### Light Flavor Jets

Light flavor jets are of u,d,s, and gluon (g) origins.

### Python r , r+ , w, w+ , a and a+

The argument mode points to a string beginning with one of the following

r''   Open text file for reading.  The stream is positioned at the
beginning of the file.

r+''  Open for reading and writing.  The stream is positioned at the
beginning of the file.

w''   Truncate file to zero length or create text file for writing.
The stream is positioned at the beginning of the file.

w+''  Open for reading and writing.  The file is created if it does not
exist, otherwise it is truncated.  The stream is positioned at
the beginning of the file.

a''   Open for writing.  The file is created if it does not exist.  The
stream is positioned at the end of the file.  Subsequent writes
to the file will always end up at the then current end of file,
irrespective of any intervening fseek(3) or similar.

a+''  Open for reading and writing.  The file is created if it does not
exist.  The stream is positioned at the end of the file.  Subse-
quent writes to the file will always end up at the then current
end of file, irrespective of any intervening fseek(3) or similar.

### Python's with

Consider:
    Set up
try:
Do something
finally:
Tear down
“Set up” could be opening a file and “Tear down” is closing the file. The try-finally construct guarantees that the “Tear down” part is always executed, even if the code that does the work doesn't finish.
If you do this a lot, it would be quite convenient if you could put the “Set up” and “Tear down” code in a library function, to make it easy to reuse. You can of course do something like
    def controlled_execution(callback):
set things up
try:
callback(thing)
finally:
tear things down

def my_function(thing):
do something

controlled_execution(my_function)
But that’s a bit verbose, especially if you need to modify local variables. Another approach is to use a one-shot generator, and use the for-in statement to “wrap” the code:
    def controlled_execution():
set things up
try:
yield thing
finally:
tear things down

for thing in controlled_execution():
do something with thing
But yield isn't even allowed inside a try-finally in 2.4 and earlier. And while that could be fixed (and it has been fixed in 2.5), it’s still a bit weird to use a loop construct when you know that you only want to execute something once.
So after contemplating a number of alternatives,  the python-dev team finally came up with a generalization of the latter, using an object instead of a generator to control the behavior of an external piece of code:
    class controlled_execution:
def __enter__(self):
set things up
return thing
def __exit__(self, type, value, traceback):
tear things down

with controlled_execution() as thing:
some code
Now, when the “with” statement is executed, Python evaluates the expression, calls the __enter__ method on the resulting value (which is called a “context guard”), and assigns whatever __enter__ returns to the variable given by as. Python will then execute the code body, and no matter what happens in that code, call the guard object’s __exit__ method.
As an extra bonus, the __exit__ method can look at the exception, if any, and suppress it or act on it as necessary. To suppress the exception, just return a true value. For example, the following __exit__ method swallows any TypeError, but lets all other exceptions through:
    def __exit__(self, type, value, traceback):
return isinstance(value, TypeError)
In Python 2.5, the file object has been equipped with __enter__ and__exit__ methods; the former simply returns the file object itself, and the latter closes the file:
    >>> f = open("x.txt")
>>> f
'x.txt'
, mode 'r' at 0x00AE82F0> >>> f.__enter__() 'x.txt', mode 'r' at 0x00AE82F0> >>> f.read(1) 'X' >>> f.__exit__(None, None, None) >>> f.read(1) Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in ValueError: I/O operation on closed file
so to open a file, process its contents, and make sure to close it, you can simply do:
with open("x.txt") as f:
do something with data

### Letter to Zynga Investor Relations

To whon it may concern:

I have been a Zynga investor since 2012. I'm very concerned with what's going on with the company right now. It has been a year since Don Mattrick was hired as a CEO, but he has not done anything worthy of the pay check he is getting. He reduced Zynga's workforce, but it does not take a genius to recognize that it was needed. The company is giving Don Mattrick an exorbitantly high pay without him having to prove he can turn around Zynga (http://bit.ly/1mgHZtF).

The stock price of Zynga now is a reflection of what the market thinks Don can do. He is seen as a non-factor. The stock is trading below the price right before Don was hired. That never happens when the market has high regards for the new CEO. Look what the new CEO's has done at Groupon or Blackberry. I'm not saying that Zynga stock should soar now because of Don. It should however stabilize, but it has not. It dropped from 5.89 USD to 2.78 USD in a matter of months. If you plot the revenue vs market cap of gaming and internet companies, you would clearly see that Zynga is priced as if it has no growth potential. It pretty much sums up what the market thinks of company. I would like to think the market is wrong and that I am right in still holding on to my shares, but I'm beginning to doubt the leadership and the people of Zynga.

How come no new games has been released yet? What are the 2000+ employees doing? If they are just improving and maintaining old games, then why does the company spends quarter after quarter 56% to 85% of it gross profits on "Research and Development". The only new game released is Farmville 2 : Country Escape, which at best is only moderately successful. Until now, nothing significant came out of the very expensive "Research and Development". Is it possible to request for a breakdown of the "Research and Development"? I would really like to know where that money is going. Zynga's DAU/MAU is still dropping consistently, so Don also failed in this area. You may say that it stabilized last quarter, but I think if you separate the numbers from Natural Motion the dropping trend is still there. You can also reason that ARPU slightly improved under Don's leadership, the change is actually statistically insignificant. Zynga's ARPU has been quite robust even in Pincus' era.

I played several Zynga games so I could confirm if the negative reviews are indeed true. I was appalled to learn that most of the negative reviews are not far-fetched. Some games are very buggy that you would end up losing "gems" (or whatever the currency is called in the game). If I were paying player, I would really be mad. There was one time where a bug was reported, it was well described and was reproducible, but it took four months for it to get fixed. What makes this worse is that Zynga has a terrible customer support. If you follow the Zynga thread on Stocktwits.com (http://stocktwits.com/symbol/znga), you will see a lot of irate investors. Maybe this company does not really care about small investors. I hope you would be able disclose if you are working on new games and when will it be released. I hope you don't disregard this letter. Thank you for you time.

Hi XXX,

Thank you for your email.  We appreciate the feedback.  Unfortunately we are in quiet period leading up to our Q2 earnings report, where communications with investors are restricted.  We currently do not provide a breakdown of R&D spend.  However in the past, we have said that a significant portion of R&D is allocated towards new games.  Feel free to reach out post our Q2 earnings report at which point we will have a better opportunity to update you on the business.

Thank you for your interest in Zynga.

Regards,
Zynga Investor Relations