If you have n nodes, each one needs to connect to n-1 other nodes. But the connection from A to B is the same as the one from B to A. Therefore, there are n(n-1)/2 total connections.
Sure, that's true for single connections, the state of the switchboard when you have exactly one patch plugged in. If there are 5000 phones, there would be 5000 possible starting points and 4999 possible ending points, and as you say, A-B and B-A being equivalent, there are two ways to get there, so divide by 2.
But what if you then connect a second pair of phones, leaving the first patch in place? 4998 choices for A by 4997 for B again divided by two. And so on, until you place the 2500th patch on the board. But then there's more division to do, because there are 2500! different sequences to fill the board with that exact same pattern. It's a fun little combinatorics exercise.
snypher: You can do them with one hand. [Ed. This is ambiguous and could be read as "one hand, simultaneously". In fact, doing it with one hand non-simultaneously would be a weird claim to make of a simple knob. See also ajb's comment below.]
zihotki: Really? They are not close together and have a spring mechanism. [Ed. Seems to believe snypher is claiming simultaneous operation.]
Context is both these switches being turned off with a 1 second gap. Doing it with one hand simultaneously would possibly explain it, otherwise it doesn’t seem relevant.
What I gathered from comments here is it's not a simple flick of the switch and it actually takes some effort to turn them off. Can you really do it twice within the span of 1 second?
You pull it out and flip it. It’s not easy to do inadvertently. But it’s also not convoluted—you want to be able to quickly cutoff if there is an engine fire.
please. pilot puts everyone to sleep but himself, turns everything off, then does a flyby of his hometown and then puts himself to sleep? the only one more obvious is the german one.
My Mac screen isn't transparent. Why should its UI be?
If there is "some sort of AR glasses and something smaller form factor than the Vision Pro that will require transparency so you can see through to the real world", limit the transparent interface only to that device.
> My Mac screen isn't transparent. Why should its UI be?
Mark my words, this is coming. It’s doable (as an effect) - rear camera captures what’s behind the screen, face tracking adjusts perspective in real-time to make it seem transparent/have correct parallax.
I look at my Mac screen to see what is on my Mac screen. Whether there is a tabletop, a window, or a cat behind my Mac screen is irrelevant. If I want to see what is behind it I would be looking it that instead of my screen
Repeat for application window, dialog box etc.
The only place translucence sort of kind of makes sense is for video content but even then, it still totally optional. My experience of watching a video is not really degraded if the play button is opaque.
As others have said, wanting to update the design simply because it looks cool is one thing. If that's the goal just say it. But Alan Dye's explanations do not inspire confidence. I get the impression that as in architecture, the chief audience of the design is not the user, but other designers.
You just made TWO typos: "display-name" vs "display_name" and "_name" vs "name", automatically counter-argumenting your point.
It is also for documentation. With the declared constants, we know all possible values. With plain strings, how am I supposed to know which values to use?
The -, _, and leading _ are just variations of white space / separator I have encountered. I think it's possible to document all the allowable values in the Javadoc section of the function that takes in string as their argument.
In the specific android example, I would put it here.
Under projection params where it takes in all the Images.Media.* string consts.
