Trunk

general recent conversations

$Mathematics$ Discussion on question by some kid tr…

Imported from a comment discussion on math.stackexchange.com/q...

Trunk

Jul 18 11:22

@some kid trying her best Hey, honey - what's your hurry ? Don't you wanna learn French, savor the English poetry, play basketball, run around with the dog, swim in the garden pool and just llllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzze around ? Don't grow up too fast on us . . .

$Mathematics$ Discussion on question by Eli Peters:…

Imported from a comment discussion on math.stackexchange.com/q...

Trunk

May 30 23:50

... at some point in the digits of π, it will begin writing out every single digit of e Are you suggesting that at some point in $\pi$'s enumeration all the digits of e will be listed in the same order as they are in e ? Randomness doesn't imply this, I think.

Discussion on answer by Steve: Why do…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...

Trunk

Apr 24 19:58

Whatever it was, it sure didn't stop CEOs making more and more post WW2. Look at O'Reilly at Heinz. Look at "Sack" Welch at GE. If the base salary was taxed at a higher rate, then they got it via bonus related stock options, pension top-ups, loans, etc. And these instruments went all the way down to smallish companies. Whatever it was, it failed to arrest "reward" or "greed".

Trunk

Apr 24 19:58

It's like progressive taxation on incomes - the point isn't to raise funds, but to shape the market and control runaway incomes by ensuring more and more of the surplus goes to the state. But the point is to raise funds ! Why else would a government risk the ire of every go-ahead (or fortunately high-income) citizen if they didn't need the additional revenue to meet the demands of public expenditure or to pay down national debt ? If it was only to create a thick national pension then the government could achieve that through pension credits to employers and employees.

Trunk

Apr 24 19:58

@Steve What is to stop US capital investing abroad in preference to the low-return investment offered by Trump-protected US manufacturing companies ? Will US finance also have to be financially (or otherwise) discouraged from going abroad in search of higher returns ?

Discussion between noedne and Trunk

Imported from a comment discussion on puzzling.stackexchange.c...

Trunk

Apr 15 18:20

@noedne I make no such suggestion of SEP users. Indeed the very fact that they are on this forum would suggest a willingness to solve puzzles. And it is willingness - rather than brilliance - that finds the solution, as you will know yourself. Anyhow, I've had quite enough of your sarcasm here. One would almost think that you were duty-bound to make changes to your solution based on the critiques of others - but of course you are not. If you feel correct, why make any change at all ?

Trunk

Apr 15 10:32

@noedne And help those unable to follow overimaginative geometry to avoid having to find a solution for themselves !

Trunk

Apr 14 22:43

@noedne It's clear enough. Though it would be better to have the putative pentagon dotted into the main drawing at the top of your post. But the main thing is it is now a followable solution to the puzzle.

Trunk

Apr 14 21:45

I would lightly draw (and draw with proper precision, using Inkscape or some such) the putative pentagon into the existing diagram. That way folks could seed it clearly. On the second point, yes I was mistaken. It was as "the regular pentagon" - though this hardly removes the ambiguity since there is one drawn and one readily imaginable (to me at least) regular pentagon in the puzzle diagram. Saying it's "opposite vertex A" didn't help me, as it wasn't visible.

Trunk

Apr 14 21:24

Not when their is ambiguity in the phrase "the pentagon" - personally I thought this referred to the drawn pentagon. Not when it is rotationally offset to the drawn pentagon(s). And not when its only function in the solution is to apply a ratio that is not the preserve of pentagons exclusively but rather that of the 18-72-90 right angle triangle - which just happens to be a component in regular pentagons.

Trunk

Apr 14 21:18

And I sure as hell didn't follow it - hence my doing it another way - albeit not as concisely as you did.

Trunk

Apr 14 21:17

This is a bit of a Woodward vs Bernstein tiff over my "polishing" your "copy". But there we are. making the solution accessible is something that's just as important (maybe more?) than finding a solution, I think.

Trunk

Apr 14 21:15

Personally I wouldn't refer to an undrawn pentagon but rather refer to the similar angles observed in pentagon subtriangles and those arising in this puzzle. Then you can apply the phi relation. As I said, the second pentagon is when the 5 points of the star are joined. I daresay a man who can picture undrawn pentagons may easily imagine this outer pentagon.

Trunk

Apr 14 21:10

The trouble is that saying "the regular pentagon with side OB opposite vertex A" is not as clear to the reader as it seems to have been to the writer - who of course knew well what he had in mind. Maybe it would be clearer to all if you'd written "another regular pentagon with side OB opposite vertex A" or something to take readers minds off the pentagons in the puzzle. That's if you want to bring a third pentagon into it as a means to present your solution.

