"vulc" site:http://www.teamfortress.tv/12714/pc-build-thread

your posts are listed on ur profile m7v7

Roasted duck breast with hazelnut and beer butter, red quinoa and mushrooms:

Toast 70g skin-on hazelnuts

Mix hazelnuts with 80ml dark beer, 1/2 tsp Dijon mustard, 1/2 tsp date syrup and 5 tbsp sunflower oil in a blender, adding the oil while you blend it into a fine paste.

Bring a small pan of lightly salted water to a boil, add 110g red quinoa, simmer for 11 minutes, until cooked but still retaining a bite. Drain, refresh under cold water, and set aside to dry.

Pour 1 1/2 tbsp olive oil into a large sauté pan and place over medium heat. Add 1 finely diced medium shallot and 1 clove crushed garlic and sauté for 2 minutes, until starting to soften. Add 120g shimeji and 120g oyster mushrooms, along with ½ teaspoon of salt, and cook for another 2 minutes, shaking the pan once or twice, until the mushrooms have softened but not gained any color. Add the cooked quinoa, along with 2 tsp rice vinegar, 2 tsp mirin, 2 1/2 tsp light soy sauce, and 15g chives. Cook for a final 2 minutes, stirring gently, for the liquid to evaporate, then set aside.

Score the skin of your duck breasts (amounts are for 6 breasts) six times, 2 cm apart and 3 mm deep. Mix 2 tsp muscovado sugar with 2 tsp of salt and use your hands to rub this very well over the skin of the breasts. Lay half of them in a large cold frying pan, skin side down. Place the pan over medium heat and cook for 8 to 12 minutes for medium-rare, depending on size. Sprinkle the meat with 1/2 tsp of salt, then turn the breasts over. Cook for another 2 to 3 minutes, basting a few times with the released fat. Remove the duck from the heat and set aside to rest for 2 minutes before slicing it on the diagonal 1 cm thick. Keep somewhere warm while you continue with the second batch.

To serve, spread a tablespoon of hazelnut butter on each plate. Place the mushroom and quinoa mix on top, lean the duck slices alongside, and serve at once with lime wedges.

Argues for steel to be kept out of 6s, probably right on all philosophical and political issues

A laptop mainly, or a tablet,as long as it can be equipped with a keyboard for typing;really,as long as it meets the criteria I mentioned it can be a cucumber with a screen for all he cares. If you're not into any of that that's fine, I think the surface is a good choice. Just wanted to ask in case you knew some obscure great value laptop or any other device that could be an alternative.

p a g i n g S e t s u l

The same guy for whom I asked you for a build previously (very happy with that one) is looking for a portable now. Not technically a build I guess, but since his budget includes peripherals I guess we can let it slide? lol

He has 1000€ (could potentially stretch to something like 1200) and is looking for maximum versatility and portability. He'd do a lot of browsing, office and pdf work, some photoshopping and probably some light gaming (not primary purpose though). I recommended the surface pro, because it's the best I can think of in terms of versatility and the touchscreen and pen are great for photoshop and it's also fairly lightweight. But I thought I'd post here in case you know some good alternatives, thanks in advance!

Oh, I see now. So the partial derivatives can actually represent slopes along a diagonal path through the function, and don't necessarily line up with the saddles. I couldn't visualize that before but now I get it.

makes sense now. Thanks both of you for the help! :)

Oh, yes I see that, but is it actually possible to construct this saddle as a combination of the red lines only?
What would the function of this saddle be exactly?

Not sure if I'm viewing it right, but seems to me that some of the white curves still have a maximum at the point while others have a minimum. Is this not the case? Did you model that saddle yourself, if so have an .obj that I could look at and rotate?

Uh? Why is the second derivative -1?
First derivative in both cases is a constant, so surely the seconds are all zero?

Hey, coming at you with another math question. This time just for general understanding.

I just read a slide that says that the necessary condition for an extremum of a 2-variable function is that the partial derivatives of both variables are zero, analogously to the 1d case.

But the sufficient condition is not only that the second-order derivatives of either variable be positive (negative), but additionally, their product must also be larger than the square of the mixed second order derivative.

I understand that it's not sufficient to know that both second-order derivatives are ≠0, such as in 1d, because if a point is a maximum of one variable and a minimum of the other, then it's a saddle point and not an extremum. But if I already know that both variables have a maximum (minimum) at a point, how can this not be sufficient for a maximum (minimum) of the function?

Can someone maybe give me a simple example of a function where the necessary condition is met and df/dx² and df/dy² are both <0 but the function does not have a maximum at that point?

It's so dumb too, he made big money from his pharma scams, could've just invested in any regular ETF or whatever and be set for life. Why even try to pull shit like this? Like Jeff Bezos wouldn't risk going to jail for selling weed on the sidewalk lmao, think what ur doing

serves him right though

Thanks everyone! Yeah aside from the distribution error I made to arrive at my wrong results, I was mostly confused why I couldn't solve it algebraically all the way to X=A^-1. But I guess I was just in the commutative mindset that every linear system should be computable... but I understand now that with matrices you have to make assumptions such as (A+I) is invertible to be able to do that. The problem was probably designed to trick you into doing a whole lot of unnecessary steps and then realizing you should just try out a few simple values first.

Idk man, chess has none of those things (except strategy) and it has quite the high skill ceiling. I don't think card games are inherently limited or shallow just because they don't have those elements.

That being said, I assume this one is.

Oh I realized my mistake, I falsely tried to distribute an exponentiation right there in step one lmao.

Thanks vulc!

Follow-up question: Do I take it then that there is actually no way to compute this without knowing matrix A? Is the only way to solve this problem to guess the answer intuitively?