instruction
stringclasses 15
values | response
stringclasses 15
values | text
stringclasses 15
values | score
float64 1
5
|
|---|---|---|---|
Generated instruction based on response: The question is relatively broad and one should take into account that the brain not only consists of neurons, but also glial cells (supportive cells) and pre-mitotic neuronal stem cells. Furthermore, as critical fellow-scientists have indicated, developmental stage is very important, as the developing embryonic brain is very different from the adult brain.
However, after sifting through various publications, the answer to the question is actually remarkably simple: Yes, brain cells migrate.
In the adult brain glial cells migrate in the brain (Klämbt, 2009). Glial cells are involved in a myriad of functions, but a notable example of migrating glial cells are the oligodendrocytes that migrate relative long distances to find their target axons onto which they wrap themselves to form the insulating myelin sheath (Tsai and Miller, 2002).
Neuronal stem cells migrate over long distances in response to injury (Imitola et al., 2004) and they migrate from specific stem-cell locations (e.g., hippocampus and subventricular zone) to other regions (Clarke, 2003).
Post-mitotic, but non-differentiated neurons have been shown to migrate in the adult brain in fish (Scott et al., 2012), and in mammals and non-human primates as well (Sawada et al., 2011).
Not surprisingly, glial cells, stem cells and neurons also migrate during embryonic development. Most notably, post-mitotic neurons destined to fulfill peripheral functions have to migrate over relatively long distances from the neural crest to their target locations (Neuroscience, 2nd ed, Neuronal Migration). | The question is relatively broad and one should take into account that the brain not only consists of neurons, but also glial cells (supportive cells) and pre-mitotic neuronal stem cells. Furthermore, as critical fellow-scientists have indicated, developmental stage is very important, as the developing embryonic brain is very different from the adult brain.
However, after sifting through various publications, the answer to the question is actually remarkably simple: Yes, brain cells migrate.
In the adult brain glial cells migrate in the brain (Klämbt, 2009). Glial cells are involved in a myriad of functions, but a notable example of migrating glial cells are the oligodendrocytes that migrate relative long distances to find their target axons onto which they wrap themselves to form the insulating myelin sheath (Tsai and Miller, 2002).
Neuronal stem cells migrate over long distances in response to injury (Imitola et al., 2004) and they migrate from specific stem-cell locations (e.g., hippocampus and subventricular zone) to other regions (Clarke, 2003).
Post-mitotic, but non-differentiated neurons have been shown to migrate in the adult brain in fish (Scott et al., 2012), and in mammals and non-human primates as well (Sawada et al., 2011).
Not surprisingly, glial cells, stem cells and neurons also migrate during embryonic development. Most notably, post-mitotic neurons destined to fulfill peripheral functions have to migrate over relatively long distances from the neural crest to their target locations (Neuroscience, 2nd ed, Neuronal Migration). | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
The question is relatively broad and one should take into account that the brain not only consists of neurons, but also glial cells (supportive cells) and pre-mitotic neuronal stem cells. Furthermore, as critical fellow-scientists have indicated, developmental stage is very important, as the developing embryonic brain is very different from the adult brain.
However, after sifting through various publications, the answer to the question is actually remarkably simple: Yes, brain cells migrate.
In the adult brain glial cells migrate in the brain (Klämbt, 2009). Glial cells are involved in a myriad of functions, but a notable example of migrating glial cells are the oligodendrocytes that migrate relative long distances to find their target axons onto which they wrap themselves to form the insulating myelin sheath (Tsai and Miller, 2002).
Neuronal stem cells migrate over long distances in response to injury (Imitola et al., 2004) and they migrate from specific stem-cell locations (e.g., hippocampus and subventricular zone) to other regions (Clarke, 2003).
Post-mitotic, but non-differentiated neurons have been shown to migrate in the adult brain in fish (Scott et al., 2012), and in mammals and non-human primates as well (Sawada et al., 2011).
Not surprisingly, glial cells, stem cells and neurons also migrate during embryonic development. Most notably, post-mitotic neurons destined to fulfill peripheral functions have to migrate over relatively long distances from the neural crest to their target locations (Neuroscience, 2nd ed, Neuronal Migration).
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: The question is relatively broad and one should take into account that the brain not only consists of neurons, but also glial cells (supportive cells) and pre-mitotic neuronal stem cells. Furthermore, as critical fellow-scientists have indicated, developmental stage is very important, as the developing embryonic brain is very different from the adult brain.
However, after sifting through various publications, the answer to the question is actually remarkably simple: Yes, brain cells migrate.
In the adult brain glial cells migrate in the brain (Klämbt, 2009). Glial cells are involved in a myriad of functions, but a notable example of migrating glial cells are the oligodendrocytes that migrate relative long distances to find their target axons onto which they wrap themselves to form the insulating myelin sheath (Tsai and Miller, 2002).
Neuronal stem cells migrate over long distances in response to injury (Imitola et al., 2004) and they migrate from specific stem-cell locations (e.g., hippocampus and subventricular zone) to other regions (Clarke, 2003).
Post-mitotic, but non-differentiated neurons have been shown to migrate in the adult brain in fish (Scott et al., 2012), and in mammals and non-human primates as well (Sawada et al., 2011).
Not surprisingly, glial cells, stem cells and neurons also migrate during embryonic development. Most notably, post-mitotic neurons destined to fulfill peripheral functions have to migrate over relatively long distances from the neural crest to their target locations (Neuroscience, 2nd ed, Neuronal Migration).<eos> | 5 |
Generated instruction based on response: There is a general historical trend.
In the olden days, memories were small, and so programs were perforce small. Also, compilers were not very smart, and many programs were written in assembler, so it was considered a good thing to be able to write a program using few instructions. Instruction pipelines were simple, and processors grabbed one instruction at a time to execute it. The machinery inside the processor was quite complex anyway; decoding instructions was not felt to be much of a burden.
In the 1970s, CPU and compiler designers realized that having such complex instructions was not so helpful after all. It was difficult to design processors in which those instructions were really efficient, and it was difficult to design compilers that really took advantage of these instructions. Chip area and compiler complexity was better spent on more generic pursuits such as more general-purpose registers. The Wikipedia article on RISC explains this in more detail.
MIPS is the ultimate RISC architecture, which is why it's taught so often.
The x86 family is a bit different. It was originally a CISC architecture meant for systems with very small memory (no room for large instructions), and has undergone many successive versions. Today's x86 instruction set is not only complicated because it's CISC, but because it's really a 8088 with a 80386 with a Pentium possibly with an x86_64 processor.
In today's world, RISC and CISC are no longer the black-and-white distinction they might have been once. Most CPU architectures have evolved to different shades of grey.
On the RISC side, some modern MIPS variants have added multiplication and division instructions, with a non-uniform encoding. ARM processors have become more complex: many of them have a 16-bit instruction set called Thumb in addition to the “original” 32-bit instructions, not to mention Jazelle to execute JVM instructions on the CPU. Modern ARM processors also have SIMD instructions for multimedia applications: some complex instructions do pay after all.
On the CISC side, all recent processors are to some extent RISC inside. They have microcode to define all these complex macro instructions. The sheer complexity of the processor makes the design of each model take several years, even with a RISC design, what with the large number of components, with pipelining and predictive execution and whatnot.
So why do the fastest processors remain CISC outside? Part of it, in the case of the x86 (32-bit and 64-bit) family, is historical compatibility. But that's not the whole of it. In the early 2000s, Intel tried pushing the Itanium architecture. Itanium is an extreme case of complex instructions (not really CISC, though: its design has been dubbed EPIC). It even does away with the old-fashioned idea of executing instructions in sequence: all instructions are executed in parallel until the next barrier. One of the reasons Itanium didn't take is that nobody, whether at Intel or elsewhere, could write a decent compiler for it. Now a good old mostly-sequential processor like x86_64, that's something we understand. | There is a general historical trend.
In the olden days, memories were small, and so programs were perforce small. Also, compilers were not very smart, and many programs were written in assembler, so it was considered a good thing to be able to write a program using few instructions. Instruction pipelines were simple, and processors grabbed one instruction at a time to execute it. The machinery inside the processor was quite complex anyway; decoding instructions was not felt to be much of a burden.
In the 1970s, CPU and compiler designers realized that having such complex instructions was not so helpful after all. It was difficult to design processors in which those instructions were really efficient, and it was difficult to design compilers that really took advantage of these instructions. Chip area and compiler complexity was better spent on more generic pursuits such as more general-purpose registers. The Wikipedia article on RISC explains this in more detail.
MIPS is the ultimate RISC architecture, which is why it's taught so often.
The x86 family is a bit different. It was originally a CISC architecture meant for systems with very small memory (no room for large instructions), and has undergone many successive versions. Today's x86 instruction set is not only complicated because it's CISC, but because it's really a 8088 with a 80386 with a Pentium possibly with an x86_64 processor.
In today's world, RISC and CISC are no longer the black-and-white distinction they might have been once. Most CPU architectures have evolved to different shades of grey.
On the RISC side, some modern MIPS variants have added multiplication and division instructions, with a non-uniform encoding. ARM processors have become more complex: many of them have a 16-bit instruction set called Thumb in addition to the “original” 32-bit instructions, not to mention Jazelle to execute JVM instructions on the CPU. Modern ARM processors also have SIMD instructions for multimedia applications: some complex instructions do pay after all.
On the CISC side, all recent processors are to some extent RISC inside. They have microcode to define all these complex macro instructions. The sheer complexity of the processor makes the design of each model take several years, even with a RISC design, what with the large number of components, with pipelining and predictive execution and whatnot.
So why do the fastest processors remain CISC outside? Part of it, in the case of the x86 (32-bit and 64-bit) family, is historical compatibility. But that's not the whole of it. In the early 2000s, Intel tried pushing the Itanium architecture. Itanium is an extreme case of complex instructions (not really CISC, though: its design has been dubbed EPIC). It even does away with the old-fashioned idea of executing instructions in sequence: all instructions are executed in parallel until the next barrier. One of the reasons Itanium didn't take is that nobody, whether at Intel or elsewhere, could write a decent compiler for it. Now a good old mostly-sequential processor like x86_64, that's something we understand. | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
There is a general historical trend.
In the olden days, memories were small, and so programs were perforce small. Also, compilers were not very smart, and many programs were written in assembler, so it was considered a good thing to be able to write a program using few instructions. Instruction pipelines were simple, and processors grabbed one instruction at a time to execute it. The machinery inside the processor was quite complex anyway; decoding instructions was not felt to be much of a burden.
In the 1970s, CPU and compiler designers realized that having such complex instructions was not so helpful after all. It was difficult to design processors in which those instructions were really efficient, and it was difficult to design compilers that really took advantage of these instructions. Chip area and compiler complexity was better spent on more generic pursuits such as more general-purpose registers. The Wikipedia article on RISC explains this in more detail.
MIPS is the ultimate RISC architecture, which is why it's taught so often.
The x86 family is a bit different. It was originally a CISC architecture meant for systems with very small memory (no room for large instructions), and has undergone many successive versions. Today's x86 instruction set is not only complicated because it's CISC, but because it's really a 8088 with a 80386 with a Pentium possibly with an x86_64 processor.
In today's world, RISC and CISC are no longer the black-and-white distinction they might have been once. Most CPU architectures have evolved to different shades of grey.
On the RISC side, some modern MIPS variants have added multiplication and division instructions, with a non-uniform encoding. ARM processors have become more complex: many of them have a 16-bit instruction set called Thumb in addition to the “original” 32-bit instructions, not to mention Jazelle to execute JVM instructions on the CPU. Modern ARM processors also have SIMD instructions for multimedia applications: some complex instructions do pay after all.
On the CISC side, all recent processors are to some extent RISC inside. They have microcode to define all these complex macro instructions. The sheer complexity of the processor makes the design of each model take several years, even with a RISC design, what with the large number of components, with pipelining and predictive execution and whatnot.
So why do the fastest processors remain CISC outside? Part of it, in the case of the x86 (32-bit and 64-bit) family, is historical compatibility. But that's not the whole of it. In the early 2000s, Intel tried pushing the Itanium architecture. Itanium is an extreme case of complex instructions (not really CISC, though: its design has been dubbed EPIC). It even does away with the old-fashioned idea of executing instructions in sequence: all instructions are executed in parallel until the next barrier. One of the reasons Itanium didn't take is that nobody, whether at Intel or elsewhere, could write a decent compiler for it. Now a good old mostly-sequential processor like x86_64, that's something we understand.
