🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@General

This is my favorite part of the harry potter books because it was such a character twist. It shows that the man we thought was the caring father figure (Dumbledore) was in fact callus and even cruel in being willing to sacrifice someone he acted like a father figure to. Meanwhile the one man we all thought was the asshole was really the one who cared about him more than even Dumbledore...

"So the boy… the boy must die?" asked Snape quite calmly.

"And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential."

Another long silence. Then Snape said, "I thought… all these years… that we were protecting him for her. For Lily."

"We have protected him because it has been essential to teach him, to raise him, to let him try his strength," said Dumbledore, his eyes still tight shut. "Meanwhile, the connection between them grows ever stronger, a parasitic growth: Sometimes I have thought he suspects it himself. If I know him, he will have arranged matters so that when he sets out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort."

Dumbledore opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified.

"You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?... You have used me… I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter…"

"But this is touching, Severus," said Dumbledore seriously. "Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?"

"For him?" shouted Snape. "Expecto Patronum!"

From the tip of his wand burst the silver doe: She landed on the office floor, bounded once across the office, and soared out of the window. Dumbledore watched her fly away, and as her silvery glow faded he turned back to Snape, and his eyes were full of tears.

"After all this time?"

"Always," said Snape.

#HarryPotter #Magic #Literature #Books #Magick

@drewfer would you care to see a year worth of trades using the algo?

@2ck

If you have to tell people how few fucks you give, if people dont already know how few fucks you give, then you clearly give too many fucks already.

@WabuMike Welcome to the club. Once you go tdd you never go back :) The key is making sure everyone knows its a rule that any patch tehy submit must include a unit test that has full coverage of the code they are commiting.

@aminewatcher Sorry for all those typos.

> They are considering whether or not the ruling made by the lower court is valid, which should in many cases require, at the very least, a consideration of whether or not the evidence given was properly considered.

In a sense you are correct here but probably not in the sense most people would think. Let me give a hypothetical.

Lets use the murder example again for simplicity. Let us say someone is declared guilty for murder, and yet there is a video take of the guy across town in a minimart security camera that proves he was no where near the scene of the murder. Lets presume in the consideration of the supreme court justices, if they were to see the video, that they would be thuroughly convinced the person on the video looked exactly like the defendant and their personal opinion is that the evidence is **obvious** that the dude is innocent.

In such a scenario that would not get the defendant off the hook, because as I said the supreme court isn't considering the evidence. or if it was given proper consideration in that sense.

However what they might consider is, for example, if the jury when considering the evidence violated the rules of course. For example lets say one jury member during jury selection was asked "Have you ever expressed the opinion that the life of a black man is worth less than yourself?" in a bid to try to probe if they were racist (lets assume it was a black person who was accused).. and lets say that a jury member answered no and thus made it onto the jury. But evidence shows that the jury did, in fact, on many equations express such racist comments and there is further evidence that while the jury deliberated that the juror repeatedly suggested that the defendant must be guilty because of <insert racism here>. Basically showing that the juror had no intention of considering the evidence and had made up his mind and even lied to get on the jury.

In this case the higher court would rule, as you suggested, on the fact that the evidence wasnt given due consideration. But again not in the straight forward way you or others may think. In other words the scotus does not retry, they do not reconsider the evidence and their opinion of the strength of the evidence, no matter how strong, does not (or at least should not) effect their decision. What they are judging is if the individuals in the lower court followed the rules, more or less.

@aminewatcher Keep in mind "due process" != "process".

They are not just ruling on process, that is not what I said, (or atleast didnt mean to). They are ruling on due process. In other words, all they are ruling on is if the court and the law applied in the ruling of the lower court was in line with the constitutional rules they are required to hear cases under. They can not actually dictate the ruling for the lower court however, but they can throw out of invalidate a lower courts ruling.

For example if a murderer is found guilty and gets 20 years and managed to avoid the death sentance, and it goes to the supreme court, the supreme court can not and will not consider if the person commited murder, nor will they be able to consider if the person should get the death penalty. The court can really only do one of two things.. uphold the lower courts ruling as is, or invalidate the lower courts ruling and let the person go free (or get a reduced sentance if only some out of several charges are dropped). Butt he question of "did he murder x" is not even being considered.

