class SearchTree: def __init__(self): self.root = None
def insert(self, value): if self.root is None: self.root = Node(value) else: current = self.root while current: if value < current.value: if current.left is None: current.left = Node(value) break else: current = current.left else: if current.right is None: current.right = Node(value) break else: current = current.right
def search(self, value): current = self.root while current: if value == current.value: return True elif value < current.value: current = current.left else: current = current.right return False
if __name__ == "__main__": unittest.main() ``` This code defines a `Node` class that represents a node in the search tree, and a `SearchTree` class that implements the search tree data structure. The `insert` method inserts a new node into the tree, and the `search` method searches for a node with a given value. The `TestSearchTree` class defines some unit tests to verify the correctness of the `SearchTree` implementation.
To run the unit tests, you can use the `python -m unittest` command from the command line. This will run all the tests defined in the `TestSearchTree` class and print the results.
I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any questions.
Okay, so I am very much an abstract thinker. I have been fiddling around with a lot of abstract concepts in programming and underlying layers of abstraction.
Imagine you've worked on something for years, 5+ easily. You have a 3 or more targets you have in mind, you're starting to finish up most of them. Then suddenly, everything grinds to a halt, everyone us suddenly acting like an asshole to you, you got police "just coincidentally showing up" everywhere you go to, whenever you access social media people either don't want to respond or keep throwing the same phrases in your face telling you to just "admit what you did", etc. Now, in your project, you have some targets/goals in mind, and due to the massive amount of harassment, you switch focus on one of your other goals. You finish that goal up, with some surprisingly good and interesting results. You're happy, but also want to share some of it. And the *only* responses you get are people attacking you for not achieving your first target, then either never respond or keep throwing all these false accusations in your face. This happens continuously for 3+ years straight. Everything you were working on is attacked, critisized over nonsense excuses, not because it's bad, but because people don't get what they see, and they don't want to understand because the benefit of not understanding means they can point to yet another of 40+ false accusations to attack you over. You never strayed. It's all part of the project. It always was. You made great achievements. But nobody *wants* to care. They don't want to know your side. They just want you to be the target. Now, they're basically just jealous, hating, but if you utter a single word, you're the bad person. It's virtually impossible to win, even though there isn't an issue.
You say "love life", "do what you love", " ignore others". At some point, if everywhere you go people are being mean, throwing accusations in your face, it will be the *people* that become less enjoyable about life. Not the project you have such great results with, and are unable to discuss or even share. Then people say "yeah, but when we say 'love life' we mean that you *must* go outside —mingle with the people who refuse to be anything but assholes to you— instead of doing what you love, because that's what *we* mean when we say 'love life'."
And that's why I am being an rude asshole. Because I was a very good and kind person, and all of those assholes made sure that that wasn't acceptable. And being anything more than an asshole was being abused.
"Past performance is no guarantee of future results." It says so right on the tin.
But the advice they give you is to use your 401k, utilize a 60/40 portfolio, make 7% a year which might keep general inflation flat but won’t keep up with housing or medical inflation. Then in 30 years when you are too old and tired to do anything, downsize so that your standard of living decreases and squeak by on your savings until you die so they don’t have to waste resources on you.
I don’t know if the Biden $200K is worth talking about. There is so much to sort through, but the handlers won’t let him fall it seems after A/B test came back with worse results.
npub1mjxldgr6z6347eda2r7fu54xxsgfr4newe2j4svyqwazs2zk6tqqldsrm3 (npub1mjx…srm3)npub1tcwn9tl3ya4g3qh6he4dle4037a6hvzxfvkvnxkws39sm7w2659qmpkkca (npub1tcw…kkca) Not with the newer models, the self-assembly kitbot based Interoceters have a high fidelity stream of anti-neganomorization feeds of five-fold bulldada tansfigurability observation pipline and therein stacks of routes are crunched into self-similar nodes for the ultimte MutAnt transmission sequences of the stim-response feedback loop with the Lead er Interoceter of the subgroups....from there it's pretty good and carefree and RESULTS flow. So, to answer your question no
Wants a national abortion ban Wants to end funding for Ukraine Wants to end same sex marriage Wants to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid Part of the Ken Paxton lawsuit to overturn the 2020 election results Was THE MASTERMIND BEHIND THE J6 PLOT
Monday, the independent website https://consortiumnews.com/ . The complaint targeting both the government and a private media ratings service is an important one, putting the censorship-by-proxy system on trial.
