Download Greedy X Say It Right

I'm using regex in R but I want it to be greedy for the left part and non-greedy for the right part. Suppose I want to extract the text between the words "left" and "right", but I want it to be greedy and keep looking for the word "left" in the text until it finds the last occurence. However, I also want it to be non-greedy for "right" and stop at the first occurence. How do I change this code?

Regexes generally match from left-to-right unless you set a right-to-left flag (which very few flavors support). In either case, they do not start in the middle and then work out in both directions, even if you use a lookbehind.

Download Zip 🔥 https://urloso.com/2y2FGg 🔥

Normal (greedy) quantifiers work by finding a matching pattern of text and then repeatedly matching a sequence of characters until they can match no more. This behavior is usually desired, but you run into problems when you have a very general pattern followed by a very specific pattern where the specific pattern is a subset of the general pattern.

The intent was to match _abc_ and then END. The problem is that END is a subset of \w+. Using standard "greedy" rules, the \w+ matches as much as possible. So rather than matching _abc_, it matched _abc_END_def.

Today, nihilism reigns triumphant, and in its night the spark of creativity, which is the spark of all real life, shines only the more brightly. And while the project of a superior organization of survival proves abortive, there is, as these sparks become more frequent and gradually dissolve into a single light, the promise of a new organization, based this time on a harmony of individual wills. Historic becoming has taken us to the crossing point where radical subjectivity is confronted with the possibility of transforming the world. This privileged moment is the reversal of perspective . c34

In the end, egoism is our only friend; in the last analysis greed is the only thing we can trust. Any revolutionary who is to be counted on can only be in it for himself unselfish people can always switch loyalty from one projection to another. Furthermore, only the most greedy people can be relied on to follow through on their revolutionary project. Others less greedy can always be bought off so as to stop short of themselves.

The main suspects differ across party lines. Many economists and politicians on the right say inflation has been caused by government spending and various aid programs (stimulus checks, student debt forgiveness, Biden in the White House with the public purse).

Many economists and politicians on the left point to the war in Ukraine (for pushing up oil prices, which bleeds into most everything else), and also greedy companies, many of which, despite tales of supply chain snarls and rising costs, have been bringing in record profits. (Corporations, in aisle 4, with the price gun.)

In spite of inflation, demand hasn't really blinked. Companies have been raising prices and we have been paying them. In fact, in many parts of the economy, spending has been rising right along with prices.

More often than not, investors lose hope during a bear market to the extent that they may even abandon equity market investments for a long period before getting back to markets exactly at the wrong time. Even though this phenomenon has happened throughout the last century, it seems as if investors are not learning from their mistakes and are hesitant to do the right thing when markets crash.

During these trying times, the best way an investor can focus on doing the right thing is by looking at how the legendary investors have achieved their success. Warren Buffett, arguably the most successful investor in history, once said, "One simple rule dictates my investing: Be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful."

It's no secret that there's plenty of fear right now in the market. Therefore, it seems this is a good time for value investors to be greedy. However, this is easier said than done. In this analysis, we will look at what I think is the correct way to be greedy during a market crash and highly volatile conditions.

History may or may not repeat itself, but the lessons that an investor can learn by analyzing historical market trends and performance are invaluable. Therefore, it's important to validate whether being greedy when others were fearful has been a successful strategy.

Even though empirical evidence suggests that investors should be buying, not selling, when markets are crashing, this has to be done carefully so as not to be the victim of value traps. A value trap, by definition, is a company that is trading at depressed valuation levels but for all the right reasons. Therefore, an investor needs to avoid these types of companies at any cost.

Being greedy does not mean falling victim to the seemingly attractive valuation multiples of depressed companies. The correct way to shop for bargains is to find companies that are projected to grow in the future and then determine whether the current market price represents an anomaly between the share price and the economic reality of the company. Also, it's important to bet on companies that have a strong and trusted management team.

I didn't know what the technique was called but I remembered the professor saying something about "greedy clobbering" and, since I cannot search Google for special characters, I Googled "Bash greedy" and luckily found 10 Steps to Beautiful Shell Scripts, which just so happened to contain the technique I was looking for (#5).

The ##*/ tells the shell to search left-to-right for everything before and including the slash (*/), be greedy while doing it so that all the slashes will be found (##), and then return whatever is left over (in this case, myscript.sh is the only thing remaining after the last slash).

You are very rich and you want to make sure that you stay healthy. But you don't have any medical expertise and, therefore, you want to hire a medical professional to help you monitor your health and diagnose diseases. The medical professional is greedy, i.e. they want to charge you as much money as possible, and they do not (per se) care about your health. They only care about your health as far as they can get money from you. How can you design a payment scheme for the medical professional so that you actually get the ideal treatment?

Over the last few weeks, I've been walking around and bugging people with this question to see what they come up with. Here I want to share some of the things I learned in the process with you, as well as some potential answers. I don't think the question (as presented) is completely well-formed, so the first step to answering it is clarifying the setup and deconfusing the terms. Also, as is typical with thought experiments, I do not have a definitive "solution" and invite you (right now!) to try and come up with something yourself2.

In this spirit, let us think about the problem from the perspective of interactions between abstract intelligent agents. Here, Vinge's principle is relevant: in domains complicated enough that perfect play is not possible, less intelligent agents will not be able to predict the exact moves made by more intelligent agents. The reasoning is simple; if you were able to predict the actions of the more intelligent agent exactly, you could execute the actions yourself and effectively act at least as intelligent as the "more intelligent" agent - a contradiction6. In the greedy doctor thought experiment, I assume the doctor to be uniformly more knowledgable than me, therefore Vinge's principle applies.

In their defense, this is a very reasonable approach when we model the doctor as at least partially human. However, when we model the doctor as truly greedy11, we observe a very familiar failure mode. If you pay the doctor for every time they diagnose a disease, they will diagnose you with everything and take the money - and the treatment will not actually be good for you. I think this would a bit like the following scenario12:

The second proposed solution is very commonsensical: Just ask for a second opinion and only pay the doctors when they come to the same conclusion. While this sounds clever, it falls into the same trap as before. When both doctors are greedy, they will coordinate and both always say that you are either healthy or that you need treatment.

Over the last few weeks, I've been walking around and bugging people with this question to see what they come up with. Here I want to share some of the things I learned in the process with you, as well as some potential answers. I don't think the question (as presented) is completely well-formed, so the first step to answering it is clarifying the setup and deconfusing the terms. Also, as is typical with thought experiments, I do not have a definitive \\\"solution\\\" and invite you (right now!) to try and come up with something yourself2.

In this spirit, let us think about the problem from the perspective of interactions between abstract intelligent agents. Here, Vinge's principle is relevant: in domains complicated enough that perfect play is not possible, less intelligent agents will not be able to predict the exact moves made by more intelligent agents. The reasoning is simple; if you were able to predict the actions of the more intelligent agent exactly, you could execute the actions yourself and effectively act at least as intelligent as the \\\"more intelligent\\\" agent - a contradiction6. In the greedy doctor thought experiment, I assume the doctor to be uniformly more knowledgable than me, therefore Vinge's principle applies. ff782bc1db