Its the same here, the question that is originally presented to the lower court to be heard is not and can not be the question heard by the higher court, they will only and can only considered the lower court was in violation and if such invalidate and/or create new precedence for that court.

@drewfer I should poitn out today is not in anyway typical or representative of the algorithm. I tried a new tactic where I put the algorithm on a stock I already had faith in as a buy and hold stock (well a two stocks actually) and it wasnt on the TQQQ v. SQQQ swing today as on past days.

So part of the win was the vact that I made a really good stock pick in general, the other part is that the algorithm enhanced the profit by skipping over some bitg downturns and rebuying on the upswing.

@drewfer I'm debating upping the risk to 500K tomorrow since im getting more comfortable that these results are consistent.

@drewfer just a few under 30K return on 200K risk

@aminewatcher the point is not that they wont hear evidence, the point is a supreme court is not considering the question you think they are considering.

A supreme court case would **not** be considering if trump legitimately wont he presidency and was cheated out of it by a scandal. The lower courts heard that (or considered hearing it and rejected it), appeals are not to have the original case reheard at a higher level, that's not how appeal processes work, it is to call into question the constitutional process of the lower court to see if the plaintiff was given due process or not. that is all they are allowed to consider.

Obviously they **do** consider any evidence relevant to that question, but it wouldnt and isnt the evidence or question you are referring to

@aminewatcher The Supreme court does not consider evidence or the validity of a case. They only seek to find constitutional violations or legal precedent that a lower court denied the plaintiff. The case itself is not what is being heard at a scotus level.

For example if you get to the supreme court on murder charge even if the evidence that you are a murderer is 100% absolutely clear it has no bearing or consideration int he supreme court case and in no way effects if you win or not. Instead you'd be arguing something like "A lower court did not provide me with my right to an attorney and thus my case was not considered in a constitutional manner"

so there would have to be some violation in the lower courts handling of the case for the higher courts to consider it and it would not be a weighing of evidence itself.

@General

“A Cherokee elder was teaching his young grandson about life.
"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil- he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt and ego.
The other is good- he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.
This same fight is going on inside you—and inside every other person, too."
The boy thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather,
"Which wolf will win?"
The elder simply replied,
"The one you feed.”
― Tsalagi Tale

#NativeAmerican #cherokee #indian #quote #proverb

@namark The real question in my eyes is, why not? Sounds like the only argument against it that you have is that you need to guard against division by 0, which is almost certainly insignificant in terms of performance in viertually all situations. In fact the only way that tiny guard could even possible matter is if there is some alorithm that spends time creating a hell of a of times over very short time spans, even then its unlikely.

In fact if someone consuming your timer actually ran code where that guard had any meaningful effect to them on performance then they probably wouldnt be calling it with 0 or using a timer in the first polace and would hand roll a more efficient approach.

So yea, I'd say 0 should absolutely be a valid value.

What I wouldnt do though is make it the default value as you suggest. I would make the value required and thus have no default. Also if you really want to be pedantic you could probably write it so it could have the 0 allowed value and not need the guard at all. Exactly how would depend on the language and the specific design but it would probably involve making some function or aspect a constant at the time the timer is constructed such that you'd have a singleton "0 timer" which would be returned anytime a timer of 0 is asked for.

@Gargron

I'd love to but no idea who she(?) is or her handle on masto to thank her. So unless I get the chance to do so myself please pass along my praise and thanks for me.

@hansw

@hansw

Sweet! Gargron rocks!

@Gargron

Thanks man!

@2ck Its not like it would be intentional. But if i loose 100K on the stock market because I was wrong somehow it isnt likely something to be exciting and make me so gitty I'd go around announcing it. But yea not intentional I wouldnt hide or lie about it.

But So far I've been using real money and its working.

@2ck Probably not in the sense I wont be shouting it from the rooftops no.. But if someone directly asked me I would be honest