On September 7, 2021, the U.S. Department of Defense gave an https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_FA864921P1569_9700_-NONE-_-NONE- of $749,387 to Newsguard Technologies, a private service that scores media outlets on “reliability” and “trust.” According to the suit, roughly 40,000 subscribers buy Newsguard subscriptions, getting in return a system of “Nutrition Labels” supposedly emphasizing “safe” content. Importantly, Newsguard’s customers include universities and libraries, whose users are presented with labels warning you that CBS is great and Tucker Carlson is dangerous:
Consortium News was labeled a purveyor of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “false content,” and, worst of all, “anti-U.S.” This is despite the fact that, according to the suit, Newsguard only flagged six articles out of the tens of thousands Consortium News has published since the late award-winning reporter Robert Parry founded it in 1995. As Consortium News points out, Newsguard downgrades its entire 20,000+ library of available online articles with these flags based on the handful of edge cases, all of which involve criticism of U.S. foreign policy.
A particular irony is that Parry, a decorated AP and Newsweek reporter, founded Consortium News specifically to address topics suppressed by mainstream editors. Now Parry’s old site is being downgraded for dissenting reports on subjects like the 2014 Ukrainian coup and neo-Nazism in Ukraine, coincidentally topics that are “the subject of NewsGuard’s ‘Misinformation Fingerprints’ project that is under contract with the Cyber Command,” as the suit reads.
Newsguard denies it’s influenced by the government. In fact, its denials are part of the reason for the suit. When https://www.racket.news/p/the-democrats-have-lost-the-plot before Congress in March, we mentioned Newsguard as a “government-funded” ratings service. I was quickly contacted by email by co-CEO Gordon Crovitz, who hastened to correct me: Newsguard isn’t government-funded, but merely an organization that receives government funds. He wrote:
As is public, our work for the Pentagon’s Cyber Command is focused on the identification and analysis of information operations targeting the US and its allies conducted by hostile governments, including Russia and China.
Our analysts alert officials in the US and in other democracies, including Ukraine, about new false narratives targeting America and its allies, and we provide an understanding of how this disinformation spreads online. We are proud of our work countering Russian and Chinese disinformation on behalf of Western democracies.
Crovitz added that “contrary to claims made in the hearings, we oppose any government involvement in rating news sources,” saying Newsguard “is entirely independent and free of any outside influence, including from the U.S. or any other government.”
The letter, CC’ed to co-CEO and editor Stephen Brill, was subject-lined “Inaccuracies relating to NewsGuard.” I immediately wrote back:
Crovitz didn’t answer at the time, but Newsguard did simultaneously https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/matt-gaetz-newsguard-taibbi/ to the UK-based Press-Gazette. When I reached out for comment again after the filing of this litigation this week, asking once again how “government-funded” could be inaccurate, Crovitz finally answered, writing:
“We are ‘government funded’ in the same way that Verizon is ‘government funded: We have licensed data to the government for a fee, just as Verizon has provided telco services for a fee.”
He added:
The government pays us both for our commercial offerings. Our Pentagon contract is a single-digit percent of our revenues.
So, they are government-funded, just not wholly government-funded. These are the people rating others on accuracy, remember.
The conceit about funding isn’t complicated, but it works. Because Newsguard has other customers, it can claim to be an “independent” news service that just happens to downgrade news reports that contradict and/or criticize the policy of its major client, the Department of Defense. It’s censorship, but through a silencer. As the Consortium News suit reads:
NewsGuard and the United States in violation of the First Amendment are carrying out a governmental program under the “Misinformation Fingerprints” contract to publicly label, target and stigmatize news organizations as disfavored, unreliable, as journalistically not responsible… where said organizations differ or dissent from U.S. policy.
