Blur Game English Language Pack 133
Destini Armstrong
What would be the best way to implement that in Rust? I'm looking for solution that would prevent the dreadful off-by-one and out of bounds access, but also wouldn't needlessly do bounds checks for every pixel.
but that doesn't actually work, because .windows() doesn't work on iterators. And I'm not sure if I can expect the compiler to figure out how to make optimized inner loop for this, without any bounds checks and with a running average.
While the C way looks easy to follow, it's actually very tricky to get right, as you have to get all the special cases right (e.g if width < 3), all partial sums right (off-by-one very easy to make and harder to notice), and the summing/averaging logic is scattered in 9 places (a pain if I wanted to extend it to use convolution/fancier blur kernel).
The helper done this way wouldn't be able to avoid bounds checks. Maybe an iterator returning [&[T; 3]; 3] could work performance-wise (it'd transmute the inner arrays in fast case, copy in special case).
The outer loop calls a row handler, always passing three rows (as slice, as array or as separated arguments). The outer loop could handle the edge case by duplicating the first and/or last row (as you've already mentioned). Performance is not an issue on this level.
For the inner loop I used a classical index iterator, as I had to iterate over multiple arrays simultaneously (zip-iterating them was a bit slower and less readable). The resulting assembly was well optimized and didn't contain any boundary checks. I don't know if this works as well with slices rather than the arrays I used (zip-iterating might be the better choice for slices).
I find the 'C' way much easier to read, as soon as you start zipping this and unzipping that I find things get quickly unreadable and unmaintainable. It's what I call "write only code" I am sure everyone knows debugging is generally harder than writing code, so if we use all our intellectual capability to write code we will be too stupid to debug it.
I did some informal research on this presenting algorithms written in different ways to different people and seeing how long it took them to be able to understand what the code was doing. I posted an example on LtU a while back too. The clear majority of people, including functional programming advocates found the imperative loops easier to read and understand.
My theory is that the functional code involves hidden types. The type returned from 'zip' for example needs to be computed from the types of its arguments. Given a sequence of operations and the invisible type computation becomes harder and it is easier to make mistakes. In the imperative code, there is often a mutable container with a visible type signature, the type of which does not change throughout the whole algorithm. Therefore my advice, for readability and maintainability is to minimise the 'hidden' types in code. Try to change the algorithm as little as possible from its canonical pseudocode description.
I realise this goes against the the fashion in Rust, but I encourage people to test this out for themselves, and decide what is more important, following the fashion, or readability and maintainability. I would also recommend avoiding seeing imperative loops as un-rustic and creating a false dichotomy between the 'C' way and the 'Rust' way. There are algorithms, and writing them in a clear, readable and maintainable way is the most important thing.
I was wondering if anyone has tried using the phx-blur with a contenteditable div? I have been fighting with it for a few hours and I can find no way to get the value within the div sent along with the event.
Four Ojibwe protesters appeared in court Monday morning on charges of harvesting wild rice without a permit and illegal fish netting. The protesters argue the state of Minnesota has no jurisdiction in their case, because an 1855 treaty gives Ojibwe band members rights to hunt, fish and gather.
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
It's more than simply reading the words. Courts have developed specific rules for interpreting treaties, and those rules require liberally construing the terms in favor of the Native American leaders who signed them.
Monday's hearing could be the first step in what Ojibwe bands hope is a path to federal court and a potentially precedent-setting treaty victory. The bands in the 1855 treaty territory believe they can follow the success of two earlier court challenges that gave Indians in Minnesota hunting and fishing rights.
The rules generally require the interpretation to lean in favor of the tribes. The legal reasoning: The government held most of the power in treaty negotiations and often benefited from the language barrier.
"When it comes to hunting and fishing rights in a territory that's been ceded to the United States, there haven't been any court cases that have decided whether the reserved rights doctrine should be applied in that context," Routel said.