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: There is a general historical trend.
In the olden days, memories were small, and so programs were perforce small. Also, compilers were not very smart, and many programs were written in assembler, so it was considered a good thing to be able to write a program using few instructions. Instruction pipelines were simple, and processors grabbed one instruction at a time to execute it. The machinery inside the processor was quite complex anyway; decoding instructions was not felt to be much of a burden.
In the 1970s, CPU and compiler designers realized that having such complex instructions was not so helpful after all. It was difficult to design processors in which those instructions were really efficient, and it was difficult to design compilers that really took advantage of these instructions. Chip area and compiler complexity was better spent on more generic pursuits such as more general-purpose registers. The Wikipedia article on RISC explains this in more detail.
MIPS is the ultimate RISC architecture, which is why it's taught so often.
The x86 family is a bit different. It was originally a CISC architecture meant for systems with very small memory (no room for large instructions), and has undergone many successive versions. Today's x86 instruction set is not only complicated because it's CISC, but because it's really a 8088 with a 80386 with a Pentium possibly with an x86_64 processor.
In today's world, RISC and CISC are no longer the black-and-white distinction they might have been once. Most CPU architectures have evolved to different shades of grey.
On the RISC side, some modern MIPS variants have added multiplication and division instructions, with a non-uniform encoding. ARM processors have become more complex: many of them have a 16-bit instruction set called Thumb in addition to the “original” 32-bit instructions, not to mention Jazelle to execute JVM instructions on the CPU. Modern ARM processors also have SIMD instructions for multimedia applications: some complex instructions do pay after all.
On the CISC side, all recent processors are to some extent RISC inside. They have microcode to define all these complex macro instructions. The sheer complexity of the processor makes the design of each model take several years, even with a RISC design, what with the large number of components, with pipelining and predictive execution and whatnot.
So why do the fastest processors remain CISC outside? Part of it, in the case of the x86 (32-bit and 64-bit) family, is historical compatibility. But that's not the whole of it. In the early 2000s, Intel tried pushing the Itanium architecture. Itanium is an extreme case of complex instructions (not really CISC, though: its design has been dubbed EPIC). It even does away with the old-fashioned idea of executing instructions in sequence: all instructions are executed in parallel until the next barrier. One of the reasons Itanium didn't take is that nobody, whether at Intel or elsewhere, could write a decent compiler for it. Now a good old mostly-sequential processor like x86_64, that's something we understand.<eos> | 5 |
Generated instruction based on response: Sure, please take a look at csvkit. It provides a set of tools that adhere to the UNIX philosophy (meaning they are small, simple, single-purposed and can be combined).
Here is an example that extracts the ten most populated cities in Germany from the free Maxmind World Cities database and displays the result in a console-readable format:
```$ csvgrep -e iso-8859-1 -c 1 -m "de" worldcitiespop | csvgrep -c 5 -r "\d+"
| csvsort -r -c 5 -l | csvcut -c 1,2,4,6 | head -n 11 | csvlook
-----------------------------------------------------
| line_number | Country | AccentCity | Population |
-----------------------------------------------------
| 1 | de | Berlin | 3398362 |
| 2 | de | Hamburg | 1733846 |
| 3 | de | Munich | 1246133 |
| 4 | de | Cologne | 968823 |
| 5 | de | Frankfurt | 648034 |
| 6 | de | Dortmund | 594255 |
| 7 | de | Stuttgart | 591688 |
| 8 | de | Düsseldorf | 577139 |
| 9 | de | Essen | 576914 |
| 10 | de | Bremen | 546429 |
-----------------------------------------------------
```
Csvkit is platform independent because it is written in Python. | Sure, please take a look at csvkit. It provides a set of tools that adhere to the UNIX philosophy (meaning they are small, simple, single-purposed and can be combined).
Here is an example that extracts the ten most populated cities in Germany from the free Maxmind World Cities database and displays the result in a console-readable format:
```$ csvgrep -e iso-8859-1 -c 1 -m "de" worldcitiespop | csvgrep -c 5 -r "\d+"
| csvsort -r -c 5 -l | csvcut -c 1,2,4,6 | head -n 11 | csvlook
-----------------------------------------------------
| line_number | Country | AccentCity | Population |
-----------------------------------------------------
| 1 | de | Berlin | 3398362 |
| 2 | de | Hamburg | 1733846 |
| 3 | de | Munich | 1246133 |
| 4 | de | Cologne | 968823 |
| 5 | de | Frankfurt | 648034 |
| 6 | de | Dortmund | 594255 |
| 7 | de | Stuttgart | 591688 |
| 8 | de | Düsseldorf | 577139 |
| 9 | de | Essen | 576914 |
| 10 | de | Bremen | 546429 |
-----------------------------------------------------
```
Csvkit is platform independent because it is written in Python. | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
Sure, please take a look at csvkit. It provides a set of tools that adhere to the UNIX philosophy (meaning they are small, simple, single-purposed and can be combined).
Here is an example that extracts the ten most populated cities in Germany from the free Maxmind World Cities database and displays the result in a console-readable format:
```$ csvgrep -e iso-8859-1 -c 1 -m "de" worldcitiespop | csvgrep -c 5 -r "\d+"
| csvsort -r -c 5 -l | csvcut -c 1,2,4,6 | head -n 11 | csvlook
-----------------------------------------------------
| line_number | Country | AccentCity | Population |
-----------------------------------------------------
| 1 | de | Berlin | 3398362 |
| 2 | de | Hamburg | 1733846 |
| 3 | de | Munich | 1246133 |
| 4 | de | Cologne | 968823 |
| 5 | de | Frankfurt | 648034 |
| 6 | de | Dortmund | 594255 |
| 7 | de | Stuttgart | 591688 |
| 8 | de | Düsseldorf | 577139 |
| 9 | de | Essen | 576914 |
| 10 | de | Bremen | 546429 |
-----------------------------------------------------
```
Csvkit is platform independent because it is written in Python.
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: Sure, please take a look at csvkit. It provides a set of tools that adhere to the UNIX philosophy (meaning they are small, simple, single-purposed and can be combined).
Here is an example that extracts the ten most populated cities in Germany from the free Maxmind World Cities database and displays the result in a console-readable format:
```$ csvgrep -e iso-8859-1 -c 1 -m "de" worldcitiespop | csvgrep -c 5 -r "\d+"
| csvsort -r -c 5 -l | csvcut -c 1,2,4,6 | head -n 11 | csvlook
-----------------------------------------------------
| line_number | Country | AccentCity | Population |
-----------------------------------------------------
| 1 | de | Berlin | 3398362 |
| 2 | de | Hamburg | 1733846 |
| 3 | de | Munich | 1246133 |
| 4 | de | Cologne | 968823 |
| 5 | de | Frankfurt | 648034 |
| 6 | de | Dortmund | 594255 |
| 7 | de | Stuttgart | 591688 |
| 8 | de | Düsseldorf | 577139 |
| 9 | de | Essen | 576914 |
| 10 | de | Bremen | 546429 |
-----------------------------------------------------
```
Csvkit is platform independent because it is written in Python. <eos> | 1 |
Generated instruction based on response: I'll answer this question from the theoretical side. The exponential behavior follows simply from the Schrödinger equation. Consider the one-electron Schrödinger equation:
$$
(-\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2 + V(\mathbf{r}))\psi(\mathbf{r}) = \epsilon\psi(\mathbf{r}), \epsilon < 0
$$
At spatial points that are very far away from the nucleus, $V(\mathbf{r})\approx 0$, so that the asymptotic solution is given by
$$
-\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2\psi(\mathbf{r}) = \epsilon\psi(\mathbf{r}), \epsilon < 0
$$
This differential equation has basic solutions of the form
$$
\psi(\mathbf{r}) = Ce^{-\sqrt{-2\epsilon}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}
$$
for some unit vector $\mathbf{k}$. The real asymptotic behavior of $\psi(\mathbf{r})$ is thus a linear combination of these basic solutions. The linear combination may bring a polynomial prefactor to the exponential, but will never alter the exponent. Thus we have not only proved the exponential behavior, but also derived the correct exponent $\alpha = \sqrt{-2\epsilon}$. For a multi-electronic, non-interacting system, the overall decay rate is governed by the slowest decaying orbital, i.e. the HOMO.
Of course, the real wavefunction can only be described by a multi-electron Schrödinger equation. But we can work on the equivalent Kohn-Sham system and show that the Kohn-Sham wavefunction decays at a rate given by the Kohn-Sham HOMO energy. By Janak's theorem, the Kohn-Sham HOMO energy is just the negative of the ionization potential of the exact system. To see this, consider a huge ensemble of $N$ identical, non-interacting molecules. If we remove one electron from the ensemble and let the hole delocalize evenly between all the molecules, then as $N\to +\infty$, the electron removal has a negligible impact on the electron density of any molecule (and therefore the Kohn-Sham potential of each molecule). Therefore under the Kohn-Sham framework we see that removing such an electron costs an energy of $-\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}}$ (it does not matter whether the HOMO refers to that of the ensemble or that of a molecule, since their orbital energies are equal), since the electron is taken from an energy level whose energy is $\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}}$ and the Hamiltonian is not changed in this process. On the other hand, from the perspective of the real system it is clear that the energy cost is equal to the first ionization energy of one of the molecules, $I$. Therefore we have $\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}} = -I$, which means that the Kohn-Sham wavefunction decays like (again up to a possible polynomial prefactor; the precise determination of this polynomial prefactor is a much more difficult question)
$$
\psi(\mathbf{r}) = Ce^{-\sqrt{2I}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}
$$
Although the Kohn-Sham wavefunction is fictional, its density is equal to the true multielectronic density, and in order for the true density to have the same asymptotic behavior as the Kohn-Sham density, the true wavefunction must have the same asymptotic behavior as the Kohn-Sham wavefunction. Q.E.D. | I'll answer this question from the theoretical side. The exponential behavior follows simply from the Schrödinger equation. Consider the one-electron Schrödinger equation:
$$
(-\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2 + V(\mathbf{r}))\psi(\mathbf{r}) = \epsilon\psi(\mathbf{r}), \epsilon < 0
$$
At spatial points that are very far away from the nucleus, $V(\mathbf{r})\approx 0$, so that the asymptotic solution is given by
$$
-\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2\psi(\mathbf{r}) = \epsilon\psi(\mathbf{r}), \epsilon < 0
$$
This differential equation has basic solutions of the form
$$
\psi(\mathbf{r}) = Ce^{-\sqrt{-2\epsilon}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}
$$
for some unit vector $\mathbf{k}$. The real asymptotic behavior of $\psi(\mathbf{r})$ is thus a linear combination of these basic solutions. The linear combination may bring a polynomial prefactor to the exponential, but will never alter the exponent. Thus we have not only proved the exponential behavior, but also derived the correct exponent $\alpha = \sqrt{-2\epsilon}$. For a multi-electronic, non-interacting system, the overall decay rate is governed by the slowest decaying orbital, i.e. the HOMO.
Of course, the real wavefunction can only be described by a multi-electron Schrödinger equation. But we can work on the equivalent Kohn-Sham system and show that the Kohn-Sham wavefunction decays at a rate given by the Kohn-Sham HOMO energy. By Janak's theorem, the Kohn-Sham HOMO energy is just the negative of the ionization potential of the exact system. To see this, consider a huge ensemble of $N$ identical, non-interacting molecules. If we remove one electron from the ensemble and let the hole delocalize evenly between all the molecules, then as $N\to +\infty$, the electron removal has a negligible impact on the electron density of any molecule (and therefore the Kohn-Sham potential of each molecule). Therefore under the Kohn-Sham framework we see that removing such an electron costs an energy of $-\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}}$ (it does not matter whether the HOMO refers to that of the ensemble or that of a molecule, since their orbital energies are equal), since the electron is taken from an energy level whose energy is $\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}}$ and the Hamiltonian is not changed in this process. On the other hand, from the perspective of the real system it is clear that the energy cost is equal to the first ionization energy of one of the molecules, $I$. Therefore we have $\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}} = -I$, which means that the Kohn-Sham wavefunction decays like (again up to a possible polynomial prefactor; the precise determination of this polynomial prefactor is a much more difficult question)
$$
\psi(\mathbf{r}) = Ce^{-\sqrt{2I}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}
$$
Although the Kohn-Sham wavefunction is fictional, its density is equal to the true multielectronic density, and in order for the true density to have the same asymptotic behavior as the Kohn-Sham density, the true wavefunction must have the same asymptotic behavior as the Kohn-Sham wavefunction. Q.E.D. | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
I'll answer this question from the theoretical side. The exponential behavior follows simply from the Schrödinger equation. Consider the one-electron Schrödinger equation:
$$
(-\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2 + V(\mathbf{r}))\psi(\mathbf{r}) = \epsilon\psi(\mathbf{r}), \epsilon < 0
$$
At spatial points that are very far away from the nucleus, $V(\mathbf{r})\approx 0$, so that the asymptotic solution is given by
$$
-\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2\psi(\mathbf{r}) = \epsilon\psi(\mathbf{r}), \epsilon < 0
$$
This differential equation has basic solutions of the form
$$
\psi(\mathbf{r}) = Ce^{-\sqrt{-2\epsilon}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}
$$
for some unit vector $\mathbf{k}$. The real asymptotic behavior of $\psi(\mathbf{r})$ is thus a linear combination of these basic solutions. The linear combination may bring a polynomial prefactor to the exponential, but will never alter the exponent. Thus we have not only proved the exponential behavior, but also derived the correct exponent $\alpha = \sqrt{-2\epsilon}$. For a multi-electronic, non-interacting system, the overall decay rate is governed by the slowest decaying orbital, i.e. the HOMO.