The suit also details what I think is the more insidious part of the system. In the guise of an independent news service, Newsguard contacts outlets and interrogates them about disputed content, not-so-subtly pressing for retractions. Again, from the suit:
In the course of the government contract, NewsGuard and the United States have acted to retaliate against those news entities and media organizations that refuse to retract or correct their articles; such retaliation consists of the “false content” warnings, the red flag and associated content described in this Amended Complaint…
Racket received one of these irritating queries this year. Call it what you want, but it comes down to Pentagon Cyber Command giving a big check to “analysts” who happen to slap red revenue-sapping warning tags on outlets that report on controversial topics like war or government censorship.
As I wrote to Newsguard when they contacted me, “media outlets should gain and lose trust based on how they are evaluated by audiences, not paid services.” This system allows institutions like the Department of Defense that have no legal remit to meddle in the domestic news landscape to pressure private media outlets.
That’s over and above the DoD’s already hugest-on-earth-by-far https://academic.oup.com/book/35132/chapter-abstract/299308369?redirectedFrom=fulltext . Think of the scale of petty determination one must have to spend over $500 million a year on messaging and be so dissatisfied with the results that you feel the need to spend more on private services that downgrade independent news critics. It’s particularly grating that your tax dollars are spent hiring private services that label news outlets using terms like “anti-US.” State-sponsored impugning of patriotism is a bold stroke, even by the low moral standards of the anti-disinformation era.
“When media groups are condemned by the government as ‘anti-U.S.’,” said Bruce Afran, attorney for Consortium News, “the result is self-censorship and a destruction of the public debate intended by the First Amendment.”
I was remiss in not getting this story up before, but will have more as the case goes on.
Californians have had a hard time with it in recent years. Because of the state’s ballooning cost of living, many residents - particularly from middle and low income families - have departed for more affordable states.
The interactive heat map colors states by popularity - the darker the shade, the more Californians moved there.
Ranked: States with Highest Californian Transplants
More than 100,000 Californians moved to Texas between 2020–21, well ahead of second place Arizona (63,000 Californians) and third ranked Nevada (55,000).
Texas has recently emerged as a popular destination, not just for Californians, but Americans from all regions. No state income tax and lower cost of living, along with a growing tech hub is pulling in Americans from all income brackets. Meanwhile, Arizona and Nevada offer similar tax and affordability benefits as well.
Here’s the full ranking of which state Californians moved to in the first full year of the pandemic.
Rank State Californian Transplants (2020–21) 1 Texas 105,434 2 Arizona 63,097 3 Nevada 54,740 4 Washington 46,677 5 Florida 40,730 6 Oregon 32,906 7 Colorado 26,911 8 New York 21,700 9 Idaho 26,233 10 Tennessee 23,403 11 North Carolina 21,961 12 Utah 19,930 13 Georgia 18,713 14 Virginia 18,441 15 Illinois 13,919 16 Massachusetts 9,568 17 Pennsylvania 10,072 18 Hawaii 10,743 19 Ohio 9,596 20 Michigan 9,190 21 Missouri 9,928 22 New Jersey 8,091 23 Oklahoma 9,815 24 Maryland 7,988 25 South Carolina 8,838 26 New Mexico 6,427 27 Indiana 7,046 28 Minnesota 6,239 29 Montana 6,563 30 Wisconsin 5,417 31 Arkansas 6,554 32 Alabama 4,876 33 Kansas 4,588 34 Kentucky 4,585 35 Connecticut 3,932 36 Louisiana 3,810 37 Iowa 3,598 38 Washington, DC 2,381 39 Nebraska 3,032 40 Wyoming 2,607 41 Alaska 2,273 42 South Dakota 2,484 43 Mississippi 2,423 44 Maine 1,965 45 New Hampshire 1,877 46 Rhode Island 1,343 47 North Dakota 1,367 48 Vermont 1,092 49 Delaware 961 50 West Virginia 884 On opposite corners of the country Washington (47,000) and Florida (41,000) round out the top five destinations for Californian expats.