Trunk

Apr 14 20:53

I would say a pentagon rather than the pentagon as this one is putative and different to either the one in the red circle or the outer one formed by joining the star points. This because when you have people looking at a puzzle involving explicit pentagons, a solution referring to "the pentagon" would likely be read as referring to one of the two visible pentagons.

Trunk

Apr 14 20:53

I would say it as: OA is a diagonal of a regular pentagon with side OB opposite vertex A. But again, all you are doing is using the proportions of the 36-72-72 triangle that are found in regular pentagons. Generally, unless someone has pentagons on their mind they are unlikely to envision them emerge ahead of seeing the triangles characterizing them, I think. But each to their own, of course.

Trunk

Apr 14 20:53

$|OA|$ isn't a diagonal to either the inner or outer pentagon in this situation. It looks to me that you simply used the fact that $\Delta OCA$ (where C is the mid-point of $|OB|$) is an 18-72-90 right angle triangle or one half of the 36-72-72 triangle involved in the pentagon $\phi$ relation. Of course you get the correct answer (and very efficiently) but saying OA is a diagonal of the regular pentagon with side OB opposite vertex A demands the reader to imagine a new pentagon that isn't drawn.

Trunk

Apr 14 20:53

The diagram as you've drawn it doesn't make clear how $ |OA| = 2\; \phi $. It's clearer to see this when you construct an outer circle of radius $R = |OA|$ touching the star points and also radial lines showing that $R \sin{18}^\text{o} = \;r =\;1$.

Discussion on question by Trunk: Leas…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...

Trunk

Sep 17, 2024 21:27

I would agree with Weather Vane on the rarity of integrity of lawyers. But in provincial cities of UK/IRL it is an even greater rarity.

Trunk

Sep 17, 2024 21:27

@ohwilleke I guess so. But (1) legal advice is expensive; (2) lawyers are usually involved in property investment themselves; and (3) lawyers in small cities tend to favor the business against an individual, albeit one who owns a property. So people would be wary that the lawyer they turn to may be sympathetic to the other side, I guess.

Trunk

Sep 17, 2024 21:27

@ohwilleke Indeed. Likely he never took legal advice on the matter.

Trunk

Sep 17, 2024 21:27

@Barmar Yes. But here we have a transfer of a lease. I am not sure that this is as simple as say the sale of equipment within the premises that was originally bought by the old business owner. I think that the premises owner has a right to at least approve the new tenant - as they would in a case of sub-letting a property. So in that sense the premises owner has a say in the transaction - at least as far as the lease is concerned.

Trunk

Sep 17, 2024 21:27

@ohwilleke 1. It's harder to negotiate a high sale price of a premises with someone who already has a long lease on it. 2. The development potential of the site is not indefinite. It often depends on a city's zoning plans and the demand for housing. So an owner may not ultimately realize the development potential that exists right now.

Trunk

Sep 17, 2024 21:27

@Jen I've edited in the clarifications w.r.t. being "misled".

Trunk

Sep 17, 2024 21:27

@ohwilleke But the business (including the lease) had already been acquired 6-12 months before a bid was made to purchase the premises. And the premises owner knew nothing of their plans when his then tenant sold the business to a party ostensibly doing the same kind of business.

Discussion on question by uhoh: How t…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...

Trunk

Aug 14, 2024 21:44

@uhoh Frankly, were you just assigned to these other researchers to "help them with their writing" ? It sure seems more like that than if you were an active researcher on the topic written about. If so, you were unwise to undertake it. If you were an active researcher on the paper's topic, take the responsibility to lead the writing of the paper yourself. The other authors will learn how to write correctly a lot faster this way.

Discussion on question by phd_cyber_c…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...

Trunk

Jul 28, 2024 10:36

I mean, is it the freer research environment compared to the IT industry or is it the human environment, i.e. young people, "young-minded" older people, people with interesting ideas, lots of foreigners, etc ? A lot of people coming to this forum seem to have a clear fixation of getting an academic job but are very vague on why they want it.

Trunk

Jul 27, 2024 10:28

My motivation was to become a faculty member . . . We have to drill deeper into your motivation than that circular answer. Why do you want to be an academic ?

Trunk

Jul 26, 2024 18:16

Add more information on what you did between your primary degree and PhD. Also what was your motivation in doing a PhD in the first place ?

