static_assert even if member is not instantiated
static_assert fails compilation even though template function is called nowhere
So our 6-month-old boy still doesn't sleep through the night. He still wakes up at least once and wants to eat.  He takes 3 naps during the day, ranging from 30 minutes to 1.5 (sometimes 2) hours.  We usually put him down for the night at least 2 hours after his latest nap, but we haven't been able to get him down to 2 naps per day because he gets pretty cranky during the evenings. Depending on the duration and times of his naps, his bedtime ranges between 10 and midnight.  We have started feeding him a small amount (2 tablespoons dry) of rice cereal after his morning and evening naps in the hopes that he'll have a fuller stomach through the night, but he still wakes up hungry after sleeping between 3 and 6 hours. I can handle the 6 hours, since that means I get 6 hours of pretty much uninterrupted sleep, but it's usually more like 3-4.  Any suggestions? Is there an easy way to put a box around a theorem in LaTeX? For example to state an important theorem. I tried using page 20 of the ntheorem , but I do not know how to use the package. How can I show that the set of rational numbers with denominator a power of two form a dense subset of the reals? How can I show that the set of rational numbers with denominator a power of two form a dense subset of the reals? This is relating to the movie. Frodo finally relinquishes his desire for the ring, and it melts in the fires of Mount Doom. The next scene shows the eruption of Mount Doom and the destruction of Barad Dur. Gandalf looks up with tears in his eyes.  I have read the books, and can't seem to remember this being explained or described. I'm just wondering why they depicted Gandalf as being so emotional about the event, when throughout the story it depicts Gandalf as having unparalleled wisdom, faith and knowledge. Out of all the Ainur he listened to Eru's song the longest and contemplated it's meaning.   It strikes me that Tolkien portrayed Gandalf as all knowing, and has ultimate faith that Frodo would carry out the task at hand. So why was he so emotionally surprised that it happened? Especially when he had seen far more surprising things happening throughout the War of the Ring and in the movies he was depicted as emotionally immovable, an almost cold hearted awareness of the evil that lurks within the world.   I understand this is probably going to be down-voted as it has alot of opinion based statements. The TL:DR is: Was Gandalf described in the book as being so emotional at Sauron's fall? Or was this simply for effect in the screenplay? Are there any examples of Humans and Aliens producing offspring in Star Wars? The title is pretty self explanatory, although to expand on the question further I am looking for any examples of inter-species breeding in the Star Wars universe, not just inter-species (ahem) "relations". Unable to use built in events (Event Reference) Salesforce has functions that do a lot of basic web app functionality for you, called Event Reference. They can be found here   On the editRecord Event Reference, found here   essentaily, I create a   &lt;ui:button label="Edit" press="{!c.editRecord}"/&gt;   on my component, reference the attribute on the page and add the function from the docs in the controller  editRecord : function(component, event, helper) {     var editRecordEvent = $A.get("e.force:editRecord");      console.log("record id is: " + component.get("v.item.Id"));     console.log("editRecordEvent value is: " + editRecordEvent);      editRecordEvent.setParams({         "recordId": component.get("v.item.Id")     });      editRecordEvent.fire(); }   correct?  Here is the odd thing. From the console.logs, I get the record id, but the editRecordEvent returns undefined. What is going on? Is there something I need to reference in my component to use Event Reference? When testing the difference between 2 proportions why do we use a z-test rather than a t-test?    Further, is there a simple way to conduct an omnibus test for significant differences between more than 2 proportions (in the form of percentages). Is there an equivalent to a one-way ANOVA for this?  I imagine that you could use logistic regression (assuming you have the original data for the proportions in the form of 0s and 1s) Are there other options? Why did Snape need to appear well-informed? "You will have to give Voldemort the correct date of Harry's departure from his aunt and uncle's," said Dumbledore. "Not to do so will raise suspicion, when Voldemort believes you so well informed."   Snape had just killed Dumbledore, why would it raise suspicion about the movements of Harry's departure? it would seem likely that once Dumbledore died at the hands of Snape the Order would surely have changed any plans they would have had in place for Harry's exit from Privet Drive? How to make a bib entry appear also in the main document Non-perpendicular hyperplane decision trees The usual implementation of decision trees, and estimators based on ensembles of decision trees, use decision trees that threshold on a single predictor at each split. So they divide the feature space into perpendicular hyperlanes.  Is there any benefit to generalizing this a tiny bit. So at each split, the decision tree uses 2 features, and thresholds based on whether $ax_1 + bx_2 \ge T$. In other words, the feature space is now getting divided into hyperplanes that are not necessarily perpendicular.   I think the main disadvantages would be:    increased computation, and  overfitting since now using more degrees of freedom   I guess to help both of these issues, randomization could be used analogous to extra trees. The pair of features could be randomly selected, instead of exhaustively trying every pair, and the threshold T and parameters a and b could be chosen randomly as well (perhaps from a set of few discrete values such that the hyperplanes could have a few orientations).  