gdal.VectorTranslate returns empty object
gdal.VectorTranslate returns an empty file
One of the biggest issue with cluster analysis is that we may happen to have to derive different conclusion when base on different clustering methods used  (including different linkage methods in hierarchical clustering).  I would like to know your opinion on this - which method will you select, and how. One might say "the best method of clustering is which gives you the right answer"; but I may question in response that cluster analysis is supposed to be an unsupervised technique - so how do I know which method or linkage is the right answer?  In general: is a clustering alone robust enough to rely on? Or we need a second method and get a shared result to be based on both?  My question is not only about possible ways to validate / evaluate clustering performance, but is broader - on what basis do we select/prefer one clustering method/algorithm over another one. Also, is there common warnings that we should look around when we are selecting a method to cluster our data?  I know that it is very general question and very difficult to answer. I only would like to know if you have any comment or any advise or any suggestion for me to learn more about this. How to divide two 64-bit numbers in Linux Kernel? Some code that rounds up the division to demonstrate (C-syntax):  #define SINT64 long long int #define SINT32 long int  SINT64 divRound(SINT64 dividend, SINT64 divisor) {   SINT32 quotient1 = dividend / divisor;    SINT32 modResult = dividend % divisor;   SINT32 multResult = modResult * 2;   SINT32 quotient2 = multResult / divisor;    SINT64 result = quotient1 + quotient2;    return ( result ); }   Now, if this were User-space we probably wouldn't even notice that our compiler is generating code for those operators (e.g. divdi3() for division). Chances are we link with libgcc without even knowing it. The problem is that Kernel-space is different (e.g. no libgcc). What to do?  Crawl Google for a while, notice that pretty much everyone addresses the unsigned variant:  #define UINT64 long long int #define UINT32 long int  UINT64 divRound(UINT64 dividend, UINT64 divisor) {   UINT32 quotient1 = dividend / divisor;    UINT32 modResult = dividend % divisor;   UINT32 multResult = modResult * 2;   UINT32 quotient2 = multResult / divisor;    UINT64 result = quotient1 + quotient2;    return ( result ); }   I know how to fix this one: Override udivdi3() and umoddi3() with do_div() from asm/div64.h. Done right? Wrong. Signed is not the same as unsigned, sdivdi3() does not simply call udivdi3(), they are separate functions for a reason.  Have you solved this problem? Do you know of a library that will help me do this? I'm really stuck so whatever you might see here that I just don't right now would be really helpful.  Thanks, Chad I am wondering how to differentiate all these different joins ... Partner with "traditional" forums to support open ended discussions What, exactly, is transferred along supply lines? Let $a,b,c>0$ such that $a+b+c=3$, find max/min of $\frac1{a^2+1}+\frac1{b^2+1}+\frac1{c^2+1}$ Let $a,b,c&gt;0$ be real numbers such that $a+b+c=3$, find the maximum and minimum of:   $$\frac1{a^2+1}+\frac1{b^2+1}+\frac1{c^2+1}$$   I've tried using AM-GM-HM, but I can't find the maximum or the minimum.  Using intuition, substituting $a=b=c=1$ should give us one of the optimums, but I cannot prove that it is the optimum. Proving that $ 2 $ is the only real solution of $ 3^x+4^x=5^x $ I'm having trouble distinguishing between the concepts of scedasticity and stationarity. As I understand them, heteroscedasticity is differing variabilities in sub-populations and non-stationarity is a changing mean/variance over time.   If this is a correct (albeit simplistic) understanding, is non-stationarity simply a specific case of heteroscedasticity across time? This question has bugged me for a while. I want to write a nested function, f(g(x)). If I naively enter it:  \begin{align}     f(g(x))=y \end{align}     The problem is that each and every parenthesis is the same size as all of the others. Shouldn't the outer parentheses be larger? But if I do this:  \begin{align}     f\left(g(x)\right)=y \end{align}     Now it looks even less like the functions are nested. What's the proper way to do this? I was doing some practice problems that my professor had sent us and I have not been able to figure out one of them. The given equation is:  $-y^2dx +x^2dy = 0$  He then asks us to verify that:  $ u(x, y) = \frac{1}{(x-y)^2}$  is an integrating factor.   