Of course, the real wavefunction can only be described by a multi-electron Schrödinger equation. But we can work on the equivalent Kohn-Sham system and show that the Kohn-Sham wavefunction decays at a rate given by the Kohn-Sham HOMO energy. By Janak's theorem, the Kohn-Sham HOMO energy is just the negative of the ionization potential of the exact system. To see this, consider a huge ensemble of $N$ identical, non-interacting molecules. If we remove one electron from the ensemble and let the hole delocalize evenly between all the molecules, then as $N\to +\infty$, the electron removal has a negligible impact on the electron density of any molecule (and therefore the Kohn-Sham potential of each molecule). Therefore under the Kohn-Sham framework we see that removing such an electron costs an energy of $-\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}}$ (it does not matter whether the HOMO refers to that of the ensemble or that of a molecule, since their orbital energies are equal), since the electron is taken from an energy level whose energy is $\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}}$ and the Hamiltonian is not changed in this process. On the other hand, from the perspective of the real system it is clear that the energy cost is equal to the first ionization energy of one of the molecules, $I$. Therefore we have $\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}} = -I$, which means that the Kohn-Sham wavefunction decays like (again up to a possible polynomial prefactor; the precise determination of this polynomial prefactor is a much more difficult question)
$$
\psi(\mathbf{r}) = Ce^{-\sqrt{2I}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}
$$
Although the Kohn-Sham wavefunction is fictional, its density is equal to the true multielectronic density, and in order for the true density to have the same asymptotic behavior as the Kohn-Sham density, the true wavefunction must have the same asymptotic behavior as the Kohn-Sham wavefunction. Q.E.D.
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: I'll answer this question from the theoretical side. The exponential behavior follows simply from the Schrödinger equation. Consider the one-electron Schrödinger equation:
$$
(-\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2 + V(\mathbf{r}))\psi(\mathbf{r}) = \epsilon\psi(\mathbf{r}), \epsilon < 0
$$
At spatial points that are very far away from the nucleus, $V(\mathbf{r})\approx 0$, so that the asymptotic solution is given by
$$
-\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2\psi(\mathbf{r}) = \epsilon\psi(\mathbf{r}), \epsilon < 0
$$
This differential equation has basic solutions of the form
$$
\psi(\mathbf{r}) = Ce^{-\sqrt{-2\epsilon}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}
$$
for some unit vector $\mathbf{k}$. The real asymptotic behavior of $\psi(\mathbf{r})$ is thus a linear combination of these basic solutions. The linear combination may bring a polynomial prefactor to the exponential, but will never alter the exponent. Thus we have not only proved the exponential behavior, but also derived the correct exponent $\alpha = \sqrt{-2\epsilon}$. For a multi-electronic, non-interacting system, the overall decay rate is governed by the slowest decaying orbital, i.e. the HOMO.
Of course, the real wavefunction can only be described by a multi-electron Schrödinger equation. But we can work on the equivalent Kohn-Sham system and show that the Kohn-Sham wavefunction decays at a rate given by the Kohn-Sham HOMO energy. By Janak's theorem, the Kohn-Sham HOMO energy is just the negative of the ionization potential of the exact system. To see this, consider a huge ensemble of $N$ identical, non-interacting molecules. If we remove one electron from the ensemble and let the hole delocalize evenly between all the molecules, then as $N\to +\infty$, the electron removal has a negligible impact on the electron density of any molecule (and therefore the Kohn-Sham potential of each molecule). Therefore under the Kohn-Sham framework we see that removing such an electron costs an energy of $-\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}}$ (it does not matter whether the HOMO refers to that of the ensemble or that of a molecule, since their orbital energies are equal), since the electron is taken from an energy level whose energy is $\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}}$ and the Hamiltonian is not changed in this process. On the other hand, from the perspective of the real system it is clear that the energy cost is equal to the first ionization energy of one of the molecules, $I$. Therefore we have $\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}} = -I$, which means that the Kohn-Sham wavefunction decays like (again up to a possible polynomial prefactor; the precise determination of this polynomial prefactor is a much more difficult question)
$$
\psi(\mathbf{r}) = Ce^{-\sqrt{2I}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}
$$
Although the Kohn-Sham wavefunction is fictional, its density is equal to the true multielectronic density, and in order for the true density to have the same asymptotic behavior as the Kohn-Sham density, the true wavefunction must have the same asymptotic behavior as the Kohn-Sham wavefunction. Q.E.D.<eos> | 3 |
Generated instruction based on response: Remember that in ```git``` you have:
* the ```HEAD``` pointer, which tells you what commit you're working on
* the working tree, which represents the state of the files on your system
* the staging area (also called the index), which "stages" changes so that they can later be committed together
> Please include detailed explanations about:
```--hard```, ```--soft``` and ```--merge```;
In increasing order of dangerous-ness:
* ```--soft``` moves ```HEAD``` but doesn't touch the staging area or the working tree.
* ```--mixed``` moves ```HEAD``` and updates the staging area, but not the working tree.
* ```--merge``` moves ```HEAD```, resets the staging area, and tries to move all the changes in your working tree into the new working tree.
* ```--hard``` moves ```HEAD``` and adjusts your staging area and working tree to the new ```HEAD```, throwing away everything.
> concrete use cases and workflows;
* Use ```--soft``` when you want to move to another commit and patch things up without "losing your place". It's pretty rare that you need this.
```
# git reset --soft example
touch foo // Add a file, make some changes.
git add foo //
git commit -m "bad commit message" // Commit... D'oh, that was a mistake!
git reset --soft HEAD^ // Go back one commit and fix things.
git commit -m "good commit" // There, now it's right.
```
--
* Use ```--mixed``` (which is the default) when you want to see what things look like at another commit, but you don't want to lose any changes you already have.
* Use ```--merge``` when you want to move to a new spot but incorporate the changes you already have into that the working tree.
* Use ```--hard``` to wipe everything out and start a fresh slate at the new commit. | Remember that in ```git``` you have:
* the ```HEAD``` pointer, which tells you what commit you're working on
* the working tree, which represents the state of the files on your system
* the staging area (also called the index), which "stages" changes so that they can later be committed together
> Please include detailed explanations about:
```--hard```, ```--soft``` and ```--merge```;
In increasing order of dangerous-ness:
* ```--soft``` moves ```HEAD``` but doesn't touch the staging area or the working tree.
* ```--mixed``` moves ```HEAD``` and updates the staging area, but not the working tree.
* ```--merge``` moves ```HEAD```, resets the staging area, and tries to move all the changes in your working tree into the new working tree.
* ```--hard``` moves ```HEAD``` and adjusts your staging area and working tree to the new ```HEAD```, throwing away everything.
> concrete use cases and workflows;
* Use ```--soft``` when you want to move to another commit and patch things up without "losing your place". It's pretty rare that you need this.
```
# git reset --soft example
touch foo // Add a file, make some changes.
git add foo //
git commit -m "bad commit message" // Commit... D'oh, that was a mistake!
git reset --soft HEAD^ // Go back one commit and fix things.
git commit -m "good commit" // There, now it's right.
```
--
* Use ```--mixed``` (which is the default) when you want to see what things look like at another commit, but you don't want to lose any changes you already have.
* Use ```--merge``` when you want to move to a new spot but incorporate the changes you already have into that the working tree.
* Use ```--hard``` to wipe everything out and start a fresh slate at the new commit. | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
Remember that in ```git``` you have:
* the ```HEAD``` pointer, which tells you what commit you're working on
* the working tree, which represents the state of the files on your system
* the staging area (also called the index), which "stages" changes so that they can later be committed together
> Please include detailed explanations about:
```--hard```, ```--soft``` and ```--merge```;
In increasing order of dangerous-ness:
* ```--soft``` moves ```HEAD``` but doesn't touch the staging area or the working tree.
* ```--mixed``` moves ```HEAD``` and updates the staging area, but not the working tree.
* ```--merge``` moves ```HEAD```, resets the staging area, and tries to move all the changes in your working tree into the new working tree.
* ```--hard``` moves ```HEAD``` and adjusts your staging area and working tree to the new ```HEAD```, throwing away everything.
> concrete use cases and workflows;
* Use ```--soft``` when you want to move to another commit and patch things up without "losing your place". It's pretty rare that you need this.
```
# git reset --soft example
touch foo // Add a file, make some changes.
git add foo //
git commit -m "bad commit message" // Commit... D'oh, that was a mistake!
git reset --soft HEAD^ // Go back one commit and fix things.
git commit -m "good commit" // There, now it's right.
```
--
* Use ```--mixed``` (which is the default) when you want to see what things look like at another commit, but you don't want to lose any changes you already have.
* Use ```--merge``` when you want to move to a new spot but incorporate the changes you already have into that the working tree.
* Use ```--hard``` to wipe everything out and start a fresh slate at the new commit.
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: Remember that in ```git``` you have:
* the ```HEAD``` pointer, which tells you what commit you're working on
* the working tree, which represents the state of the files on your system
* the staging area (also called the index), which "stages" changes so that they can later be committed together
> Please include detailed explanations about:
```--hard```, ```--soft``` and ```--merge```;
In increasing order of dangerous-ness:
* ```--soft``` moves ```HEAD``` but doesn't touch the staging area or the working tree.
* ```--mixed``` moves ```HEAD``` and updates the staging area, but not the working tree.
* ```--merge``` moves ```HEAD```, resets the staging area, and tries to move all the changes in your working tree into the new working tree.
* ```--hard``` moves ```HEAD``` and adjusts your staging area and working tree to the new ```HEAD```, throwing away everything.
> concrete use cases and workflows;
* Use ```--soft``` when you want to move to another commit and patch things up without "losing your place". It's pretty rare that you need this.
```
# git reset --soft example
touch foo // Add a file, make some changes.
git add foo //
git commit -m "bad commit message" // Commit... D'oh, that was a mistake!
git reset --soft HEAD^ // Go back one commit and fix things.
git commit -m "good commit" // There, now it's right.
```
--
* Use ```--mixed``` (which is the default) when you want to see what things look like at another commit, but you don't want to lose any changes you already have.
* Use ```--merge``` when you want to move to a new spot but incorporate the changes you already have into that the working tree.
* Use ```--hard``` to wipe everything out and start a fresh slate at the new commit.<eos> | 2 |
Generated instruction based on response: The com.google.common.hash API offers:
* A unified user-friendly API for all hash functions
* Seedable 32- and 128-bit implementations of murmur3
* md5(), sha1(), sha256(), sha512() adapters, change only one line of code to switch between these, and murmur.
* goodFastHash(int bits), for when you don't care what algorithm you use
* General utilities for HashCode instances, like combineOrdered / combineUnordered
Read the User Guide (IO Explained, Hashing Explained).
For your use-case ```Files.hash()``` computes and returns the digest value for a file.
For example a sha-1 digest calculation (change SHA-1 to MD5 to get MD5 digest)
```HashCode hc = Files.asByteSource(file).hash(Hashing.sha1());
"SHA-1: " + hc.toString();
```
Note that crc32 is much faster than md5, so use crc32 if you do not need a cryptographically secure checksum. Note also that md5 should not be used to store passwords and the like since it is to easy to brute force, for passwords use bcrypt, scrypt or sha-256 instead.
