What does argc mean?
OpenCV argc and argv confusion
Isn't the uncertainty principle just non-fundamental limitations in our current technology that could be removed in a more advanced civilization? From what I understand, the  states that there is a fundamental natural limit to how accurately we can measure velocity and momentum at the same time. It's not a limit on equipment but just a natural phenomenon.  However, isn't this just an observational limit? There is a definite velocity and momentum, we just don't know it. As in, we can only know so much about the universe, but the universe still has definite characteristics.  Considering this, how do a wide range of quantum mechanical phenomena work? For example, quantum tunneling - its based on the fact that the position of the object is indefinite. But the position is definite, we just don't know it definitely. Or the famous light slot experiment? The creation of more light slots due to uncertainty of the photon's positions?  What I am basically asking is why is a limit on the observer, affecting the phenomenon he is observing? Isn't that equivalent to saying  because we haven't seen Star X, it doesn't exist? It's limiting the definition of the universe to the limits of our observation! getting Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender working in the command line The official Checkpoint out command line tool from CheckPoint, for setting up a SSL Network Extender VPN is not longer working from the Linux command line. It is also no longer actively supported by CheckPoint.  However, there is a promising  project, that tries to replicate the Java applet for authentication, that talks with the snx command line utility, called snxconnect.   I was trying to put snxconnect text utility to work in Debian Buster, doing:  sudo pip install snxvpn   and  export PYTHONHTTPSVERIFY=0 snxconnect -H checkpoint.hostname -U USER    However, it was mostly dying either with an HTTP error of:   HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently:   or:  Got HTTP response: HTTP/1.1 302 Found   or:  Unexpected response, try again.   What to do about it?  PS. The EndPoint Security VPN official client is working well both in a Mac High Sierra and Windows 10 Pro. The achievements drop-down menu in the new top bar shows me when a question/answer earns me reputation and how much, and that's great, but I don't know what caused that to happen. I'd like to know why I received reputation: was it an upvote? An accepted answer? An accepted edit? If I have the list of reputation values in my head I can figure it out, but it would help me to see it somewhere in the drop-down, even as title text on hover.    Edit:  It sounds like the items in the menu can roll up multiple events, and that's why it doesn't show the event there. How about adding a link to my reputation tab to the menu so I can quickly get to a breakdown? I have a list of requirements for a program, but I don't know what program meets these criteria. That's about general-purpose software, for example, not a programming IDE or statistical workbench, questions about which would certainly go to respective sites.  Is this question appropriate on Stack Overflow? Where should I ask about it? On Super User or elsewhere? Calculate E[X] from incomplete data? The exercise I'm doing describes the random variable $X$ as the following  | Number of cars |  0  |  1 |  2 |  3 |  4+ |  | % of families  |  15 | 45 | 25 | 13 |  2  |   Then it asks me to evaluate $E[X]$. But if there could be cases with 4+ cars, wouldn't that make it impossible to calculate the expectancy? Effect on loading a DC motor - load torque Could someone give a (detailed) explanation (perhaps with formulas) of how the load (torque) affects the armature current of a DC motor (separately excited or shunt or series)?  As the load torque increases the speed of the motor decreases, and assuming the terminal voltage stays constant, the EMF will become lower and thus the armature current will increase.  But could someone give me the formula that shows the relation between load torque and armature current?  Is it something like:   \$T_\text{developed} = T_\text{shaft} + T_\text{friction windage} + T_\text{load}\$ ,   where \$T_\text{developed} = K \, \text{flux}_\text{pole} \,I_\text{armature}\$ ?  But then you have  \$P_d = P_s + P_{f_w} + P_l   \$  where \$P_d = K \,\text{flux}_\text{pole}\, I_\text{armature}  \,\omega_m\$  In the last formula you can't see that as the increase due to \$P_\text{load }\$ the armature current increases because maybe someone can say the speed \$\omega_m\$ increases.  And how come at no-load the armature current and thus the torque developed is zero? Is it really zero, or do I have to assume there is some current flowing?  Could also explain me the principle of torque developed. Because at no load, the shaft torque is equal to torque developed, right? According to  and my own understanding, the tilde expands to the home directory:  $ echo ~ /home/braiam   Now, whenever I want the shell expansion to work, i. e. using variable names such $FOO, and do not break due unexpected characters, such spaces, etc. one should use double quotes ":  $ FOO="some string with spaces" $ BAR="echo $FOO" $ echo $BAR echo some string with spaces   Why doesn't this expansion works with the tilde?  $ echo ~/some/path /home/braiam/some/path $ echo "~/some/path" ~/some/path I need to prove that:      if a linear operator $\phi : V \rightarrow V$ on a vector space is nilpotent, then its only eigenvalue is $0$.   I know how to prove that this for a nilpotent matrix, but I'm not sure in the case of an operator. How would I be able to relate $\phi$ to a matrix?  Note: A nilpotent operator $\phi$ has been defined as an operator that satisfies $\phi^{n} = 0$ for some $n \geq 1$. After reinstalling TeXLive distribution (install-tl-20160318, Ubuntu 14.04), a issue occurs with the updated version of the titlesec package: the section numbering is lost.  What could it be missing? Is there a modification I have not seen?  Below is a MWE comparison of the two versions. The prevtitlesec package is a reinstall of the previous version (2011/12/15).  \documentclass{book} \usepackage[margin=2cm,a4paper]{geometry} %\usepackage{prevtitlesec}% 2011/12/15 version \usepackage{titlesec}% 2016/03/15 version \usepackage{lipsum}  \begin{document}  \chapter{Title of the first chapter} \lipsum[1] \section{A test section} \lipsum[4] \subsection{A test subsection} \lipsum[4] \subsection{A test subsection} \lipsum[4]  \end{document}   titlesec package 2011/12/15:    titlesec package 2016/03/15: LM317 getting hot Should an LM317 (specifically a ) rated for 500ma output current really be getting hot to touch when only pulling 170ma at 5V?  