I multiplied through to get:  $\frac{-y^2}{(x-y)^2}dx + \frac{x^2}{(x-y)^2}dy = 0$   However, the partial derivatives of these do not equal each other so I am a bit confused... Encrypting a key with the same key, for instance using AES I am new to crypto and trying to understand if it would be insecure to use a cipher such as AES to encrypt a key with the same key. If it is insecure, then why would it be insecure?  Basically, something like this:  encrypt(key, key)   What happens when both key and message are the same (128 bits)?  The obvious question would be why would I want to do that. If I have a secure channel to send the key, why encrypt it? My question is more for understanding. How do I mention my own products in answers? Twice now I've seen questions on Stack Overflow where one of my company's products might provide an answer to the question.  One was a slightly vague connection about object-relational mapping, but the other was a specific question about workshop/event management where we have a product which is almost an exact match for the questioner's needs.  Of course the questioner should take a pinch of salt with anything I say about it, but it might be useful to have the product brought to his attention as one possible solution.  What are the rules and guidelines about answering with something I worked on? What are the advantages and limitations of dynamic type languages compared to static type languages?  See also:  (a far more argumentative thread...) Is it possible to do something like this  #ifdef SOMETHING #define foo // #else #define foo MyFunction #endif   The idea is that if SOMETHING is defined, then calls to foo(...) become comments (or something that doesn't get evaluated or compiled), otherwise it becomes a call to MyFunction.  I've seen __noop used, but I don't believe I can use that.  EDIT(s):  I don't think I can really use a macro here, because MyFunction takes a variable number of arguments.  Also, I'd like to make it so the arguments are NOT evaluated!  (So doing something like commenting out the body of MyFunction doesn't really give me what I need, as the arguments will still be evaluated) Headless linux install I never know how to order food correctly but succinctly the first time. :(  Basically: I can't eat hot stuff (i.e. most pepper, similar spices, ...).  On the one hand, I don't want to say "Please don't make it spicy", because I really don't mind spice (heck, a lot of them are great!) -- I just don't want it to be hot spice.  On the other hand "Please don't make it hot" would seem to imply I'd like my food cold!  Possibilities I've considered:   "Please don't add hot spice" just sounds weird "Please don't add pepper" is the best I've thought of so far, but I'm pretty sure I've come across foods without pepper (or apparently so) which nevertheless tasted pretty hot. And not just that, but it would also exclude bell peppers, etc. which I don't mind much.   Any ideas for how to communicate this clearly? The fewer words the better, haha. Is there a way to retrieve the user id of @mention user from chatter post in Apex? We can write a before insert trigger on feeditem, but when we display the body (which has @mention user) it simply displays as text. Is there any workaround for this? Points of a Measure Zero Sets Covered by Intervals Infinitely Many Times Given a measure zero set $E$, by definition we have forall $\varepsilon &gt; 0$, a covering of $E$ by intervals whose lengths sum to $&lt; \varepsilon$.  I want to prove that we can cover $E$ in intervals such that the sum of the lengths the intervals is $&lt; 1$ and each point in $E$ is contained in infinitely many of the intervals.  Do you know how to prove this? Thank you Using the affine linearized polynomial $f(x)=x^p-x-b$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{F}_q$ if and only if $\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathbb{F}_q/\mathbb{F}_p} \neq 0$. But here $\mathbb{F}_3$ is not a field extension of $\mathbb{F}_5$.  Also we have that: Let $a \in \mathbb{F}_q$ and let $p$ be the characteristic of $\mathbb{F}_q$. Then the trinomial $x^P - x - a$ is irreducible in $\mathbb{F}_q[x]$ if and only if it has no root in $\mathbb{F}_q$. As a result, I am able to be understanding and accommodating to the people that I work with, including clients, which I believe is an important asset for a professional to have.   I wanted to make sure it is absolutely known that I mean to acknowledge clients as a class of people I can work with. Is this the right way to include it with commas?