Since the stars are near 1 solar mass and each has <10d orbital period, I think pairs should be nearer than Mercury to our sun which has 88d period.
Then the paper gives the separations of the systems as 18AU for the inner quadruple and 250AU for the whole system. That would put the inner system within the orbit of Uranus and the whole system larger than our solar system which has Kuiper belt at 50AU.
Because bipartisan deals happen somewhat often, even between people who are invariably acrimonious on camera, and reporting on those bipartisan deals often mentions non-recorded meetings where compromises were made.
I think the an easy way to think about it is by thinking about function types, instead of collection types.
Func Arg Val represents a function type from Args to Vals
consider foo(func : Func a b)
The argument to the function foo must be assignable to (a subtype of) Func a b
What are those subtypes? We can find out by considering expressions involving the argument
bidentifer = func(avalue)
so func must be an object whose type is compatible with assignments from the avalue, so its argument type must be a supertype of a
while the assignment to bidentifier implies the return value must be assignable to the return type so it must be a subtype
therefore the subtypes of Func a b are the set of types Func (super a) (sub b)
this is the origin of the phrase be generous in what you accept and specific about what you return
thinking about whether bikes are vehicles and such doesn't really clarify anything. you have to actually think about the expressions you are trying to construct
Moving down the Func type hierarchy moves you up the Argument type hierarchy (contra) but moves you down the Return type hierarchy (co)
That's my understanding as well. Quantum states encode finite information (despite their dynamics lying on the reals; the practical consequence is just that state transitions and information flow are smooth).
The formal discussion around this is largely centered on the Church-Turing thesis:
Essentially stating (in a certain interpretation) that any physical process can be simulated by a Turing machine (with no mention of efficiency). This seems to be the case, although I'm not sure we have a convincing proof from quantum field theory yet (note that quantum process can be simulated in classical Turing machines, although with an exponential cost).
Actually you can't, because Facebook will lock your account for inauthentic behavior. Try making a fake account, and see how long you can hold on to it without being extorted for personal, identifiable information.
I set up a fake Facebook profile 10 years ago, because I needed a profile with no friends that I could use for testing some stuff at work. It is still alive and kicking; Facebook keeps sending it emails suggesting friends.
We can spend all day arguing anecdotes. As a counterpoint, I've never used Facebook, but once tried setting up an account to participate in a group event organized by some friends - by the next day, before I could even use the account, Facebook had locked my account, and wanted a photo of my ID to let me access the account. Needless to say, I abandoned the account.
Kinda absurd. You can't setup a one time email, and one time facebook if you really don't want your movement online all linked to a government issued ID.
Sure you're sort of an idiot to make those assumptions, but I'm sure you already came to this realization about yourself years ago.
I only zone out in meetings with no focus. Provide an agenda which describes what you want to talk about. This helps me identify my value and not begin to immediately wonder how long this aimless meeting will last. Describe the problem this meeting wants to solve and why you can't solve it by yourself. People schedule meetings and expect attendees to do the work on making the meeting successful.
It's not my responsibility not to be bored, it's the organizers responsibility to be engaging.