For long term protection with hashes a Merkle signature scheme adds to the security and The Post Quantum Cryptography Study Group sponsored by the European Commission has recommended use of this cryptography for long term protection against quantum computers (ref).
Note that crc32 has a higher collision rate than the others.
What part of Files.hash as stated above does not cover Files.hash ? | The com.google.common.hash API offers:
* A unified user-friendly API for all hash functions
* Seedable 32- and 128-bit implementations of murmur3
* md5(), sha1(), sha256(), sha512() adapters, change only one line of code to switch between these, and murmur.
* goodFastHash(int bits), for when you don't care what algorithm you use
* General utilities for HashCode instances, like combineOrdered / combineUnordered
Read the User Guide (IO Explained, Hashing Explained).
For your use-case ```Files.hash()``` computes and returns the digest value for a file.
For example a sha-1 digest calculation (change SHA-1 to MD5 to get MD5 digest)
```HashCode hc = Files.asByteSource(file).hash(Hashing.sha1());
"SHA-1: " + hc.toString();
```
Note that crc32 is much faster than md5, so use crc32 if you do not need a cryptographically secure checksum. Note also that md5 should not be used to store passwords and the like since it is to easy to brute force, for passwords use bcrypt, scrypt or sha-256 instead.
For long term protection with hashes a Merkle signature scheme adds to the security and The Post Quantum Cryptography Study Group sponsored by the European Commission has recommended use of this cryptography for long term protection against quantum computers (ref).
Note that crc32 has a higher collision rate than the others.
What part of Files.hash as stated above does not cover Files.hash ? | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
The com.google.common.hash API offers:
* A unified user-friendly API for all hash functions
* Seedable 32- and 128-bit implementations of murmur3
* md5(), sha1(), sha256(), sha512() adapters, change only one line of code to switch between these, and murmur.
* goodFastHash(int bits), for when you don't care what algorithm you use
* General utilities for HashCode instances, like combineOrdered / combineUnordered
Read the User Guide (IO Explained, Hashing Explained).
For your use-case ```Files.hash()``` computes and returns the digest value for a file.
For example a sha-1 digest calculation (change SHA-1 to MD5 to get MD5 digest)
```HashCode hc = Files.asByteSource(file).hash(Hashing.sha1());
"SHA-1: " + hc.toString();
```
Note that crc32 is much faster than md5, so use crc32 if you do not need a cryptographically secure checksum. Note also that md5 should not be used to store passwords and the like since it is to easy to brute force, for passwords use bcrypt, scrypt or sha-256 instead.
For long term protection with hashes a Merkle signature scheme adds to the security and The Post Quantum Cryptography Study Group sponsored by the European Commission has recommended use of this cryptography for long term protection against quantum computers (ref).
Note that crc32 has a higher collision rate than the others.
What part of Files.hash as stated above does not cover Files.hash ?
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: The com.google.common.hash API offers:
* A unified user-friendly API for all hash functions
* Seedable 32- and 128-bit implementations of murmur3
* md5(), sha1(), sha256(), sha512() adapters, change only one line of code to switch between these, and murmur.
* goodFastHash(int bits), for when you don't care what algorithm you use
* General utilities for HashCode instances, like combineOrdered / combineUnordered
Read the User Guide (IO Explained, Hashing Explained).
For your use-case ```Files.hash()``` computes and returns the digest value for a file.
For example a sha-1 digest calculation (change SHA-1 to MD5 to get MD5 digest)
```HashCode hc = Files.asByteSource(file).hash(Hashing.sha1());
"SHA-1: " + hc.toString();
```
Note that crc32 is much faster than md5, so use crc32 if you do not need a cryptographically secure checksum. Note also that md5 should not be used to store passwords and the like since it is to easy to brute force, for passwords use bcrypt, scrypt or sha-256 instead.
For long term protection with hashes a Merkle signature scheme adds to the security and The Post Quantum Cryptography Study Group sponsored by the European Commission has recommended use of this cryptography for long term protection against quantum computers (ref).
Note that crc32 has a higher collision rate than the others.
What part of Files.hash as stated above does not cover Files.hash ?<eos> | 4 |
Generated instruction based on response: It's not clear to me that Democrats are opposed to border-wall construction (your one source suggests they are fine with border walls/fences where necessary), so much as they opposed to some of the plans for full-border walls that have been put forth so far.
Recently, in response to reports that the spending bill would include funding for a border wall, 5 Democratic senators released a letter voicing concerns over the cost, the effectiveness, and the legal issues of constructing it.
We are also concerned with reports that there may be an effort to include funding for a very expensive new wall along the southern border with Mexico and a “deportation force.” According to non-partisan experts, the proposed new border wall could cost as much as $25 million per mile and raises considerable issues that have not been resolved by the Congress or the Department of Homeland Security. First, many experts believe that such a border wall will not work. Second, there is real concern that the Administration, put simply, has no plan to build the border wall. For example, the Administration has not detailed how to 1) use eminent domain and other procedures to acquire land from private landowners and Native American tribes, 2) design the wall, 3) locate the wall, 4) construct the wall, and 5) require Mexico to pay for the wall given the President’s clear and repeated promises that he would force Mexico to do so. Finally, there are objections to the construction of a wall from Democratic and Republican members of Congress that represent border states. Given these and other concerns, we believe it would be inappropriate to insist on the inclusion of such funding in a must-pass appropriations bill that is needed for the Republican majority in control of the Congress to avert a government shutdown so early in President Trump’s Administration.
[...]
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Patrick Leahy
Based on this letter, it appears their main objections to a full border wall are currently the cost-benefit ratio and the legal issues of taking land from Americans to build it on; objections that may not be unique to Democrats. | It's not clear to me that Democrats are opposed to border-wall construction (your one source suggests they are fine with border walls/fences where necessary), so much as they opposed to some of the plans for full-border walls that have been put forth so far.
Recently, in response to reports that the spending bill would include funding for a border wall, 5 Democratic senators released a letter voicing concerns over the cost, the effectiveness, and the legal issues of constructing it.
We are also concerned with reports that there may be an effort to include funding for a very expensive new wall along the southern border with Mexico and a “deportation force.” According to non-partisan experts, the proposed new border wall could cost as much as $25 million per mile and raises considerable issues that have not been resolved by the Congress or the Department of Homeland Security. First, many experts believe that such a border wall will not work. Second, there is real concern that the Administration, put simply, has no plan to build the border wall. For example, the Administration has not detailed how to 1) use eminent domain and other procedures to acquire land from private landowners and Native American tribes, 2) design the wall, 3) locate the wall, 4) construct the wall, and 5) require Mexico to pay for the wall given the President’s clear and repeated promises that he would force Mexico to do so. Finally, there are objections to the construction of a wall from Democratic and Republican members of Congress that represent border states. Given these and other concerns, we believe it would be inappropriate to insist on the inclusion of such funding in a must-pass appropriations bill that is needed for the Republican majority in control of the Congress to avert a government shutdown so early in President Trump’s Administration.
[...]
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Patrick Leahy
Based on this letter, it appears their main objections to a full border wall are currently the cost-benefit ratio and the legal issues of taking land from Americans to build it on; objections that may not be unique to Democrats. | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
It's not clear to me that Democrats are opposed to border-wall construction (your one source suggests they are fine with border walls/fences where necessary), so much as they opposed to some of the plans for full-border walls that have been put forth so far.
Recently, in response to reports that the spending bill would include funding for a border wall, 5 Democratic senators released a letter voicing concerns over the cost, the effectiveness, and the legal issues of constructing it.
We are also concerned with reports that there may be an effort to include funding for a very expensive new wall along the southern border with Mexico and a “deportation force.” According to non-partisan experts, the proposed new border wall could cost as much as $25 million per mile and raises considerable issues that have not been resolved by the Congress or the Department of Homeland Security. First, many experts believe that such a border wall will not work. Second, there is real concern that the Administration, put simply, has no plan to build the border wall. For example, the Administration has not detailed how to 1) use eminent domain and other procedures to acquire land from private landowners and Native American tribes, 2) design the wall, 3) locate the wall, 4) construct the wall, and 5) require Mexico to pay for the wall given the President’s clear and repeated promises that he would force Mexico to do so. Finally, there are objections to the construction of a wall from Democratic and Republican members of Congress that represent border states. Given these and other concerns, we believe it would be inappropriate to insist on the inclusion of such funding in a must-pass appropriations bill that is needed for the Republican majority in control of the Congress to avert a government shutdown so early in President Trump’s Administration.
[...]
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Patrick Leahy
Based on this letter, it appears their main objections to a full border wall are currently the cost-benefit ratio and the legal issues of taking land from Americans to build it on; objections that may not be unique to Democrats.
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: It's not clear to me that Democrats are opposed to border-wall construction (your one source suggests they are fine with border walls/fences where necessary), so much as they opposed to some of the plans for full-border walls that have been put forth so far.
Recently, in response to reports that the spending bill would include funding for a border wall, 5 Democratic senators released a letter voicing concerns over the cost, the effectiveness, and the legal issues of constructing it.
We are also concerned with reports that there may be an effort to include funding for a very expensive new wall along the southern border with Mexico and a “deportation force.” According to non-partisan experts, the proposed new border wall could cost as much as $25 million per mile and raises considerable issues that have not been resolved by the Congress or the Department of Homeland Security. First, many experts believe that such a border wall will not work. Second, there is real concern that the Administration, put simply, has no plan to build the border wall. For example, the Administration has not detailed how to 1) use eminent domain and other procedures to acquire land from private landowners and Native American tribes, 2) design the wall, 3) locate the wall, 4) construct the wall, and 5) require Mexico to pay for the wall given the President’s clear and repeated promises that he would force Mexico to do so. Finally, there are objections to the construction of a wall from Democratic and Republican members of Congress that represent border states. Given these and other concerns, we believe it would be inappropriate to insist on the inclusion of such funding in a must-pass appropriations bill that is needed for the Republican majority in control of the Congress to avert a government shutdown so early in President Trump’s Administration.
[...]
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Patrick Leahy
Based on this letter, it appears their main objections to a full border wall are currently the cost-benefit ratio and the legal issues of taking land from Americans to build it on; objections that may not be unique to Democrats.<eos> | 3 |
Generated instruction based on response: If you would prefer to avoid intermediate image files, the commands provided by LordNeckBeard can be piped between ```ffmpeg``` and ImageMagick's ```convert``` so that no intermediate files are required:
```ffmpeg -i input.flv -vf scale=320:-1 -r 10 -f image2pipe -vcodec ppm - | convert -delay 10 -loop 0 - output.gif
```
The ```-f image2pipe``` tells ffmpeg to split the video into images and make it suitable to be piped out, and ```-vcodec ppm``` specifies the output format to be ppm (for some reason if the format is png, either ```convert``` does not read all the images from the pipe, or ffmpeg does not output them all). The ```-``` for both commands specifies that a pipe will be used for output and input respectively.
To optimize the result without saving a file, you can pipe the output from ```convert``` to a second ```convert``` command:
```ffmpeg -i input.flv -vf scale=320:-1 -r 10 -f image2pipe -vcodec ppm - | convert -delay 10 -loop 0 - gif:- | convert -layers Optimize - output.gif
```
The ```gif:-``` tells ```convert``` to pipe its output as gif formatted data and ```-layers Optimize``` tells the second ```convert``` to perform ```optimize-frame``` and ```optimize-transparancy``` methods (see the ImageMagick Introduction to Animation Optimization). Note that the output from the ```-layers Optimize``` may not always provide a smaller file size, so you may want to try converting to a gif without optimization first to be sure.
Remember that during this whole process everything is in memory so you may need sufficient memory if the images are quite large. | If you would prefer to avoid intermediate image files, the commands provided by LordNeckBeard can be piped between ```ffmpeg``` and ImageMagick's ```convert``` so that no intermediate files are required:
```ffmpeg -i input.flv -vf scale=320:-1 -r 10 -f image2pipe -vcodec ppm - | convert -delay 10 -loop 0 - output.gif
```
The ```-f image2pipe``` tells ffmpeg to split the video into images and make it suitable to be piped out, and ```-vcodec ppm``` specifies the output format to be ppm (for some reason if the format is png, either ```convert``` does not read all the images from the pipe, or ffmpeg does not output them all). The ```-``` for both commands specifies that a pipe will be used for output and input respectively.