"If there is a lawsuit brought in federal court by one of those tribes, then I do think this will be a case of significant scope that is at least equal to the previous Mille Lacs litigation," she said.
That's partly because the 1855 Treaty territory is larger: From the northern edge of Lake Mille Lacs, north to Bemidji and west to the North Dakota border, it covers much of Minnesota's lake country.
But, Routel said, even bigger than the geographic territory is the precedent the case could set nationally. If the Minnesota bands win treaty rights in the 1855 Treaty territory, it will encourage tribes nationwide to pursue similar rights.
Charles Cleland, a professor emeritus of anthropology at Michigan State University who has been involved in nearly 40 treaty court cases in the upper Midwest, said researchers study the official record of the treaty negotiation. They also look for journals and letters, not only at the time the treaty was signed, but even years later to help understand what Indians said about the treaty. But the answers aren't always clear.
"Civilized people would not be running around the countryside hunting and gathering. They would become farmers and agriculturists," Cleland said. "That was the end, as far as the government was concerned."
Minnesota historian and anthropologist Bruce White said he's found many examples from the early 1900's of Indians complaining to the Minnesota Game and Fish Commission about interference with hunting and fishing in ceded territories.
"People in the Game and Fish Commission said, 'Well, I don't think that's really relevant, because it's so long ago and it may have had some meaning then, but it doesn't have any meaning now,' which was the usual answer," White said.
Dale Greene, a member of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and the 1855 Treaty Authority, which pushes for treaty rights, said his ancestors always assumed they had rights to take the natural resources they needed to live.
"The Indians were living on the land," he said. "They were hunting fishing and gathering. But more importantly, they were traveling, thriving and living in the ceded territory and believed that they would continue to do so."
Greene and other 1855 Treaty Authority members believe a federal lawsuit will bring the Minnesota DNR to the table to negotiate an agreement to share resources. That's what happened in the 1854 Treaty case and what the state tried to do in the 1837 Treaty case.
"Blurred" is the past tense of the verb to blur. It is also an adjective to describe something that is blurred, as in the case of your example. "Blurry" essentially means the same as "blurred", although it can be used to describe varying degrees of blurriness. An image is either blurred, or it is not - but you could say it is "very blurry", or "a little blurry".
However, is it actually the camera that is blurred, or the photographs it takes? Although "lens blur" is a recognised term for the effect of blurring photographs, "blurred" isn't a quality that a camera has.
"Blurred backgrounds in Zoom really does a number on fingerspelling comprehension. I don't think people realize how bad the fingers get blurred. One moment you have fingers and the next moment, you don't. Zoom blurring has no mercy. It just whacks your finger off, and then it pops back up. Freakiest thing ever. I tell my students to turn that thing off. I'd rather see their pile of dirty clothes on the bed than deal with that." -- Bee Vicars, FB, Sept. 14, 2023.
Search/Filter: Enter a keyword in the filter/search box to see a list of available words with the "All" selection. Click on the page number if needed. Click on the blue link to look up the word. For best result, enter a partial word to see variations of the word.
If you cannot find (perhaps overlook) a word but you can still see a list of links, then keep looking until the links disappear! Sharpening your eye or maybe refine your alphabetical index skill. :)
Add a Word: This dictionary is not exhaustive; ASL signs are constantly added to the dictionary. If you don't find a word/sign, you can send your request (only if a single link doesn't show in the result).
Videos: The first video may be NOT the answer you're looking for. There are several signs for different meanings, contexts, and/or variations. Browsing all the way down to the next search box is highly recommended.
ASL has its own grammar and structure in sentences that works differently from English. For plurals, verb inflections, word order, etc., learn grammar in the "ASL Learn" section. For search in the dictionary, use the present-time verbs and base words. If you look for "said", look up the word "say". Likewise, if you look for an adjective word, try the noun or vice versa. E.g. The ASL signs for French and France are the same. If you look for a plural word, use a singular word.
b37509886e