Discussion between Trunk and B. Shea

Imported from a comment discussion on askubuntu.com/questions/...

Trunk

Jul 21, 2024 10:14

I just lately got my own mail server going. Postfix + Dovecot + MySQL . I was wondering about SpamAssassin but this RSPAMD seems better.

Trunk

Jul 21, 2024 10:11

Hold on there. Mox is at present just a one-man project, not a working mail server. There loads of dev and tons of testing to do. It is supported by NLNet - just a bit of microfinance, the project author still has to work a day-job - but that seems to me to be more of a handicap than a help. esp. in regard to NLNet's attitude to documentation. So proceed with caution and evaluate on a separate server to that used for your regular mail server.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 19:24

Let's leave it there for today. Many thanks again.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 18:29

I was installing Unbound was so I could try this new integrated mail server, Mox. It uses DNSSEC to try to get emails delivered to the intended recipients and not hijacked. Likewise with incoming stuff. has potential for spam stripping. But this Mox mail server is another NLNet sponsored project (like Unbound) so I'm going to have to be cagey with trialling it.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 18:19

[1721498878] unbound[2183:0] info: 0.016384 0.032768 1
[1721498878] unbound[2183:0] info: 0.131072 0.262144 2
[1721498878] unbound[2183:0] info: 0.524288 1.000000 1
[1721498878] unbound[2183:0] info: 1.000000 2.000000 1
Jul 20 19:08:14 unbound[741:0] notice: init module 0: validator
Jul 20 19:08:14 unbound[741:0] notice: init module 1: iterator
Jul 20 19:08:15 unbound[741:0] info: start of service (unbound 1.20.0).
Jul 20 19:08:17 unbound[741:0] info: generate keytag query _ta-4f66. NULL IN

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 18:19

Here's the tail end of the log file:

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 18:17

$ sudo netstat -ntlp
Active Internet connections (only servers)
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State PID/Program name
tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:995 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 902/dovecot
tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:993 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 902/dovecot
tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:3306 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 855/mysqld
tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:53 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 741/unbound

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 18:16

The log is offering dates & time now thanks to that last suggestion of yours.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 18:06

Thanks for assistance. Will report on later settings.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 18:04

I rebooted with the do-ip4: no and do-ip6: yes settings. I tried to start the unbound service but was told both ports could not be opened. Makes sense - as IP4 was turned off. So I reversed the do-ip settings in the config file. Restarted the unbound service no bother. Logs work too. Though the stupid log notes have no dates or times.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 17:27

Did that. Unbound service going now. With caveat - Warning: some journal files were not opened due to insufficient permissions. I take it that I enable IP4 again now ?

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 17:04

Go dine.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 17:04

Yes.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 17:01

Lunch here too. Bonsoir.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 17:00

Port 8953 is the issue to be solved. I have to take IPv4 off it so IPv6 can use it solely.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 16:59

Ubuntu 22.04.4 LTS with kernel 5.15.0-116-generic #126-Ubuntu. I followed those all-over-the -place docs insofar as I could make sense of them, yes.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 16:57

Go to the bar if you want. I'll chat to myself.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 16:57

**sudo lsof -i :8953** COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME
unbound 736 unbound 5u IPv6 18803 0t0 TCP ip6-localhost:8953 (LISTEN)
unbound 736 unbound 6u IPv4 18804 0t0 TCP localhost:8953 (LISTEN)

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 16:56

My installation was not via apt - it was a compiled installation from a .tar.gz archive of version 1.20 direct from the NLNet website. sudo netstat -ntlp shows ports 53 and 8953 now held by Unbound process on 127.0.0.1 . . . yet when I sudo unbound -dd I see [1721493762] unbound[34867:0] error: can't bind socket: Address already in use for ::1 port 8953 [1721493762] unbound[34867:0] error: cannot open control interface ::1 8953 [1721493762] unbound[34867:0] fatal error: could not open ports Time to free up these ports formally.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 16:56

$ unbound -v [1721492527] unbound[34646:0] notice: Start of unbound 1.20.0. [1721492527] unbound[34646:0] error: can't bind socket: Permission denied for 127.0.0.1 port 53 [1721492527] unbound[34646:0] fatal error: could not open ports I stopped systemd-resolved service in case it was hogging port 53. But to no apparent avail.

Trunk

Jul 20, 2024 16:56

I was trying to activate logs on Unbound as I can't get the Unbound service to start . . . With no logs, I'm goosed - unless -v prints anything.