I recently changed my mind on this: being able to use phone numbers as identifiers also has some benefits: Last time I was on vacation, it was easy to get in touch with service providers (e.g. surf school, massage place) via WhatsApp, simply because I had their number, and everyone used WhatsApp anyways. If Signal would be more popular, I could instead contact them directly via Signal, since I only need their phone number. It allows for a more seamless transition.
Matrix OTOH would have a harder time getting adopted: businesses would need to update their websites, facebook pages and flyers to add the matrix contact info. Which they wouldn't do until Matrix is more popular. Which is a chicken and egg problem.
> > The first part is true of all statistical models: To improve performance by a factor of k, at least k^2 more data points must be used to train the model. The second part of the computational cost comes explicitly from overparameterization. Once accounted for, this yields a total computational cost for improvement of at least k4.
Those claims are entirely new to me, and I've been a researcher in the field for almost 10 years. Where do they come from/what theorems are they based on? It's unfortunate this article doesn't have any citations.
Those are exciting news. Both for Rust and for the project -- I think that's a really cool direction. The web becomes more and more a commodity to execute code remotely, and I think this step will help leverage Website-as-Interface as the default GUI for our programs, and empower us to commoditize it even more. And the Linux Foundation is a very lovely home -- they're dedicated to open standards and great stewards. However, complete lack of talk about funding and "every bit helps" makes it sound like this is actually the death of commercial support for this project. And I think it's super sad that Mozilla can't fund it anymore and would've hoped someone else would have picked up the banner monetarily. Does anyone know if the project has a good chance of survival (Rust is a great dev community, but might alienate broader adoption) -- can this survive purely within the open source community?
I thought that's exactly the point of Scientific Reports: to publish "reports" (i.e., not proper "papers") without caring about their impact or importance, as long as the science (however little of it there is) is done properly. i.e., you literally send them stuff that isn't good enough to be published in a proper journal. It's meant to be a dreg journal with low reputation; it's a feature, not a bug. The idea is to allow people to publish their work (e.g. to finish their PhD), but everyone knows that further investigation is needed before stuff should be called a proper finding. I think of it as the "workshop" version of a journal.
No, it definitely isn't. Why is audio quality so much worse when I connect my headphones as headset instead of as audio-sink (even when I'm not speaking). Why is it so hard to connect two audio sinks to one source? Why is the experience of using the same sink on multiple devices still not smooth?
So that's an order of magnitude more than what OP suggested and one less than what I suggested. But I still think that 100 is a more realistic estimate to get stellar results.
Did I despise MS od the 90s and their business tactics? Sure. But wether he pays taxes on his philanthropic endeavors doesn't really matter, what matters is that they exist and do some good in the world -- and certainly, spending money on health care is good in my book. So what makes him a "dark character" in your eyes?
There isn't, but some of the proposed vaccines are entering (or very close to entering) phase 3, while this proposed inocculation by common corona viruses would have to start at phase 1, thus being much slower.
> I'm still appalled that they know it causes blood issues and are not connecting the dots between that and the feet issues.
I feel like you're jumping to conclusions prematurely. If you as health insurance specialist can connect these dots, you can be sure that researchers did, too. However, having a hunch is only the first step of a thorough scientific investigation, and those take time. Until we have collected and analyzed the evidence, this remains speculation, and scientists shouldn't go off spouting half-researched speculations. That leads to only more fake news. If you look through the Lancet or JAMA, you might find first articles on this connection (if there is one). But until there are peer reviewed papers about this, most researchers know that it's better not to speculate when talking to the press.
While the app might not be able to harm your phone, your grandma or daughter might not be as tech savvy and grant permissions more freely. Also, even though sandboxed, if you can download and run u known code on the devices of billions of users, you have a very large phone-botnet at your disposal of you ever need it
Arguably then, the documentation needs improvement. Most people learned the ropes on MS Word, and never bothered to unlearn habits/explore whatever else docs has to offer. So whenever docs has a feature that isn't present in word, I wouldn't expect people to know it's there
With its long incubation period and asymptomatic spreading, I don't see how sars-cov2 would benefit by becoming weaker.bthwre is little evolutionary pressure for it
Which ones would you recommend? The ones I've seen so far looked like extended bootcamps. Which I guess is fine if you're looking for CS knowledge. But lutise of that, any recommendations?
I disagree with keeping fonts inline in the page. It means an additional 100kb per page at the very least. Which adds up very quickly. Remember that most of the world still doesn't have broadband (including yourself if you're using roaming services abroad). It also means extremely redundant information is transmitted when people watch more than one page on your site.
Maybe you feel out of place because you're thinking in terms of "alphas" etc., which to me sounds like a totally douche/"bro" thing to do. Most people I know that don't lift don't care about body shapes etc., otherwise they would lift.
Sure there are. You can't just call a result "significant" at will. You can pull numbers out of thin air, pre-filter your data or carefully pick a statistical test to be in your favor. But it's still well-defined which outcomes you're allowed to call significant and which ones you can't.
There are strict rules that define when something is "statistically significant", it's not at all arbitrary. The problem is people thinking that just because something is statistically significant, it is automatically true. Which it isn't. Statistically significance by definition includes the possibility that something was just a statistical oddity. This article essentially just reminds people of that, and urges them to abandon the "statistical significance is the same as ultimate truth" conclusion.