On the other hand West Virginia and Delaware were the least popular spots for Californians to move to, with both attracting fewer than 1,000 people.
Below we have California’s net migration numbers, accounting for those moving to the state, where a negative number implies that California lost more residents than it gained from a particular state.
State Californian Net Migration 2020–21 Texas -69,342 Arizona -37,825 Nevada -30,386 Idaho -21,558 Florida -20,867 Washington -18,762 Tennessee -18,201 Oregon -17,109 Colorado -12,618 Utah -11,964 North Carolina -11,681 Georgia -8,872 Oklahoma -6,137 South Carolina -5,034 Missouri -4,920 Montana -4,813 Virginia -4,524 Arkansas -4,428 New Mexico -2,505 Alabama -2,502 Indiana -2,444 Kentucky -2,362 Ohio -2,217 Hawaii -2,201 Kansas -1,712 Wyoming -1,669 South Dakota -1,669 Pennsylvania -1,607 Michigan -1,344 Iowa -1,255 Wisconsin -1,189 Maine -1,122 Nebraska -1,033 Minnesota -984 Maryland -910 New Hampshire -865 Mississippi -584 Vermont -539 Connecticut -442 West Virginia -365 Delaware -310 Alaska -277 Louisiana -229 North Dakota -210 Rhode Island -191 Washington, DC +161 Massachusetts +537 New Jersey +1,311 Illinois +1,978 New York +6,031 Unsurprisingly, California lost the most net residents to Texas, Arizona, and Nevada. However Idaho jumps past Florida and Washington, with California losing 21,000 more residents than gained from the Gem State.
In fact, both Idaho and Nevada had the highest proportion of incoming Californians to their 2021 populations, at more than 1.38%.
On the other hand, California gained more residents than it lost from four states (New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts) and Washington D.C.
Separately, the rise of remote work in 2020 allowed many Californians to move out of their more expensive state to cross into regions with a lower cost of living while maintaining their economic opportunities.
Within the state itself, the more rural, less populous parts have seen, proportionally, the most outward bound migration—a phenomenon occurring across America.
These sustained levels of outward migration, combined with slower population growth, has consequences. California already lost a seat in the https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/04/california-congress-census/ after the 2020 Census (Texas gained two and Florida gained one) which results in one fewer vote in the Electoral College and proportionally lower census-guided federal spending.
At the same time however, while domestic outward migration continues, the Golden State is still successfully attracting international immigrants who are more than filling up the gaps.
According to the Social Welfare Department, about 3,000 child abuse and neglect cases have been recorded since January this year.
Being weaker, children have been victims of various forms of abuse – physical, emotional, mental and sexual abuse.
Statistics from the department reveal shocking results that parents were the main culprits responsible for child abuse.
Step-parents, boyfriends and relatives were also perpetrators involved in child abuse.
And all of these were committed in homes.
Many, especially neighbours were shocked and appalled when they came to know about it.
Neighbours should come forward and report cases of child abuse occurring to the relevant authorities.
The continuous screams and cries of a child at night should spur the neighbours to act.
Unfortunately, many neighbours choose to mind their own business and do not want to interfere, playing “deaf and blind” to the cries and wails of small children.
Men and women who are alcoholics and drug addicts are prone to exhibit violent tendencies toward their children.
Children below four years old have no avenue to express their suffering and abuse, and their cries for help are mostly unheard and they suffer in silence.
It is only when the child goes into a state of unconsciousness due to prolonged infliction of physical abuse and violence that the child is rushed to the hospital.
Child abuse cases have amplified the need for people to be concerned and to interfere while being vigilant and alert to any form of neglect and abuse.
Neighbours must be the eyes and ears of authorities.
Even the smallest suspicion of child abuse should be reported to the police or welfare authorities. No child should be abused.