To optimize the result without saving a file, you can pipe the output from ```convert``` to a second ```convert``` command:
```ffmpeg -i input.flv -vf scale=320:-1 -r 10 -f image2pipe -vcodec ppm - | convert -delay 10 -loop 0 - gif:- | convert -layers Optimize - output.gif
```
The ```gif:-``` tells ```convert``` to pipe its output as gif formatted data and ```-layers Optimize``` tells the second ```convert``` to perform ```optimize-frame``` and ```optimize-transparancy``` methods (see the ImageMagick Introduction to Animation Optimization). Note that the output from the ```-layers Optimize``` may not always provide a smaller file size, so you may want to try converting to a gif without optimization first to be sure.
Remember that during this whole process everything is in memory so you may need sufficient memory if the images are quite large. | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
If you would prefer to avoid intermediate image files, the commands provided by LordNeckBeard can be piped between ```ffmpeg``` and ImageMagick's ```convert``` so that no intermediate files are required:
```ffmpeg -i input.flv -vf scale=320:-1 -r 10 -f image2pipe -vcodec ppm - | convert -delay 10 -loop 0 - output.gif
```
The ```-f image2pipe``` tells ffmpeg to split the video into images and make it suitable to be piped out, and ```-vcodec ppm``` specifies the output format to be ppm (for some reason if the format is png, either ```convert``` does not read all the images from the pipe, or ffmpeg does not output them all). The ```-``` for both commands specifies that a pipe will be used for output and input respectively.
To optimize the result without saving a file, you can pipe the output from ```convert``` to a second ```convert``` command:
```ffmpeg -i input.flv -vf scale=320:-1 -r 10 -f image2pipe -vcodec ppm - | convert -delay 10 -loop 0 - gif:- | convert -layers Optimize - output.gif
```
The ```gif:-``` tells ```convert``` to pipe its output as gif formatted data and ```-layers Optimize``` tells the second ```convert``` to perform ```optimize-frame``` and ```optimize-transparancy``` methods (see the ImageMagick Introduction to Animation Optimization). Note that the output from the ```-layers Optimize``` may not always provide a smaller file size, so you may want to try converting to a gif without optimization first to be sure.
Remember that during this whole process everything is in memory so you may need sufficient memory if the images are quite large.
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: If you would prefer to avoid intermediate image files, the commands provided by LordNeckBeard can be piped between ```ffmpeg``` and ImageMagick's ```convert``` so that no intermediate files are required:
```ffmpeg -i input.flv -vf scale=320:-1 -r 10 -f image2pipe -vcodec ppm - | convert -delay 10 -loop 0 - output.gif
```
The ```-f image2pipe``` tells ffmpeg to split the video into images and make it suitable to be piped out, and ```-vcodec ppm``` specifies the output format to be ppm (for some reason if the format is png, either ```convert``` does not read all the images from the pipe, or ffmpeg does not output them all). The ```-``` for both commands specifies that a pipe will be used for output and input respectively.
To optimize the result without saving a file, you can pipe the output from ```convert``` to a second ```convert``` command:
```ffmpeg -i input.flv -vf scale=320:-1 -r 10 -f image2pipe -vcodec ppm - | convert -delay 10 -loop 0 - gif:- | convert -layers Optimize - output.gif
```
The ```gif:-``` tells ```convert``` to pipe its output as gif formatted data and ```-layers Optimize``` tells the second ```convert``` to perform ```optimize-frame``` and ```optimize-transparancy``` methods (see the ImageMagick Introduction to Animation Optimization). Note that the output from the ```-layers Optimize``` may not always provide a smaller file size, so you may want to try converting to a gif without optimization first to be sure.
Remember that during this whole process everything is in memory so you may need sufficient memory if the images are quite large.<eos> | 3 |
Generated instruction based on response: Tor clients do not, in general, directly do DNS requests. When you open a connection through the tor network you usually ask your client (on its socks ports) to connect you to a hostname and port, say www.example.com:80.
Your tor client, once it has created a circuit, will send that hostname and port to the exit node in its RELAY_BEGIN cell.
The exit node will then do a DNS resolve and open a TCP connection to the target. Once that's established it will tell your client that the connection is open, and for informational purposes will also tell your client what address that hostname resolved to.
Tor, in addition to that, has some sort of "remote DNS resolve" protocol built in. This support allows clients to query for certain resource types, like IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. Here too, the exit node does the actual DNS packet sending and receiving and just relays the answer to the client.
No UDP packets are actually ever routed from the client.
There's also a proposal to add more full featured DNS support to Tor. So far it hasn't been implemented.
Tor Protocol Specification references
* 6.2. Opening streams and transferring data
* 6.4. Remote hostname lookup
* Proposal 219 - Support for full DNS and DNSSEC resolution in Tor
| Tor clients do not, in general, directly do DNS requests. When you open a connection through the tor network you usually ask your client (on its socks ports) to connect you to a hostname and port, say www.example.com:80.
Your tor client, once it has created a circuit, will send that hostname and port to the exit node in its RELAY_BEGIN cell.
The exit node will then do a DNS resolve and open a TCP connection to the target. Once that's established it will tell your client that the connection is open, and for informational purposes will also tell your client what address that hostname resolved to.
Tor, in addition to that, has some sort of "remote DNS resolve" protocol built in. This support allows clients to query for certain resource types, like IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. Here too, the exit node does the actual DNS packet sending and receiving and just relays the answer to the client.
No UDP packets are actually ever routed from the client.
There's also a proposal to add more full featured DNS support to Tor. So far it hasn't been implemented.
Tor Protocol Specification references
* 6.2. Opening streams and transferring data
* 6.4. Remote hostname lookup
* Proposal 219 - Support for full DNS and DNSSEC resolution in Tor
| Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
Tor clients do not, in general, directly do DNS requests. When you open a connection through the tor network you usually ask your client (on its socks ports) to connect you to a hostname and port, say www.example.com:80.
Your tor client, once it has created a circuit, will send that hostname and port to the exit node in its RELAY_BEGIN cell.
The exit node will then do a DNS resolve and open a TCP connection to the target. Once that's established it will tell your client that the connection is open, and for informational purposes will also tell your client what address that hostname resolved to.
Tor, in addition to that, has some sort of "remote DNS resolve" protocol built in. This support allows clients to query for certain resource types, like IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. Here too, the exit node does the actual DNS packet sending and receiving and just relays the answer to the client.
No UDP packets are actually ever routed from the client.
There's also a proposal to add more full featured DNS support to Tor. So far it hasn't been implemented.
Tor Protocol Specification references
* 6.2. Opening streams and transferring data
* 6.4. Remote hostname lookup
* Proposal 219 - Support for full DNS and DNSSEC resolution in Tor
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: Tor clients do not, in general, directly do DNS requests. When you open a connection through the tor network you usually ask your client (on its socks ports) to connect you to a hostname and port, say www.example.com:80.
Your tor client, once it has created a circuit, will send that hostname and port to the exit node in its RELAY_BEGIN cell.
The exit node will then do a DNS resolve and open a TCP connection to the target. Once that's established it will tell your client that the connection is open, and for informational purposes will also tell your client what address that hostname resolved to.
Tor, in addition to that, has some sort of "remote DNS resolve" protocol built in. This support allows clients to query for certain resource types, like IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. Here too, the exit node does the actual DNS packet sending and receiving and just relays the answer to the client.
No UDP packets are actually ever routed from the client.
There's also a proposal to add more full featured DNS support to Tor. So far it hasn't been implemented.
Tor Protocol Specification references
* 6.2. Opening streams and transferring data
* 6.4. Remote hostname lookup
* Proposal 219 - Support for full DNS and DNSSEC resolution in Tor
<eos> | 2 |
Generated instruction based on response: The difference is that the explicit type of the ```returnsNull()``` method affects the static typing of the expressions at compile time:
```E1: `true ? returnsNull() : false` - boolean (auto-unboxing 2nd operand to boolean)
E2: `true ? null : false` - Boolean (autoboxing of 3rd operand to Boolean)
```
See Java Language Specification, section 15.25 Conditional Operator ? :
* For E1, the types of the 2nd and 3rd operands are ```Boolean``` and ```boolean``` respectively, so this clause applies:
If one of the second and third operands is of type boolean and the type of the other is of type Boolean, then the type of the conditional expression is boolean.
Since the type of the expression is ```boolean```, the 2nd operand must be coerced to ```boolean```. The compiler inserts auto-unboxing code to the 2nd operand (return value of ```returnsNull()```) to make it type ```boolean```. This of course causes the NPE from the ```null``` returned at run-time.
* For E2, types of the 2nd and 3rd operands are `````` (not ```Boolean``` as in E1!) and ```boolean``` respectively, so no specific typing clause applies (go read 'em!), so the final "otherwise" clause applies:
Otherwise, the second and third operands are of types S1 and S2 respectively. Let T1 be the type that results from applying boxing conversion to S1, and let T2 be the type that results from applying boxing conversion to S2. The type of the conditional expression is the result of applying capture conversion (§5.1.10) to lub(T1, T2) (§15.12.2.7).
* S1 == `````` (see §4.1)
* S2 == ```boolean```
* T1 == box(S1) == `````` (see last item in list of boxing conversions in §5.1.7)
* T2 == box(S2) == `Boolean
* lub(T1, T2) == ```Boolean```
So the type of the conditional expression is ```Boolean``` and the 3rd operand must be coerced to ```Boolean```. The compiler inserts auto-boxing code for the 3rd operand (```false```). The 2nd operand doesn't need the auto-unboxing as in ```E1```, so no auto-unboxing NPE when ```null``` is returned.
This question needs a similar type analysis:
Java conditional operator ?: result type | The difference is that the explicit type of the ```returnsNull()``` method affects the static typing of the expressions at compile time:
```E1: `true ? returnsNull() : false` - boolean (auto-unboxing 2nd operand to boolean)
E2: `true ? null : false` - Boolean (autoboxing of 3rd operand to Boolean)
```
See Java Language Specification, section 15.25 Conditional Operator ? :
* For E1, the types of the 2nd and 3rd operands are ```Boolean``` and ```boolean``` respectively, so this clause applies:
If one of the second and third operands is of type boolean and the type of the other is of type Boolean, then the type of the conditional expression is boolean.
Since the type of the expression is ```boolean```, the 2nd operand must be coerced to ```boolean```. The compiler inserts auto-unboxing code to the 2nd operand (return value of ```returnsNull()```) to make it type ```boolean```. This of course causes the NPE from the ```null``` returned at run-time.
* For E2, types of the 2nd and 3rd operands are `````` (not ```Boolean``` as in E1!) and ```boolean``` respectively, so no specific typing clause applies (go read 'em!), so the final "otherwise" clause applies:
Otherwise, the second and third operands are of types S1 and S2 respectively. Let T1 be the type that results from applying boxing conversion to S1, and let T2 be the type that results from applying boxing conversion to S2. The type of the conditional expression is the result of applying capture conversion (§5.1.10) to lub(T1, T2) (§15.12.2.7).
* S1 == `````` (see §4.1)
* S2 == ```boolean```
* T1 == box(S1) == `````` (see last item in list of boxing conversions in §5.1.7)
* T2 == box(S2) == `Boolean
* lub(T1, T2) == ```Boolean```
So the type of the conditional expression is ```Boolean``` and the 3rd operand must be coerced to ```Boolean```. The compiler inserts auto-boxing code for the 3rd operand (```false```). The 2nd operand doesn't need the auto-unboxing as in ```E1```, so no auto-unboxing NPE when ```null``` is returned.
This question needs a similar type analysis:
Java conditional operator ?: result type | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
The difference is that the explicit type of the ```returnsNull()``` method affects the static typing of the expressions at compile time:
```E1: `true ? returnsNull() : false` - boolean (auto-unboxing 2nd operand to boolean)
E2: `true ? null : false` - Boolean (autoboxing of 3rd operand to Boolean)
```
See Java Language Specification, section 15.25 Conditional Operator ? :
* For E1, the types of the 2nd and 3rd operands are ```Boolean``` and ```boolean``` respectively, so this clause applies:
If one of the second and third operands is of type boolean and the type of the other is of type Boolean, then the type of the conditional expression is boolean.
Since the type of the expression is ```boolean```, the 2nd operand must be coerced to ```boolean```. The compiler inserts auto-unboxing code to the 2nd operand (return value of ```returnsNull()```) to make it type ```boolean```. This of course causes the NPE from the ```null``` returned at run-time.
