I hope you have unsoldered your microphone also.

The mic issue is actually more worrying, but as you point out, there aren't such easy solutions.

Hacksaw a 1/4 inch jack, insert. Disable what you can at software level, remove drivers/codecs for recording. Not easy though.

"iMac has two built-in microphones"

https://www.apple.com/imac/features/

So that won't work for me, sadly.

i'm sure there are some environments that have strict no mic's requirements, i wonder what they do to disable mic's on the iMac. Perhaps they don't use iMacs or disable sound in the bios?

I found that 2 layers of etape over my laptop microphone muffles it quite nicely -- no signal even when I shout. Easy to remove and reinstall, too.

Strangely, the name of the submitters company is "Additive Analytics"

Ignoring that some of the variables don't match up properly (the arrays: card and Card), it seems like the explanation of the first flaw may also be flawed.

Flaw #1: An Off-by-One Error

The algorithm above tries to iterate over each card in the deck, swapping each card with another randomly chosen card in the deck. However—every programmer has made this mistake before—there's an off-by-one error. The function random(n) returns a number between 0 and (n-1), not between 1 and n as the programmer intends. As a result, the algorithm will never swap the 52nd card with itself; the 52nd card can never end up in the 52nd place. So that is the first reason the "random" card shuffling isn't really random.

The comment refers to the Pascal code:

  random_number := random(51)+1;

If the programmer really thought that random was between 1 and n then the random_number variable would be a number between 2 and 52 (1+1 to 51+1). It seems like, instead, a better explanation is that they may have thought random(n) produced a random number between 0 and n, hence the need to increment by one. Another explanation is they just messed up the slicing using 51 instead of 52.

The point being that in the writer's explanation of the flaw they actually make the same mistake.

Funnily enough googling "pascal random" points to a stackoverflow article where the best answer makes the same error.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4965863/how-to-get-a-ran...

I think programmer tried to be defensive by ignoring an edge case. He either was lazy in searching for its documentation (<= 1999 you know) and tried to be over-smart to avoid "Out of Range" exception in test/production. Or he didn't consider looking at documentation like some of us do. He may have given it a shot by running it several times to see if it actually generates the number provided as an argument.

With increasing population, it is incredibly simple.

Choose one:

  1. Live further away
  2. Increase number of people per living abode
  3. Increase number of living abodes per space

Numbers one and two are personal choice, number three is political.

The debugger hasn't been born yet.

What they need is military grade math Ph.Ds

They might unintendedly have those already.

There is also no evidence that the quantities and ratios of nutrients in the formula are anywhere near complete or optimal.

The easiest way to illustrate how this can be a problem is to compare the difference between growing cells in minimal media versus complex media, where they grow much faster.

Soylent is basically a crude minimal media for humans. The proper comparison for soylent will be against someone who is eating a complete diet, not someone who is skipping meals or eating poorly.

Why are you assuming that humans have a craving for the "innate satisfaction of eating?"

If you remove that artificial restriction then something like soylent makes a lot more sense.

You should remind him that biology is not computing.