In 2019, OpenAI transitioned from non-profit to for-profit
- www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/17/844721/ai-openai-moonshot-elon-musk-sam-altman-greg-brockman-messy-secretive-reality/ "The AI moonshot was founded in the spirit of transparency. This is the inside story of how competitive pressure eroded that idealism."
- archive.ph/wXBtB How OpenAI Sold its Soul for $1 Billion
- www.reddit.com/r/GPT3/comments/n2eo86/is_gpt3_open_source/
The unique group referred to at: every Lie algebra has a unique single corresponding simply connected Lie group.
Small splits present in all levels due to interaction between the electron spin and the nuclear spin if it is present, i.e. the nucleus has an even number of nucleons.
As the name suggests, this energy split is very small, since the influence of the nucleus spin on the electron spin is relatively small compared to other fine structure.
TODO confirm: does it need quantum electrodynamics or is the Dirac equation enough?
The most important examples:
- hydrogen line useful in astronomy, and also the simplest possible case between 1s
- caesium standard, which is used to define the second in the International System of Units since 1967.
Some analysts seem to suggest that the things she said were bad.
But they're not.
They're a rare example of someone with some power saying cool honest stuff that comes across their mind.
Unlike the endless mandatory corporate bullshit we usually get otherwise.
Functional programming is a subset of imperative programming Updated 2025-03-28 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli thinks imperative programming is just a superset of functional programming where you can have state.
Lists:
- www.gocoder.one/blog/ai-game-competitions-list/ Good list of interest.
- codecombat.com/
Strictly speaking, only defined for decision problems: cs.stackexchange.com/questions/9664/is-it-necessary-for-np-problems-to-be-decision-problems/128702#128702
Every tree is a directed acyclic graph.
But not every directed acyclic graph is a tree.
Example of a tree (and therefore also a DAG):Convention in this presentation: arrows implicitly point up, just like in a and so on.
5
|
4 7
| |
3 6
|/
2
|
1git log, i.e.:- 1 is parent of 2
- 2 is parent of 3 and 6
- 3 is parent of 4
Example of a DAG that is not a tree:This is not a tree because there are two ways to reach 7:
7
|\
4 6
| |
3 5
|/
2
|
1- 2, 3, 4, 7
- 2, 5, 6, 7
But we often say "tree" intead of "DAG" in the context of Git because DAG sounds ugly.
Example of a graph that is not a DAG:This one is not acyclic because there is a cycle 2, 3, 4, 5, 2.
6
^
|
3->4
^ |
| v
2<-5
^
|
1There are two ways to organize a project:
- linear history
- branched history: history with merge commits
Some people like merges, but they are ugly and stupid. Rebase instead and keep linear history.
Linear history:
5 master
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1 first commitBranched history:
7 master
|\
| \
6 \
|\ \
| | |
3 4 5
| | |
| / /
|/ /
2 /
| /
1/ first commitHere commits 6 and 7 are the so called "merge commits":
- they have multiple parents:
- 6 has parents 3 and 4
- 7 has parents 5 and 6
- they are useless and don't contain any real information
Which type of tree do you think will be easier to understand and maintain?
????
????????????
You may disconnect now if you still like branched history.
Generate a minimal test repo. You should get in the habit of doing this to test stuff out.
#!/usr/bin/env bash
mkdir git-tips
cd git-tips
git init
for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do
echo $i > f
git add f
git commit -m $i
done
git checkout HEAD~2
git checkout -b my-feature
for i in 6 7; do
echo $i > f
git add f
git commit -m $i
doneOh but there are usually 2 trees: local and remote.
So you also have to learn how to observe and modify and sync with the remote tree!
But basically:to update the remote tree. And then you can use it exactly like any other branch, except you prefix them with the remote (usually
git fetchorigin/*), e.g.:origin/masteris the latest fetch of the remote version ofmasterorigin/my-featureis the latest fetch of the remote version ofmy-feature
There are unlisted articles, also show them or only show them.