Does visiting pages A and B on day 1 and visiting page A on day 2 also make the sentence true? I think that's the source of ambiguity (or maybe it's ambiguous to me only because English is not my native language).
The user has visited A and B on day 1, and A on day 2.
So the total page hits is (A, B, A). Remove duplicates and you have (A, B) which makes the sentence true.
The noun is not the issue but rather the scope of uniqueness:
>Now, given two log files (log file from day 1 and log file from day 2) we want to generate a list of ‘loyal customers’ that meet the criteria of: (a) they came on both days, and (b) they visited at least two unique pages.
It appears to me that the requirement could be interpreted as either:
"(visit on day 1) AND (visit on day 2) AND (total unique pages count > 2)"
a clearer way to put it would be "visited at least two unique pages in total"
or
"(visit at least two unique pages on day 1) AND (visit at least two unique pages on day 2)"
a clearer way to put it would be "visited at least two unique pages on each day"
I specifically mentioned mounting (https://rclone.org/commands/rclone_mount/ which may use some additional storage space depending on the caching configuration) whereas you seem to be talking about mirroring the data in the cloud and on other devices.
From what I understand it's their friendly interface that differentiates them from RClone mount. I've only read their documentation but otherwise I can't see any benefit and only the risk of getting involved with a less tested tool.
Yup, it's also very useful for doing stuff like checking archive integrity after upload (got bitten by it once when uploading some archives via FTP) and syncing with cloud - I've had a dedicated client remove files from my PC instead of the cloud after desync, rclone makes it easy to check what will be done and works with pretty much every service available.
Isn't it a matter of words changing meaning over time? Could it be that what James Madison called "democracy" corresponds to "direct democracy" in modern understanding and "republic" corresponds to "representative (indirect) democracy" in modern parlance?
If not, then what are the differences between republic described by Madison and representative democracy?
There is a difference between words changing over time (example: awful historically meaning full of awe and the modern usage meaning very bad) and changing a form of Government of the US that is codified in the US Constitution.
>If not, then what are the differences between republic described by Madison and representative democracy?
To try to answer your question, if we used “Representative Democracy” then the US and UK would both have the same form of government, a Representative Democracy, which in my opinion highlights why proper use of the terms is necessary.
The US is a Constitution Republic and the UK is a Constitution Monarch, at least according to the legal documents that establish their respective Governments.
Whether a Constitutional Republic or Constitutional Monarch, neither is a Democracy. Sure both having elections and voting of at least some kind, but the UK is not a Republic despite having a House of Commons with elected Members of Parliament.
Let’s turn this question around…in your opinion what is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? If any Republic that holds elections of representatives do you simply classify both the UK and US Representative Democracies?
>in your opinion what is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy?
To keep things simple:
democracy -> majority rule
republic -> majority rule + no inheritance of public offices (so no monarch)
Of course it can get more complicated than that - democracies can differ in terms of who can and cannot vote, freedom of press, how exactly the separation of powers is handled (or if the powers are separated at all), what method is used to distribute seats in the parliament, how much power is held by the president and how much is held by the prime minister etc.
By that definition US and UK are both (representative) democracies but of these two only the US is a republic and UK is a parliamentary ("constitutional" sounds pretty weird in this context given that there is no codified constitution) monarchy (while still being a democracy).
>To keep things simple: democracy -> majority rule
>By that definition US and UK are both (representative) democracies
I do not agree that majority rule is by itself the definition of democracy, but assuming arguendo for sake of keeping things simple, what in the US is majority rule? The US Constitution certainly doesn’t expressly establish majority rule, although it clearly establishes the US form of government is a Republic. The Constitution establishes 3 branches of Government. Executive, the President, is not elected by majority rule. Legislators, Representatives & Senators are not elected by majority rule. Judiciary, the Supreme Court Justices are not elected at all. Laws themselves are not majority rule rather a system of checks and balances of the 3 branches of Government guaranteed the Constitution.
>("constitutional" sounds pretty weird in this context given that there is no codified constitution) monarchy (while still being a democracy).
The UK does have a Constitution, it’s just not a single document like the US Constitution. It’s not exactly weird that the US Constitution isn’t the sole form of Constitution. In either case you being weird is immaterial to the UK being a Constitutional Monarchy.
Would adding the account to a mail client so that it logs into the account via IMAP on PC/phone startup help or does Yahoo require a login via the web interface?
Java is a much larger and more complex language than C. Consequently, it is much more fragile. I was one of the ones who thought Java was the best thing since sliced bread back in the 90s ("Write Once, Use Everywhere"), but I found it it very difficult to work with at times because you had to jump through hoops to get around those complexities.
And that's not including the bastardisation of Java that occurred when Microsoft tried to bring it down by changing many of the classes to something incompatible. I once got into an online discussion of something or other and couldn't work out why the other guy's code and results differed from mine. I then discovered that while I was using Sun's (official) Java, he was using Microsoft's (different) Java.
Don't get me wrong. Java is a good (overall) language but it's just not the simple and fast language that C is. There is the old joke that C makes it easier to shoot yourself in the foot. That is true, but it is also a very versatile and clean language.
I think you are thinking about a case where someone goes 120km/h for 1 hour and then 80km/h for 1 hour instead of going over a fixed distance at 120km/h and then going over the same distance at 80km/h.
ZGC relies on the space of 64-bit pointer (and the size of the 64-bit virtual address space) for its pointer coloring algorithm, and so it is by definition incompatible with UseCompressedOops even at small sizes.
I suppose it's possible to fix this with a change to the design in some way. But if you have a heap smaller than 32GB, the existing G1 would probably work well too. ZGC shines much more on very large heap sizes since that's where long tail GC latency often hits hardest.
https://github.com/QuantumBadger/RedReader