Package is SOT-223, input is 9V.  Is this normal? Why isn't there a centre of charge? When determining the gravitational attraction between 2 solid bodies, we can simplify computations by taking their masses to be concentrated at their respective centres of mass. However, had they been electrically charged bodies and we needed to compute electrostatic attraction, there is no "centre of charge" notion available to us. ( We would evaluate a 2-dimensional integral, or equivalently, apply Gauss's law. )  Is there any simple reason for the absence of such a centre of charge? Frequently, I've got the answer: "charge just doesn't work that way". How do I find out which program and process ID accesses a given IP address in Windows? Is it possible to catch, which program is accessing a specific IP address?   I found my computer is flooding and wish to check addresses one by one.  May be it is possible to set up some audit for this? I was reading  when I came across  saying something about a particular type of programmer knowing the difference between an int and an Integer in Java/C# (Object-Oriented Programming Languages).  So, what is the difference? Identify story: Overpopulation problem causes people to live one day a week This story is about a man that is able to live every day of the week, while everybody else has a single day of wakefulness assigned to them. Due to overpopulation, each human spends 6 out of 7 days of the week in stasis, and has jobs assigned to them in daily shifts. 1/7 of the population works on Monday. 1/7 works on Tuesday, &amp; so on. The main character has found away to circumvent the process and illegally live out his days consecutively by skipping the stasis program that is imposed on the general population and by working a different job everyday. Can somebody name this scifi story? Real World Example of the Strategy Pattern Often I need to recall the different \tracing commands; and a couple of times I stumbled on some webpages that worked fine for me; sadly, I didn't keep them, and my searches don't take me there anymore.   So I thought I'd ask about links to where one can read a list of \tracing commands?   For instance,  mentions:  \tracingall \tracingassigns \tracingcommands \tracinggroups \tracingifs \tracinglostchars \tracingmacros \tracingnesting \tracingonline \tracingoutput \tracingpages \tracingparagraphs \tracingrestores \tracingstats \tracingscantokens   .. but, I'm pretty sure there was something like \tracingboxes (and not so sure if there was something like \tracingglues); yet I cannot find any resources mentioning those. Give moderators the ability to mark reviews as "bad" From what I've seen, many SO moderators trawl completed reviews and watch out for robo reviewers; and manual banning them when they see enough (>= 3?) bad reviews. This is inefficient because:   It doesn't integrate into the audit system. There's no "memory" to it. If mod A finds that user X has made two (any number less than the threshhold) bad reviews, he may make a mental note but there probably won't be any permanent/shared memory of this. If moderator B finds this user at a later date, he will have to look through the entire history, including stuff that mod A has already checked.    What I propose is that moderators get the ability to mark individual reviews as "invalid" from the completed review page. This is only to be used for reviews where any reviewer who is paying attention (and knows the rules) would choose the opposite reason (spam and other low quality stuff).   These bad review flags are treated like audits for a user -- if the number of failed audits and bad reviews is enough, the user gets autobanned. The nice thing is that this system should (probably) easily be able to , fixing the "Why was I manual banned?" problem.  This could also be integrated well with . Easy way to change apache www location What do you call an 'unselfish' action made with a selfish reason? There are many examples of this, and I'd like to give a few:   A person who puts a lot of effort to help the community and earns reputation points. But that reputation is the motivation behind helping the community, not because they really want to. A student approaches a professor, and helps them in their teaching and doing research in order to have a good LOR (letter of recommendation). To a SEO, the content of the website must be good (well, this one is a little tricky, but you get the spirit.)   I'm not saying that the reputation/LOR/high-ranked is not deserved. It is. I just want to focus more on the selfish reason(s) behind that.  Any kind of answer can be accepted: single word, phrase, proverb or idiom. Set of discontinuity of monotone function is countable The result I am trying to prove is the following:     Let $F:\Bbb R\to\Bbb R$ be increasing. Then the set of points, at which it is discontinuous, is countable.   I have been reading this form Folland's Real Analysis and he proves this by considering the sum $\sum_{|x|&lt;N}[F(x^+)-F(x^-)]$ which has to be finite by some sort of telescoping sum. Now, I am not sure how he defines this sum. I am assuming he does this by using nets (let me know if there is another way to look at this), but he doesn't introduce the concept of nets until the next chapter. So I was looking for some other ways to prove this result and I found the following result (from Stein-Shakarchi) which is quite similar but assumes $F$ to be bounded.      A bounded increasing function $F$ on $[a,b]$ has at most countably many discontinuities.   This is shown by using the density of rationals in $\Bbb R$, i.e. $\exists r_x\in\Bbb Q$ s. t. $F(x^-)&lt;r_x&lt;F(x^+)$ corresponding to each point of discontinuity $x$.   Now I feel like there shouldn't be a problem in doing the exact same thing for unbounded increasing function. Is this right? Secondly how does this proof relate to the first one? I feel like there isn't much of a difference between the two proofs. To be precise I think that the previous sum is well defined/finite because of this countability of discontinuous points. What do you think about this way of thinking?  Edit. Here is the Folland's proof in more detail:  Since $F$ is increasing, the intervals $(F(x^-),F(x^+))$ are disjoint for all $\forall x\in\Bbb R$. Moreover,  $\forall|x| &lt; N$ such intervals are contained in $(F(-N),F(N^+))$ and so  $$\sum_{|x|&lt;N}[F(x^+)-F(x^-)] \leqslant F(N) - F(-N) &lt; \infty. $$ Hence the set $\{ x \in (-N,N) : F(x^+) \neq F(x^-)\}$ is countable.