These are different things, and this is precisely the point here. You do have the possession of the data when you stream a movie, but you do not have the ownership. When someone makes a picture of you, they do posses it, but they do not necessarily own it, that would be you.
I also don't agree with your parent, because ownership is precisely the correct term here.
I like to think of it as dot product being the true "natural" space to compare magnitude metrics, whereas absolute value is just a human construct conceived for our mental convenience. A smooth parabolic bowl vs an unnatural sharp conical tip. Also shows up in standard deviation etc.
Aside: I wonder if complex values neural networks with activation function just being sum(inputs)*conj(sum(inputs)) with threshold normalized by sqrt(num_inputs) could be the most universal, where incoherent inputs will average an absolute value of sqrt(N) and coherent inputs are N like lasers? (square amplitude would be N vs N^2 between uncorrected and correlated population)
> Anthropic, Open AI & Co. realized at some point that if they can't make money with barely any competition they sure as hell won't if the market is flooded. So here they are slamming the door behind them.
Jokes on them, there won't be new entrants not because the door is shut but because it doesn't actually make money. The whole scheme is propped up by illusions to grift the investors, fewer competition only breaks the illusion. But I guess those folks aren't the types to understand "rising tide lifts all boats", or in this case, rising sewage buoys all rats.
> you could run into issues with software that expects home/pro and not LTSC.
That's a laughably ignorant statement for how windows app development works. Raymond Chen weeps on reading your comment. Enterprise edition is a strict superset in functionality over Home/Pro, and LTSC just adds longer support.
Enterprise IoT just comes with Windows Store components sitting dormantly, which you can promptly activate with `wsreset -i` and it's then identical with consumer editions (other than TikTok and Candy Crush not being forcibly reinstalled after every "feature update") where you can install apps from the Windows Store as needed or just use winget instead.
Enterprise IoT LTSC is just Enterprise IoT with longer support.
There is literally and strictly no downside with using IoT LTSC, especially with the combination of official Rufus + MAS to install from official ISOs.
If you would acctually read the comment(s) then you'd understand that SWITCHING has no upside, all your arguments are irrelevant there is no point in wasting time to switch the OS version especially not if you need a full reinstallation.
And whether you like it or not there are bad coded software out in the real world that do not work on LTSC they will just error out saying this is not a supported version of windows. To fix this you have to regedit your LTSC installation to pretend to be a normal installation. A hassle no sane person would recommend for absolutely zero benefit.
If you would actually read the comment then you'd see the mention of in-place upgrades instead of complete reinstall. There is no drawback of hassle with in-place upgrades as everything on you system is kept as-is, and it takes about the same time as a typical windows cumulative update if not less due to pre-downloading the files.
And instead of unbased hypotheticals perhaps you can point to even a single example of normie software that check for editions of windows as a result of bad coding rather than user-hostile intent? To do so you'd need to go out of your way to hack together undocumented corners instead of the path of least resistance of calling GetVersion() as would be characteristic of lazy coding.
The formulas provided for quat to matrix and quat to axis angle is terrible, they only work if the quaternion's magnitude is exactly one. You need to replace sqrt(1 - a*a) assumptions with actual components, and use atan2 instead of acos. I don't blame the author though because the vast majority of info you can find in online learning materials uses this ill-advised formulation, including Wikipedia. But it's really trivial to realize this fact if you just go ahead and derive from the quat sandwich from first principles and realize that the "convenience simplification assuming unit quat" is actually an unnecessary step that have no benefits and are wholly detrimental when implementing them for floating point numbers.
> they only work if the quaternion's magnitude is exactly one
That's why you always normalize the quaternion first, and the article seems to require the normalized form:
Q.54 How do I convert a quaternion to a rotation matrix?
Assuming that a quaternion has been created in the form:
Q = |X Y Z W|
At least, I would read |X Y Z W| as meaning normalized(X Y Z W)
I don't see this notation explicitly defined when they describe quaternion normalization (Q.52) though, so I agree this leaves much out. It's more a cheat sheet than learning material.
> You need to replace sqrt(1 - a*a) assumptions with actual components, and use atan2 instead of acos
I'm kind of rusty with this, but I think the reason we don't do that is that it's cheaper to normalize then convert rather than use the non-normalized conversion formula. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> That's why you always normalize the quaternion first
Again, that won't solve the problem of floating point components not perfectly adding up to one.
Constantly normalizing quats are unnecessary performance hits and worsens your accuracy with no benefit other than being marginally "easier for low-math programmers to reason about", when you could instead just work with non-unit quats homogeneously and divide the final result with the quat square magnitude just once in the entire pipeline, or not at all and instead just pass the square magnitude as your w factor that gets divided on the GPU anyways
reply