Are there some cases where you think these non-perpendicular decision trees would be an improvement over the regular implementation of various decision tree algorithms? If a company is bought by another company, does my stock rollover to the new company when it is combined with the new parent company? Let $G$ be a group of order $150$.  I must show that it has a normal subgroup of order $25$.  The hint says to show that is has a normal subgroup of order $5$ or $25$.  Now from Sylow, I know that the number $n_5$ of Sylow-$5$ subgroups (which each have $25$ elements) must be either $1$ or $6$, since $n_5$ must also divide $6$.  Now clearly if $n_5=1$ we are done, so I can assume that $n_5=6$.  My problem is I haven't figured out how to use this information (I am going for a contradiction, just based on what the problem asks me to prove).  I know by Cauchy's theorem I can get a subgroup of order $5$, but I don't see immediately if it must be normal.   Any direction I should try to be moving? Boy and girl paradox is driving me crazy "really not" vs "not really" If someone says "David is not really a leader", it means something like: the speaker believes that David isn't the kind of person you would think of as a without-doubt a real leader; but the speaker isn't necessarily saying that David is definitely a very poor leader.  If someone says "David is really not a leader", it means that the speaker thinks that David is definitely a very poor leader.  What analysis (grammatical, dictionary, etc?) can help me understand how this difference in meaning is created? How does a graduate program's admissions committee operate? How does a typical graduate program's admissions committee operate? (In the US --- I understand that in Europe admissions are often structured differently.)  My mental model at the moment is several professors sitting in a conference room with a stack of printed applications and a few piles: accept, maybe, and reject. Three or so professors will read an application and then make a decision. If the volume of applications is large enough, multiple meetings might be required. This is purely my imagination --- I don't know how accurate this model is.  Of course, I'm sure that how admissions are handled depends greatly on the school, program, and department. I'm interested in a few data points to get a rough idea of what the average is.  A few more specific related questions:   How much time does a typical committee spend on each application? I suspect there's a distribution. Obviously unqualified applicants will probably have their applications tossed into the reject pile pretty quickly. Qualified applicants' applications might receive more attention. Do admissions committees look online for more information about an applicant? I've read some professors (in CS --- not my field) will look at a student's research/project website, but I have no idea how common this is. Please stop using SoftwareEngineering.SE as your toilet bowl Stack Overflow users have been using the "off topic - belongs on SoftwareEngineering.SE" close reason as an alternative to all the other close reasons. It'd be helpful if people actually read the FAQ and the six  before voting to migrate questions like:   , no redeeming value to favorite lists that become argumentative , "help my exact situation" questions are too localized , fails 5 out of the 6 guidelines , fails 4 out of 6 , too localized and too vague , too broad   Absent a reversal of the Stack Overflow community from viewing SoftwareEngineering.SE as the Stack Overflow cesspool, can the "off topic - belongs on SoftwareEngineering.SE" close reason be removed in favor of manual migration by moderators who can actually spend the 10 seconds to determine if the question should be closed outright first?    To say that SoftwareEngineering.SE is such a nebulous place and nobody knows what its scope is as the reason why crappy questions keep getting migrated there is to miss the point. Good questions are good questions on all of the sites, and questions that are too vague, that are too argumentative, too localized, and too broad are universal close reasons. There is no special dispensation for SoftwareEngineering.SE to have bad questions, even if you personally think the questions on there suck.  Even the six subjective guidelines for subjective questions are universal guidelines: they affect all sites. So even if you had no idea what the consequences of using the "off topic - belongs on SoftwareEngineering.SE" close reason were, there are still all of the other close reasons for which bad questions, like the ones above, can be closed. A generalized version of the second Borel-Cantelli lemma says     Theorem 5.3.2. Second Borel-Cantelli lemma, II. Let $\mathcal F_n, n \ge 0$ be a filtration   with $F_0 = \{\emptyset, \Omega\}$ and $A_n , n \ge 1$ a sequence of events with $A_n ∈ \mathcal F_n$ . Then   $$ \{A_n \,i.o.\} = \left\{\sum_{n \ge 1} P (A_n |\mathcal F_{n−1}) =\infty \right\}. $$   An exercise of this lemma is     Exercise 5.3.6. Show    $\sum_{n \ge 2} \mathbb P (A_n | \cap_{m=1}^{n−1} A_m^c ) = \infty$ implies $P (∩_{m \ge 1} A_m^c ) = 0$.   I think we can actually prove that $\cap_{m \ge 1} A_m^c = \emptyset$. My proof is like this: Let $B_n = \cup_{m = 1}^n A_n$. Let $\mathcal F_n = \sigma(A_1,\dots,A_n)$, which forms a filtration. It is easy to verify that $$ \mathbb P (A_n | B_{n-1}^c ) = \mathbb P (A_n | \mathcal F_{n-1})(\omega) $$ when $\omega \in B_{n-1}^c$.  Assume there exist $\omega \in \cap_{m \ge 1} A_m^c$. It follows from the previous lemma that $$ \omega \in \left\{\sum_{n \ge 1} P (A_n |\mathcal F_{n−1}) =\infty \right\} = \{A_n \,i.o.\}. $$ In other words, $\omega \in \cap_{m \ge 1} \cup_{n \ge m} A_n$, which contradicts $\omega \in \cap_{m \ge 1} A_m^c$.  Is this the right proof? How to detect the Internet connection is offline in JavaScript? C++ pointer address issue Say that we have a secure random number generation that outputs 32 bit random numbers, so it's output is a true random number between 0 and a MAX.  What is the best way to map this random number to a defined range (say I want something random between X and Y) without loosing too much entropy?