I took the parent comment to be making the assumption that politically attractive options for responding to emissions and climate change tend to be "market-based" solutions or activities that are picking winners between industries (say solar manufacturers and installers vs. coal plant workers). If there is a choice where there is a "winner" with money on the line there will also be lobbying money put toward that effort and so consensus building is easier.
There isn't necessarily anything nefarious about this, just that it may be incapable of dealing with the enormity of climate climate and also, as OP intimates, there may be a class of solutions that are better/cheaper/more efficient from a policy perspective, but that don't have anyone positioned to gain financially from them and so are harder to garner support for.
If the DNA in a seed is still in good enough shape to support blooming after being frozen 30,000 years, perhaps a seed frozen in a meteorite [1] could also survive long enough to be spread between solar systems.
[1] maybe after glancing off a planet or created by the collision of two large objects
I'm not an expert on comets, so I might be wrong, but I guess that we talk about recycled ice; that would be sterilized each time the comet orbit pass closest to the sun and the water is (partially?) boiled, to become frozen again later.
There would be probably other consequences if a such large comet will fall in a planet. I can't see any happy ending for this organism to surviving its travel just by chance. If the comet is small or disintegrates in smaller pieces the plant is roasted and dead. Otherwise if fallen in one piece, all the life in the impact area of such large comet should be crushed by the pressure wave and vaporized also, including our plant
And BSTs can have O(n) lookup. The only property of a BST is that you know something about the value of the children compared to the parent. This means that a sorted linked list is a BST.
Sure, but abcdabcd987 was evidently not suggesting using a completely general BST. That there exists a BST with the mentioned properties is sufficient to validate the claim made; that there exists a BST which does not is irrelevant.
I believe your and abcdabcd987's use of the term BST is not exactly what is commonly used. A BST refers to both the data structure and the algorithm used to manage it. An RB tree is a different concept. An RB tree is a binary tree, certainly, since the term "binary tree" implies no algorithms, but it is not a "binary search tree" in its specific denotation.
Terminology is important. A BST is what I defined. A balanced BST has an extra property, but you don't get to call a balanced BST just a BST, it only adds to confusion and unclear communication.
I don't agree with your use of terminology; to me "BST" is just as much a class of things as "mammal" is. I will agree though that it has added confusion.
When you say BST the only thing you've said is that it's a binary tree structure with a property about the childrens value compared to the parent. While saying that there is certain BSTs with O(lg_2 n) searches is true, there also exists BSTs with O(n) searches.
The original claim was that:
> BTW, why not BST, for everything is O(log n)?
Which is not true. A sorted linked list is the canonical counter example. There is no confusion of terminology, it is clearly defined in algorithmic literature on search trees.
I generally take English sentences like that to be existential claims, rather than universal ones.
For example, if I was talking about an exciting new business plan to serve alcohol in a building and someone replied "Bars already serve drinks.", you probably wouldn't object saying that some bars don't serve drinks - that's not really the point.
I can probably concoct a counterexample, but given that most BSTs that one would actually use under that terminology are self-balancing ~O(log n) structures I am tempted to go with this. I imagine if "self-balancing BST" was used the objection might never have been raised, even though not strictly all self-balancing BSTs have all O(log n) operations.
Either way it's a semantic thing that has little to do with what BST means (we agree on that) and more to do with interpreting the ambiguities of English.
My point of view origins from the academic world, and the distinction absolutely matters, and it should matter in any theoretical discussion on the topic, otherwise we'll spend too much time arguing semantics, instead of just being clear.
> not strictly all self-balancing BSTs have all O(log n) operations.
You're right. You could have a self balancing tree that would simply guarantee it's height is n/2, but that entails that it's height is O(n), which, by most definitions mean that it's not self balancing. You want it to be at least O(n^c) for 0<c<1, in height.
The video at the "byzantine regulatory framework" link[1] is worth a watch (at least the first 10 minutes to get a taste). One of the most valuable offerings of cloud.gov is (hopefully) the ease with which it can go through the ATO and FISMA processes because it was designed with them in mind.
I'm not sure how this will expedite the ATO process as it uses technology that has not been STIG'd yet and may not have a "by the book" way to sign off (Docker, for instance, can be painful to ATO).
EDIT: After viewing Noah's FISMA guidance vid (nice work) there is definitely possibility to expedite but to really grease things you'd want to create a certification arm within GSA that can sign off the risk or perform a "certified" risk assessment on behalf of the customer agency so you could do things your way while still allowing them to sleep at night. Once you get into sensitive data loads and non-public stuff people start to get even more risk averse. / End Edit
That said, I'm hopeful that it does pave the way for change because this kind of platform is critical to reducing the barriers to experimentation in government. Perhaps because 18F is committing to supporting / upgrading the platform it will allow Federal CIOs and CISOs to shift some of the risk to 18F and sign the paperwork more quickly.
Those teams definitely exist in agencies (GSA included), but we (18F) are managing ATOs internally for our projects, and are working on tooling to clarify, simplify, and automate the process. https://github.com/18F/control-masonry/ is our first project around this.
function handleClick(i) {
this.innerHTML = i;
}
for (i = 0; i < elems.length; i++) {
elems[i].addEventListener("click", handleClick.bind(this, i));
}
In the for loop, the this value refers to the global object. To get the desired effect, it should be changed to elems[i] (this piece of code is trying to bind a handler to an element).
There isn't necessarily anything nefarious about this, just that it may be incapable of dealing with the enormity of climate climate and also, as OP intimates, there may be a class of solutions that are better/cheaper/more efficient from a policy perspective, but that don't have anyone positioned to gain financially from them and so are harder to garner support for.