* For E2, types of the 2nd and 3rd operands are `````` (not ```Boolean``` as in E1!) and ```boolean``` respectively, so no specific typing clause applies (go read 'em!), so the final "otherwise" clause applies:
Otherwise, the second and third operands are of types S1 and S2 respectively. Let T1 be the type that results from applying boxing conversion to S1, and let T2 be the type that results from applying boxing conversion to S2. The type of the conditional expression is the result of applying capture conversion (§5.1.10) to lub(T1, T2) (§15.12.2.7).
* S1 == `````` (see §4.1)
* S2 == ```boolean```
* T1 == box(S1) == `````` (see last item in list of boxing conversions in §5.1.7)
* T2 == box(S2) == `Boolean
* lub(T1, T2) == ```Boolean```
So the type of the conditional expression is ```Boolean``` and the 3rd operand must be coerced to ```Boolean```. The compiler inserts auto-boxing code for the 3rd operand (```false```). The 2nd operand doesn't need the auto-unboxing as in ```E1```, so no auto-unboxing NPE when ```null``` is returned.
This question needs a similar type analysis:
Java conditional operator ?: result type
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: The difference is that the explicit type of the ```returnsNull()``` method affects the static typing of the expressions at compile time:
```E1: `true ? returnsNull() : false` - boolean (auto-unboxing 2nd operand to boolean)
E2: `true ? null : false` - Boolean (autoboxing of 3rd operand to Boolean)
```
See Java Language Specification, section 15.25 Conditional Operator ? :
* For E1, the types of the 2nd and 3rd operands are ```Boolean``` and ```boolean``` respectively, so this clause applies:
If one of the second and third operands is of type boolean and the type of the other is of type Boolean, then the type of the conditional expression is boolean.
Since the type of the expression is ```boolean```, the 2nd operand must be coerced to ```boolean```. The compiler inserts auto-unboxing code to the 2nd operand (return value of ```returnsNull()```) to make it type ```boolean```. This of course causes the NPE from the ```null``` returned at run-time.
* For E2, types of the 2nd and 3rd operands are `````` (not ```Boolean``` as in E1!) and ```boolean``` respectively, so no specific typing clause applies (go read 'em!), so the final "otherwise" clause applies:
Otherwise, the second and third operands are of types S1 and S2 respectively. Let T1 be the type that results from applying boxing conversion to S1, and let T2 be the type that results from applying boxing conversion to S2. The type of the conditional expression is the result of applying capture conversion (§5.1.10) to lub(T1, T2) (§15.12.2.7).
* S1 == `````` (see §4.1)
* S2 == ```boolean```
* T1 == box(S1) == `````` (see last item in list of boxing conversions in §5.1.7)
* T2 == box(S2) == `Boolean
* lub(T1, T2) == ```Boolean```
So the type of the conditional expression is ```Boolean``` and the 3rd operand must be coerced to ```Boolean```. The compiler inserts auto-boxing code for the 3rd operand (```false```). The 2nd operand doesn't need the auto-unboxing as in ```E1```, so no auto-unboxing NPE when ```null``` is returned.
This question needs a similar type analysis:
Java conditional operator ?: result type<eos> | 4 |
Generated instruction based on response: DOOM itself doesn’t do anything special to benefit from PCI graphics cards. It runs faster with PCI graphics cards (and VLB, AGP, and PCI Express cards) than with ISA graphics cards because the supporting bus is faster, so reads from and writes to video memory take less time.
PCI goes to great lengths to preserve backwards compatibility with ISA-based VGA, providing support for “VGA compatible” adapters so that they can appear in memory at the same locations and use the same I/O ports as ISA VGA cards. So accesses to the VGA registers and to the VGA buffer (at 0xA0000) go directly to the main PCI VGA compatible adapter in the system, with no change required in the operating system or programs running on it. (This is the reason why there’s a specific “VGA compatible controller” device type in PCI. Such shenanigans are impossible for other device types in PCI, which is why PCI sound cards have so much trouble providing compatibility with programs written for ISA sound cards.)
A faster bus and/or faster video memory immediately leads to higher performance in video-intensive programs because software doesn’t need to be careful about how it accesses video memory (except on CGA, and on all platforms with vertical blank synchronisation if it cares about tearing). So ```REP MOVSW``` or ```REP MOVSD``` with no waiting in software, once the program decides to write a frame, is perfectly fine, and will go faster and faster as the underlying hardware improves. On platforms where this can’t work in hardware (e.g. on an 8088 with a VGA card), the hardware takes care of specifics — for example on an 8088 the bus unit will split up 16-bit accesses.
Your question is specific to DOOM but other DOS games are in a similar situation. Later games tended to rely on VBE (often using UniVBE) to access video modes beyond those provided by VGA, but they mostly didn’t use anything beyond video-mode setup and framebuffer configuration (see also Were any DOS games (or software) known to use VBE/AF?), so improved video speed came mostly from bus speed increases, faster video memory, and speed increases in the cards themselves (which was already a factor in the ISA era, compare most Trident cards to Tseng cards for example).
For an excellent explanation of the intricacies of VGA programming and its memory layout, see Fabien Sanglard’s Game Engine Black Book series. The DOOM update loop is shown on page 185 of the DOOM book; it doesn’t use any assembly language (unlike the renderer, see pp. 290 and following), but it does have one perhaps surprising feature given the 32-bit nature of the code: VGA updates are done 16 bits at a time. Section 2.3 of the same book, pp. 59 and following, describes some of the improvements to VGA adapters around the time DOOM was released, in particular the switch to the VESA Local Bus on 486s. The benchmark table on page 287 shows the importance of the bus. | DOOM itself doesn’t do anything special to benefit from PCI graphics cards. It runs faster with PCI graphics cards (and VLB, AGP, and PCI Express cards) than with ISA graphics cards because the supporting bus is faster, so reads from and writes to video memory take less time.
PCI goes to great lengths to preserve backwards compatibility with ISA-based VGA, providing support for “VGA compatible” adapters so that they can appear in memory at the same locations and use the same I/O ports as ISA VGA cards. So accesses to the VGA registers and to the VGA buffer (at 0xA0000) go directly to the main PCI VGA compatible adapter in the system, with no change required in the operating system or programs running on it. (This is the reason why there’s a specific “VGA compatible controller” device type in PCI. Such shenanigans are impossible for other device types in PCI, which is why PCI sound cards have so much trouble providing compatibility with programs written for ISA sound cards.)
A faster bus and/or faster video memory immediately leads to higher performance in video-intensive programs because software doesn’t need to be careful about how it accesses video memory (except on CGA, and on all platforms with vertical blank synchronisation if it cares about tearing). So ```REP MOVSW``` or ```REP MOVSD``` with no waiting in software, once the program decides to write a frame, is perfectly fine, and will go faster and faster as the underlying hardware improves. On platforms where this can’t work in hardware (e.g. on an 8088 with a VGA card), the hardware takes care of specifics — for example on an 8088 the bus unit will split up 16-bit accesses.
Your question is specific to DOOM but other DOS games are in a similar situation. Later games tended to rely on VBE (often using UniVBE) to access video modes beyond those provided by VGA, but they mostly didn’t use anything beyond video-mode setup and framebuffer configuration (see also Were any DOS games (or software) known to use VBE/AF?), so improved video speed came mostly from bus speed increases, faster video memory, and speed increases in the cards themselves (which was already a factor in the ISA era, compare most Trident cards to Tseng cards for example).
For an excellent explanation of the intricacies of VGA programming and its memory layout, see Fabien Sanglard’s Game Engine Black Book series. The DOOM update loop is shown on page 185 of the DOOM book; it doesn’t use any assembly language (unlike the renderer, see pp. 290 and following), but it does have one perhaps surprising feature given the 32-bit nature of the code: VGA updates are done 16 bits at a time. Section 2.3 of the same book, pp. 59 and following, describes some of the improvements to VGA adapters around the time DOOM was released, in particular the switch to the VESA Local Bus on 486s. The benchmark table on page 287 shows the importance of the bus. | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
DOOM itself doesn’t do anything special to benefit from PCI graphics cards. It runs faster with PCI graphics cards (and VLB, AGP, and PCI Express cards) than with ISA graphics cards because the supporting bus is faster, so reads from and writes to video memory take less time.
PCI goes to great lengths to preserve backwards compatibility with ISA-based VGA, providing support for “VGA compatible” adapters so that they can appear in memory at the same locations and use the same I/O ports as ISA VGA cards. So accesses to the VGA registers and to the VGA buffer (at 0xA0000) go directly to the main PCI VGA compatible adapter in the system, with no change required in the operating system or programs running on it. (This is the reason why there’s a specific “VGA compatible controller” device type in PCI. Such shenanigans are impossible for other device types in PCI, which is why PCI sound cards have so much trouble providing compatibility with programs written for ISA sound cards.)
A faster bus and/or faster video memory immediately leads to higher performance in video-intensive programs because software doesn’t need to be careful about how it accesses video memory (except on CGA, and on all platforms with vertical blank synchronisation if it cares about tearing). So ```REP MOVSW``` or ```REP MOVSD``` with no waiting in software, once the program decides to write a frame, is perfectly fine, and will go faster and faster as the underlying hardware improves. On platforms where this can’t work in hardware (e.g. on an 8088 with a VGA card), the hardware takes care of specifics — for example on an 8088 the bus unit will split up 16-bit accesses.
Your question is specific to DOOM but other DOS games are in a similar situation. Later games tended to rely on VBE (often using UniVBE) to access video modes beyond those provided by VGA, but they mostly didn’t use anything beyond video-mode setup and framebuffer configuration (see also Were any DOS games (or software) known to use VBE/AF?), so improved video speed came mostly from bus speed increases, faster video memory, and speed increases in the cards themselves (which was already a factor in the ISA era, compare most Trident cards to Tseng cards for example).
For an excellent explanation of the intricacies of VGA programming and its memory layout, see Fabien Sanglard’s Game Engine Black Book series. The DOOM update loop is shown on page 185 of the DOOM book; it doesn’t use any assembly language (unlike the renderer, see pp. 290 and following), but it does have one perhaps surprising feature given the 32-bit nature of the code: VGA updates are done 16 bits at a time. Section 2.3 of the same book, pp. 59 and following, describes some of the improvements to VGA adapters around the time DOOM was released, in particular the switch to the VESA Local Bus on 486s. The benchmark table on page 287 shows the importance of the bus.
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: DOOM itself doesn’t do anything special to benefit from PCI graphics cards. It runs faster with PCI graphics cards (and VLB, AGP, and PCI Express cards) than with ISA graphics cards because the supporting bus is faster, so reads from and writes to video memory take less time.
PCI goes to great lengths to preserve backwards compatibility with ISA-based VGA, providing support for “VGA compatible” adapters so that they can appear in memory at the same locations and use the same I/O ports as ISA VGA cards. So accesses to the VGA registers and to the VGA buffer (at 0xA0000) go directly to the main PCI VGA compatible adapter in the system, with no change required in the operating system or programs running on it. (This is the reason why there’s a specific “VGA compatible controller” device type in PCI. Such shenanigans are impossible for other device types in PCI, which is why PCI sound cards have so much trouble providing compatibility with programs written for ISA sound cards.)
A faster bus and/or faster video memory immediately leads to higher performance in video-intensive programs because software doesn’t need to be careful about how it accesses video memory (except on CGA, and on all platforms with vertical blank synchronisation if it cares about tearing). So ```REP MOVSW``` or ```REP MOVSD``` with no waiting in software, once the program decides to write a frame, is perfectly fine, and will go faster and faster as the underlying hardware improves. On platforms where this can’t work in hardware (e.g. on an 8088 with a VGA card), the hardware takes care of specifics — for example on an 8088 the bus unit will split up 16-bit accesses.
Your question is specific to DOOM but other DOS games are in a similar situation. Later games tended to rely on VBE (often using UniVBE) to access video modes beyond those provided by VGA, but they mostly didn’t use anything beyond video-mode setup and framebuffer configuration (see also Were any DOS games (or software) known to use VBE/AF?), so improved video speed came mostly from bus speed increases, faster video memory, and speed increases in the cards themselves (which was already a factor in the ISA era, compare most Trident cards to Tseng cards for example).
For an excellent explanation of the intricacies of VGA programming and its memory layout, see Fabien Sanglard’s Game Engine Black Book series. The DOOM update loop is shown on page 185 of the DOOM book; it doesn’t use any assembly language (unlike the renderer, see pp. 290 and following), but it does have one perhaps surprising feature given the 32-bit nature of the code: VGA updates are done 16 bits at a time. Section 2.3 of the same book, pp. 59 and following, describes some of the improvements to VGA adapters around the time DOOM was released, in particular the switch to the VESA Local Bus on 486s. The benchmark table on page 287 shows the importance of the bus.<eos> | 3 |
Generated instruction based on response: ```open``` and ```start``` are command-interpreter things for Mac OS/X and Windows respectively, to do this.
