Tootfinder

Im using case_when() quite a lot, case_match() is new to me: #rstats

A general vectorised switch() — case_match
case_match() is deprecated. Please use recode_values() and replace_values() instead, which are more powerful, have more intuitive names, and have better safety. In addition to the familiar two-sided formula interface, these functions also have from and to arguments which allow you to incorporate a lookup table into the recoding process. This function allows you to vectorise multiple switch() statements. Each case is evaluated sequentially and the first match for each element determines the cor…

An animation of the moment Krishna reveals his true nature to Arjuna : #animation

@… en l’abscense de volets, ici on as fixé des rideaux reflechissants (argenté) sur l’extérieurs de nos rideaux accultants, on les coincent Š l’exterieur en fermant comme on peu les fenêtres.
Ca aide beaucoup.
Bon courrage.

Rarefaction-induced inflation and similarity breakdown of hypersonic bow shocks over a circular cylinder
Ehsan Roohi, Ahmad Shoja-Sani
https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17099 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.17099 https://arxiv.org/html/2605.17099
arXiv:2605.17099v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Rarefied hypersonic bow shocks over blunt bodies inflate as the Knudsen number increases, but it remains unclear whether this inflation is a simple shift and broadening of one common shock layer or a multi-scale change of the macroscopic and internal-energy fields. We address this question using direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) data for Mach-10 flow over a circular cylinder in argon and nitrogen over \(Kn_\infty \approx 0.01\)--\(1\), together with a Mach-number sweep at \(Kn_\infty=0.01\). At low rarefaction, a ray-based density-gradient ridge gives a reproducible bow-shock location and agrees with an independent schlieren-based shock-wave-detection method. As \(Kn_\infty\) increases, this ridge is replaced by a broad kinetic compression layer, so the high-Knudsen cases are analysed using profile-based standoff and thickness metrics rather than by imposing a visual shock line. The Knudsen- and Mach-number sweeps separate two mechanisms. At fixed \(M_\infty\), the continuum normal-shock density ratio provides a useful low-rarefaction reference compression scale, whereas the measured standoff growth is governed primarily by the kinetic mean free path; the effective density thickness shows an intermediate minimum before increasing in the diffuse regime. At fixed low \(Kn_\infty\), changing \(M_\infty\) mainly changes compression strength and curvature, preserving a coherent attached-layer structure. Density-registered profiles and shock-attached proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) show that, within the present maximum-density-gradient registration, density becomes nearly rank one, whereas Mach number and thermal variables retain independent modal content. Rarefied bow-shock inflation is therefore a coupled compression--relaxation process, not a single-scale rescaling of a continuum-like shock.
toXiv_bot_toot

I love going through my replies from 2024 where I told folks that they should support the Democratic Socialists of America :dsa: against the democratic establishment, where it was their argument that this strategy would never work and is idealistic and we need to drop support for some minority group, have a “lesser evil” and “harm reduction” candidate, in order to appeal to Republicans to win.
Now, arriving in reality, all it took was actually offering an alternative, instead of just b…

This article has the merit of showing that academics don’t have to adopt genAI uncritically, but it treats the uncritical adoption as the default, portraying those that take a more reflective approach as “refusing to use generative AI.”
Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the AI advocates? And shouldn’t academics’ arguments go beyond regurgitating the companies’ advertising and trite claims of “it’s the future, use it or you’ll get left behind”?

This article has the merit of showing that academics don’t have to adopt genAI uncritically, but it treats the uncritical adoption as the default, portraying those that take a more reflective approach as “refusing to use generative AI.”
Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the AI advocates? And shouldn’t academics’ arguments go beyond regurgitating the companies’ advertising and trite claims of “it’s the future, use it or you’ll get left behind”?

This article has the merit of showing that academics don’t have to adopt genAI uncritically, but it treats the uncritical adoption as the default, portraying those that take a more reflective approach as “refusing to use generative AI.”
Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the AI advocates? And shouldn’t academics’ arguments go beyond regurgitating the companies’ advertising and trite claims of “it’s the future, use it or you’ll get left behind”?

Russia was behind arson attacks targeting PM, BBC reveals (Daniel De Simone/BBC)
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r2l352z2do
http://www.memeorandum.com/260615/p39#a260615p39

A federal judge blocks President Trump's policy imposing a $100,000 fee for employer H-1B visa applications (CNBC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/08/trump-h1b-visa-fee-blocks.html

Judge blocks Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee
Trump had imposed the $100,000 fee in order to restrict the program, arguing that it has undermined U.S. security through the "replacement of American workers."