" which is the undisputed gold standard in mathematical typography.
It is? Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim?
I just had a look at a bunch of recent articles, and I would very much dispute it. I saw nothing extraordinary, and found the fonts they used rather ugly (though of course that is highly subjective). The use of bold face to highlight theorem/definition/etc. numbers is IMHO very questionable. The boldface letters you praise stick out like a sore thumb, feeling as if they were being emphasized and highlighted when they clearly are not meant to be.
> It is? Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim?
I don't have any evidence to support this claim. I always thought about it as self-evident, because it was in that journal that Grothendieck published his work, and the same style is used in by the legendary Hermann editor from Paris and by Bourbaki. But I cannot find any non-partisan source of my claim. As for non-neutral sources, you have for example the congratulations on the typesetting by Dieudonnée [0] (who was a member of the IHES), or a more recent article by Haralambous about the Baskerville variant used by the institute [1]. I will retire my claim of "undisputed" if you find a source that says that the pinnacle of mathematical typesetting is something else :)
FYI one of the things I like about Julia is that it also can execute shell commands via backquote syntax, in a very nice way (e.g. interpolating arrays just works). E.g. try