To call them from Python, you can either use ```subprocess``` module or ```os.system()```.
Here are considerations on which package to use:
* You can call them via ```os.system```, which works, but...
Escaping: ```os.system``` only works with filenames that don't have any spaces or other shell metacharacters in the pathname (e.g. ```A:\abc\def\a.txt```), or else these need to be escaped. There is ```shlex.quote``` for Unix-like systems, but nothing really standard for Windows. Maybe see also python, windows : parsing command lines with shlex
* MacOS/X: ```os.system("open " + shlex.quote(filename))```
* Windows: ```os.system("start " + filename)``` where properly speaking ```filename``` should be escaped, too.
* You can also call them via ```subprocess``` module, but...
For Python 2.7 and newer, simply use
```subprocess.check_call(['open', filename])
```
In Python 3.5+ you can equivalently use the slightly more complex but also somewhat more versatile
```subprocess.run(['open', filename], check=True)
```
If you need to be compatible all the way back to Python 2.4, you can use ```subprocess.call()``` and implement your own error checking:
```try:
retcode = subprocess.call("open " + filename, shell=True)
if retcode < 0:
print >>sys.stderr, "Child was terminated by signal", -retcode
else:
print >>sys.stderr, "Child returned", retcode
except OSError, e:
print >>sys.stderr, "Execution failed:", e
```
Now, what are the advantages of using ```subprocess```?
* Security: In theory, this is more secure, but in fact we're needing to execute a command line one way or the other; in either environment, we need the environment and services to interpret, get paths, and so forth. In neither case are we executing arbitrary text, so it doesn't have an inherent "but you can type ```'filename ; rm -rf /'```" problem, and if the file name can be corrupted, using ```subprocess.call``` gives us little additional protection.
* Error handling: It doesn't actually give us any more error detection, we're still depending on the ```retcode``` in either case; but the behavior to explicitly raise an exception in the case of an error will certainly help you notice if there is a failure (though in some scenarios, a traceback might not at all be more helpful than simply ignoring the error).
* Spawns a (non-blocking) subprocess: We don't need to wait for the child process, since we're by problem statement starting a separate process.
To the objection "But ```subprocess``` is preferred." However, ```os.system()``` is not deprecated, and it's in some sense the simplest tool for this particular job. Conclusion: using ```os.system()``` is therefore also a correct answer.
A marked disadvantage is that the Windows ```start``` command requires you to pass in ```shell=True``` which negates most of the benefits of using ```subprocess```.
| ```open``` and ```start``` are command-interpreter things for Mac OS/X and Windows respectively, to do this.
To call them from Python, you can either use ```subprocess``` module or ```os.system()```.
Here are considerations on which package to use:
* You can call them via ```os.system```, which works, but...
Escaping: ```os.system``` only works with filenames that don't have any spaces or other shell metacharacters in the pathname (e.g. ```A:\abc\def\a.txt```), or else these need to be escaped. There is ```shlex.quote``` for Unix-like systems, but nothing really standard for Windows. Maybe see also python, windows : parsing command lines with shlex
* MacOS/X: ```os.system("open " + shlex.quote(filename))```
* Windows: ```os.system("start " + filename)``` where properly speaking ```filename``` should be escaped, too.
* You can also call them via ```subprocess``` module, but...
For Python 2.7 and newer, simply use
```subprocess.check_call(['open', filename])
```
In Python 3.5+ you can equivalently use the slightly more complex but also somewhat more versatile
```subprocess.run(['open', filename], check=True)
```
If you need to be compatible all the way back to Python 2.4, you can use ```subprocess.call()``` and implement your own error checking:
```try:
retcode = subprocess.call("open " + filename, shell=True)
if retcode < 0:
print >>sys.stderr, "Child was terminated by signal", -retcode
else:
print >>sys.stderr, "Child returned", retcode
except OSError, e:
print >>sys.stderr, "Execution failed:", e
```
Now, what are the advantages of using ```subprocess```?
* Security: In theory, this is more secure, but in fact we're needing to execute a command line one way or the other; in either environment, we need the environment and services to interpret, get paths, and so forth. In neither case are we executing arbitrary text, so it doesn't have an inherent "but you can type ```'filename ; rm -rf /'```" problem, and if the file name can be corrupted, using ```subprocess.call``` gives us little additional protection.
* Error handling: It doesn't actually give us any more error detection, we're still depending on the ```retcode``` in either case; but the behavior to explicitly raise an exception in the case of an error will certainly help you notice if there is a failure (though in some scenarios, a traceback might not at all be more helpful than simply ignoring the error).
* Spawns a (non-blocking) subprocess: We don't need to wait for the child process, since we're by problem statement starting a separate process.
To the objection "But ```subprocess``` is preferred." However, ```os.system()``` is not deprecated, and it's in some sense the simplest tool for this particular job. Conclusion: using ```os.system()``` is therefore also a correct answer.
A marked disadvantage is that the Windows ```start``` command requires you to pass in ```shell=True``` which negates most of the benefits of using ```subprocess```.
| Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
```open``` and ```start``` are command-interpreter things for Mac OS/X and Windows respectively, to do this.
To call them from Python, you can either use ```subprocess``` module or ```os.system()```.
Here are considerations on which package to use:
* You can call them via ```os.system```, which works, but...
Escaping: ```os.system``` only works with filenames that don't have any spaces or other shell metacharacters in the pathname (e.g. ```A:\abc\def\a.txt```), or else these need to be escaped. There is ```shlex.quote``` for Unix-like systems, but nothing really standard for Windows. Maybe see also python, windows : parsing command lines with shlex
* MacOS/X: ```os.system("open " + shlex.quote(filename))```
* Windows: ```os.system("start " + filename)``` where properly speaking ```filename``` should be escaped, too.
* You can also call them via ```subprocess``` module, but...
For Python 2.7 and newer, simply use
```subprocess.check_call(['open', filename])
```
In Python 3.5+ you can equivalently use the slightly more complex but also somewhat more versatile
```subprocess.run(['open', filename], check=True)
```
If you need to be compatible all the way back to Python 2.4, you can use ```subprocess.call()``` and implement your own error checking:
```try:
retcode = subprocess.call("open " + filename, shell=True)
if retcode < 0:
print >>sys.stderr, "Child was terminated by signal", -retcode
else:
print >>sys.stderr, "Child returned", retcode
except OSError, e:
print >>sys.stderr, "Execution failed:", e
```
Now, what are the advantages of using ```subprocess```?
* Security: In theory, this is more secure, but in fact we're needing to execute a command line one way or the other; in either environment, we need the environment and services to interpret, get paths, and so forth. In neither case are we executing arbitrary text, so it doesn't have an inherent "but you can type ```'filename ; rm -rf /'```" problem, and if the file name can be corrupted, using ```subprocess.call``` gives us little additional protection.
* Error handling: It doesn't actually give us any more error detection, we're still depending on the ```retcode``` in either case; but the behavior to explicitly raise an exception in the case of an error will certainly help you notice if there is a failure (though in some scenarios, a traceback might not at all be more helpful than simply ignoring the error).
* Spawns a (non-blocking) subprocess: We don't need to wait for the child process, since we're by problem statement starting a separate process.
To the objection "But ```subprocess``` is preferred." However, ```os.system()``` is not deprecated, and it's in some sense the simplest tool for this particular job. Conclusion: using ```os.system()``` is therefore also a correct answer.
A marked disadvantage is that the Windows ```start``` command requires you to pass in ```shell=True``` which negates most of the benefits of using ```subprocess```.
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: ```open``` and ```start``` are command-interpreter things for Mac OS/X and Windows respectively, to do this.
To call them from Python, you can either use ```subprocess``` module or ```os.system()```.
Here are considerations on which package to use:
* You can call them via ```os.system```, which works, but...
Escaping: ```os.system``` only works with filenames that don't have any spaces or other shell metacharacters in the pathname (e.g. ```A:\abc\def\a.txt```), or else these need to be escaped. There is ```shlex.quote``` for Unix-like systems, but nothing really standard for Windows. Maybe see also python, windows : parsing command lines with shlex
* MacOS/X: ```os.system("open " + shlex.quote(filename))```
* Windows: ```os.system("start " + filename)``` where properly speaking ```filename``` should be escaped, too.
* You can also call them via ```subprocess``` module, but...
For Python 2.7 and newer, simply use
```subprocess.check_call(['open', filename])
```
In Python 3.5+ you can equivalently use the slightly more complex but also somewhat more versatile
```subprocess.run(['open', filename], check=True)
```
If you need to be compatible all the way back to Python 2.4, you can use ```subprocess.call()``` and implement your own error checking:
```try:
retcode = subprocess.call("open " + filename, shell=True)
if retcode < 0:
print >>sys.stderr, "Child was terminated by signal", -retcode
else:
print >>sys.stderr, "Child returned", retcode
except OSError, e:
print >>sys.stderr, "Execution failed:", e
```
Now, what are the advantages of using ```subprocess```?
* Security: In theory, this is more secure, but in fact we're needing to execute a command line one way or the other; in either environment, we need the environment and services to interpret, get paths, and so forth. In neither case are we executing arbitrary text, so it doesn't have an inherent "but you can type ```'filename ; rm -rf /'```" problem, and if the file name can be corrupted, using ```subprocess.call``` gives us little additional protection.
* Error handling: It doesn't actually give us any more error detection, we're still depending on the ```retcode``` in either case; but the behavior to explicitly raise an exception in the case of an error will certainly help you notice if there is a failure (though in some scenarios, a traceback might not at all be more helpful than simply ignoring the error).
* Spawns a (non-blocking) subprocess: We don't need to wait for the child process, since we're by problem statement starting a separate process.
To the objection "But ```subprocess``` is preferred." However, ```os.system()``` is not deprecated, and it's in some sense the simplest tool for this particular job. Conclusion: using ```os.system()``` is therefore also a correct answer.
A marked disadvantage is that the Windows ```start``` command requires you to pass in ```shell=True``` which negates most of the benefits of using ```subprocess```.
<eos> | 3 |
Generated instruction based on response: Trade surplus/deficit
Devaluing one's currency means mostly one thing: It becomes more expensive to import products from abroad, while one's own products become comparably cheaper to buy on the world market. That means a country which exports lots of goods wants to devalue their currency while a country which imports lots of goods does not.
In 2016, Turkey imported goods worth US $186 billion and exported goods worth US $156 billion. That means they had a trade deficit of 19%.
However, China only imported goods worth US $1.23 trillion and exported goods worth US $2.27 trillion in 2016. That means they had a trade surplus of 84%.
Which is why China wants to devalue their currency while Turkey does not.
Debt management
Another reason to devalue one's currency is that it reduces any debts denoted in that currency. If a country has a problem of too much public and private debt, then an easy way to get rid of it is to cause a hyperinflation.
China happens to have a debt-to-gdp ratio of 47.6% while Turkey only has one of 28.3%. When you look at the private debt (debt of private citizens and companies in the country), you see the same picture. Private debit in Turkey was 170% of GDP, while China's is rumored to be over 300%.
Which is why reducing debt through causing inflation seems more attractive to China than to Turkey.
Foreign investor relations
So why don't all countries get rid of their debt by adding a few zeroes to their bank notes? Because inflating your currency is a surefire way to drive away any foreign investors. Nobody will invest money into your country when that money might be worth nothing in a few years. Investors want stable currencies. Again, we observe the same difference in motivation between Turkey and China here. Turkey is actively inviting foreign investors, but China is quite reluctant to allow foreign economic influence in their country. | Trade surplus/deficit
Devaluing one's currency means mostly one thing: It becomes more expensive to import products from abroad, while one's own products become comparably cheaper to buy on the world market. That means a country which exports lots of goods wants to devalue their currency while a country which imports lots of goods does not.
In 2016, Turkey imported goods worth US $186 billion and exported goods worth US $156 billion. That means they had a trade deficit of 19%.
However, China only imported goods worth US $1.23 trillion and exported goods worth US $2.27 trillion in 2016. That means they had a trade surplus of 84%.
Which is why China wants to devalue their currency while Turkey does not.
Debt management
Another reason to devalue one's currency is that it reduces any debts denoted in that currency. If a country has a problem of too much public and private debt, then an easy way to get rid of it is to cause a hyperinflation.
China happens to have a debt-to-gdp ratio of 47.6% while Turkey only has one of 28.3%. When you look at the private debt (debt of private citizens and companies in the country), you see the same picture. Private debit in Turkey was 170% of GDP, while China's is rumored to be over 300%.
Which is why reducing debt through causing inflation seems more attractive to China than to Turkey.
Foreign investor relations
So why don't all countries get rid of their debt by adding a few zeroes to their bank notes? Because inflating your currency is a surefire way to drive away any foreign investors. Nobody will invest money into your country when that money might be worth nothing in a few years. Investors want stable currencies. Again, we observe the same difference in motivation between Turkey and China here. Turkey is actively inviting foreign investors, but China is quite reluctant to allow foreign economic influence in their country. | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
Trade surplus/deficit
Devaluing one's currency means mostly one thing: It becomes more expensive to import products from abroad, while one's own products become comparably cheaper to buy on the world market. That means a country which exports lots of goods wants to devalue their currency while a country which imports lots of goods does not.
In 2016, Turkey imported goods worth US $186 billion and exported goods worth US $156 billion. That means they had a trade deficit of 19%.
However, China only imported goods worth US $1.23 trillion and exported goods worth US $2.27 trillion in 2016. That means they had a trade surplus of 84%.
Which is why China wants to devalue their currency while Turkey does not.
Debt management
Another reason to devalue one's currency is that it reduces any debts denoted in that currency. If a country has a problem of too much public and private debt, then an easy way to get rid of it is to cause a hyperinflation.
China happens to have a debt-to-gdp ratio of 47.6% while Turkey only has one of 28.3%. When you look at the private debt (debt of private citizens and companies in the country), you see the same picture. Private debit in Turkey was 170% of GDP, while China's is rumored to be over 300%.
Which is why reducing debt through causing inflation seems more attractive to China than to Turkey.
Foreign investor relations
So why don't all countries get rid of their debt by adding a few zeroes to their bank notes? Because inflating your currency is a surefire way to drive away any foreign investors. Nobody will invest money into your country when that money might be worth nothing in a few years. Investors want stable currencies. Again, we observe the same difference in motivation between Turkey and China here. Turkey is actively inviting foreign investors, but China is quite reluctant to allow foreign economic influence in their country.
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: Trade surplus/deficit
Devaluing one's currency means mostly one thing: It becomes more expensive to import products from abroad, while one's own products become comparably cheaper to buy on the world market. That means a country which exports lots of goods wants to devalue their currency while a country which imports lots of goods does not.
In 2016, Turkey imported goods worth US $186 billion and exported goods worth US $156 billion. That means they had a trade deficit of 19%.
However, China only imported goods worth US $1.23 trillion and exported goods worth US $2.27 trillion in 2016. That means they had a trade surplus of 84%.
Which is why China wants to devalue their currency while Turkey does not.
Debt management
Another reason to devalue one's currency is that it reduces any debts denoted in that currency. If a country has a problem of too much public and private debt, then an easy way to get rid of it is to cause a hyperinflation.
China happens to have a debt-to-gdp ratio of 47.6% while Turkey only has one of 28.3%. When you look at the private debt (debt of private citizens and companies in the country), you see the same picture. Private debit in Turkey was 170% of GDP, while China's is rumored to be over 300%.
Which is why reducing debt through causing inflation seems more attractive to China than to Turkey.
Foreign investor relations
So why don't all countries get rid of their debt by adding a few zeroes to their bank notes? Because inflating your currency is a surefire way to drive away any foreign investors. Nobody will invest money into your country when that money might be worth nothing in a few years. Investors want stable currencies. Again, we observe the same difference in motivation between Turkey and China here. Turkey is actively inviting foreign investors, but China is quite reluctant to allow foreign economic influence in their country.<eos> | 3 |
Generated instruction based on response: This is a great question, with no one right answer.
The strength of a patent comes from the ability to enforce it. If the patent owner cannot enforce it for whatever reason (such as a lack of funding), the patent is effectively toothless.
But your competitors will likely not know that. They may therefore be dissuaded from infringing simply by the existence of a patent and the assumption that you would sue. Such a chilling effect on competition may be valuable to you.
In addition, if there is infringement, you may be able to get a licensing agreement without the need for litigation. This can be a very lucrative business model, and so may justify the cost of patenting.
And if litigation seems likely, there is a nascent field of litigation funding. While your funders will take quite a great deal of the damages, you may at least get something out of the end of it.
Finally, even if you can't sue, someone else could. You might therefore get quite some value from selling it off at some point. There are a number of tech businesses where most of their value comes from their IP portfolio.
On the whole therefore it depends how you see yourself proceeding. If you're unsure, it may pay to err on the side of patenting: once you disclose or use your invention publicly, you're generally barred from patenting it later (but for a short grace period in some countries), whereas it's easy to abandon a patent (or application) later down the track if you wish. | This is a great question, with no one right answer.
The strength of a patent comes from the ability to enforce it. If the patent owner cannot enforce it for whatever reason (such as a lack of funding), the patent is effectively toothless.
But your competitors will likely not know that. They may therefore be dissuaded from infringing simply by the existence of a patent and the assumption that you would sue. Such a chilling effect on competition may be valuable to you.
In addition, if there is infringement, you may be able to get a licensing agreement without the need for litigation. This can be a very lucrative business model, and so may justify the cost of patenting.
And if litigation seems likely, there is a nascent field of litigation funding. While your funders will take quite a great deal of the damages, you may at least get something out of the end of it.
Finally, even if you can't sue, someone else could. You might therefore get quite some value from selling it off at some point. There are a number of tech businesses where most of their value comes from their IP portfolio.
On the whole therefore it depends how you see yourself proceeding. If you're unsure, it may pay to err on the side of patenting: once you disclose or use your invention publicly, you're generally barred from patenting it later (but for a short grace period in some countries), whereas it's easy to abandon a patent (or application) later down the track if you wish. | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
This is a great question, with no one right answer.
The strength of a patent comes from the ability to enforce it. If the patent owner cannot enforce it for whatever reason (such as a lack of funding), the patent is effectively toothless.
But your competitors will likely not know that. They may therefore be dissuaded from infringing simply by the existence of a patent and the assumption that you would sue. Such a chilling effect on competition may be valuable to you.
In addition, if there is infringement, you may be able to get a licensing agreement without the need for litigation. This can be a very lucrative business model, and so may justify the cost of patenting.
And if litigation seems likely, there is a nascent field of litigation funding. While your funders will take quite a great deal of the damages, you may at least get something out of the end of it.
Finally, even if you can't sue, someone else could. You might therefore get quite some value from selling it off at some point. There are a number of tech businesses where most of their value comes from their IP portfolio.
On the whole therefore it depends how you see yourself proceeding. If you're unsure, it may pay to err on the side of patenting: once you disclose or use your invention publicly, you're generally barred from patenting it later (but for a short grace period in some countries), whereas it's easy to abandon a patent (or application) later down the track if you wish.
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: This is a great question, with no one right answer.
The strength of a patent comes from the ability to enforce it. If the patent owner cannot enforce it for whatever reason (such as a lack of funding), the patent is effectively toothless.
But your competitors will likely not know that. They may therefore be dissuaded from infringing simply by the existence of a patent and the assumption that you would sue. Such a chilling effect on competition may be valuable to you.
In addition, if there is infringement, you may be able to get a licensing agreement without the need for litigation. This can be a very lucrative business model, and so may justify the cost of patenting.
And if litigation seems likely, there is a nascent field of litigation funding. While your funders will take quite a great deal of the damages, you may at least get something out of the end of it.
Finally, even if you can't sue, someone else could. You might therefore get quite some value from selling it off at some point. There are a number of tech businesses where most of their value comes from their IP portfolio.
On the whole therefore it depends how you see yourself proceeding. If you're unsure, it may pay to err on the side of patenting: once you disclose or use your invention publicly, you're generally barred from patenting it later (but for a short grace period in some countries), whereas it's easy to abandon a patent (or application) later down the track if you wish.<eos> | 3 |
Generated instruction based on response: Four Different Ways to Check If an Array Contains a Value:
* Using ```List```:
```public static boolean useList(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
return Arrays.asList(arr).contains(targetValue);
}
```
* Using ```Set```:
```public static boolean useSet(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
Set set = new HashSet(Arrays.asList(arr));
return set.contains(targetValue);
}
```
* Using a simple loop:
```public static boolean useLoop(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
for (String s: arr) {
if (s.equals(targetValue))
return true;
}
return false;
}
```
* Using ```Arrays.binarySearch()```:
The code below is wrong, it is listed here for completeness. ```binarySearch()``` can ONLY be used on sorted arrays. You will find the result is weird below. This is the best option when array is sorted.
```public static boolean binarySearch(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
return Arrays.binarySearch(arr, targetValue) >= 0;
}
```
Quick Example:
```String testValue="test";
String newValueNotInList="newValue";
String[] valueArray = { "this", "is", "java" , "test" };
Arrays.asList(valueArray).contains(testValue); // returns true
Arrays.asList(valueArray).contains(newValueNotInList); // returns false
``` | Four Different Ways to Check If an Array Contains a Value:
* Using ```List```:
```public static boolean useList(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
return Arrays.asList(arr).contains(targetValue);
}
```
* Using ```Set```:
```public static boolean useSet(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
Set set = new HashSet(Arrays.asList(arr));
return set.contains(targetValue);
}
```
* Using a simple loop:
```public static boolean useLoop(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
for (String s: arr) {
if (s.equals(targetValue))
return true;
}
return false;
}
```
* Using ```Arrays.binarySearch()```:
The code below is wrong, it is listed here for completeness. ```binarySearch()``` can ONLY be used on sorted arrays. You will find the result is weird below. This is the best option when array is sorted.
```public static boolean binarySearch(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
return Arrays.binarySearch(arr, targetValue) >= 0;
}
```
Quick Example:
```String testValue="test";
String newValueNotInList="newValue";
String[] valueArray = { "this", "is", "java" , "test" };
Arrays.asList(valueArray).contains(testValue); // returns true
Arrays.asList(valueArray).contains(newValueNotInList); // returns false
``` | Below is a response that answers the instruction. Write an instruction that appropriately requests the response.
### Response:
Four Different Ways to Check If an Array Contains a Value:
* Using ```List```:
```public static boolean useList(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
return Arrays.asList(arr).contains(targetValue);
}
```
* Using ```Set```:
```public static boolean useSet(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
Set set = new HashSet(Arrays.asList(arr));
return set.contains(targetValue);
}
```
* Using a simple loop:
```public static boolean useLoop(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
for (String s: arr) {
if (s.equals(targetValue))
return true;
}
return false;
}
```
* Using ```Arrays.binarySearch()```:
The code below is wrong, it is listed here for completeness. ```binarySearch()``` can ONLY be used on sorted arrays. You will find the result is weird below. This is the best option when array is sorted.
```public static boolean binarySearch(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
return Arrays.binarySearch(arr, targetValue) >= 0;
}
```
Quick Example:
```String testValue="test";
String newValueNotInList="newValue";
String[] valueArray = { "this", "is", "java" , "test" };
Arrays.asList(valueArray).contains(testValue); // returns true
Arrays.asList(valueArray).contains(newValueNotInList); // returns false
```
### Instruction:
Generated instruction based on response: Four Different Ways to Check If an Array Contains a Value:
* Using ```List```:
```public static boolean useList(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
return Arrays.asList(arr).contains(targetValue);
}
```
* Using ```Set```:
```public static boolean useSet(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
Set set = new HashSet(Arrays.asList(arr));
return set.contains(targetValue);
}
```
* Using a simple loop:
```public static boolean useLoop(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
for (String s: arr) {
if (s.equals(targetValue))
return true;
}
return false;
}
```
* Using ```Arrays.binarySearch()```:
The code below is wrong, it is listed here for completeness. ```binarySearch()``` can ONLY be used on sorted arrays. You will find the result is weird below. This is the best option when array is sorted.
```public static boolean binarySearch(String[] arr, String targetValue) {
return Arrays.binarySearch(arr, targetValue) >= 0;
}
```
Quick Example:
```String testValue="test";
String newValueNotInList="newValue";
String[] valueArray = { "this", "is", "java" , "test" };
Arrays.asList(valueArray).contains(testValue); // returns true
Arrays.asList(valueArray).contains(newValueNotInList); // returns false
```<eos> | 4 |
README.md exists but content is empty.
Use the Edit dataset card button to edit it.
- Downloads last month
- 33