computerphage

> Probabilities without confidence intervals are by-and-large meaningless.

That's just not true. If I believe that my team has a 20% chance to win and you offer me a bet with anything better than 5-to-1 odds I should take the bet. If you offer me anything worse than 5-to-1, then I should not take the bet. There's no fuzz factor necessary; no confidence interval that I need to use to make the decision.

Perhaps you're getting at the idea of calibration? That it's difficult for a person to know what a 20% chance feels like? But there are still a lot of situations where it's not up to human judgement.

Link to the paper: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/jones-ben/htm/A...

The abstract: Many observers, and many investors, believe that young people are especially likely to produce the most successful new firms. We use administrative data at the U.S. Census Bureau to study the ages of founders of growth-oriented start-ups in the past decade. Our primary finding is that successful entrepreneurs are middle-aged, not young. The mean founder age for the 1 in 1,000 fastest growing new ventures is 45.0. The findings are broadly similar when considering high-technology sectors, entrepreneurial hubs, and successful firm exits. Prior experience in the specific industry predicts much greater rates of entrepreneurial success. These findings strongly reject common hypotheses that emphasize youth as a key trait of successful entrepreneurs.

SIMD on stable is very exciting news. SIMD unlocks the power of the GPU-esque parallelism that is already inside your CPU. While compilers do try very hard to take advantage of this automatically, it’s not always predictable and can make performance fragile. This is what people are talking about when they refer to “low level control”. Don’t expect that with Rust 1.27 you’ll need to understand SIMD to get anything done. Do expect various libraries to just get faster on stable. For example, BurntSushi, the author of the regex crate and the ripgrep tool, has already enabled it if you’re on Rust 1.27 Stable. [1]

SIMD is another notch towards never needing to use nightly Rust. What this really looks like in practice is that less frequently will a user encounter a fast-mode and a slow-mode for a crate depending on whether they’re using nightly, with all the unstable features enabled, or not.

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/regex/pull/490

The new syntax for dynamically-dispatched traits, “dyn Trait”, is an example of Rust’s persistently excellent consideration of what should be explicit and what should be implicit. Python’s mantra of “explicit is better than Implicit” mostly captures my general feeling, but you can’t make everything explicit. Back before impl Trait existed, just Box<Trait> seemed very clear. Now that there’s an important thing to differentiate it from, it seems better to have dyn Trait and impl Trait both prefixed with keywords.

It also makes for much easier googling. ;)

Source?

Rust wins "Most loved" for the third year in row!

I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?

Edge is doing something very different, see the sibling comments for details.

They're doing slightly different things, but not to nearly the extent of Edge which is doing something very different.

Except that number is completely made up. Why do believe it takes ten times as long?

Right. And that source isn't claiming that people are all equally good at founding startups. Rather, it's claiming that previous failures don't substantially make a person better at founding successful companies. (They do find a very small 2% effect, but that may be statistical noise).

I think your parent is saying that when you actually measure whether your claim is true, it isn't actually correlated in the failure case.

I remember reading something that corroborated this [1]. That source claimed that previous founders of successful companies had a much greater chance at additional success, but previous failures didn't increase your chances (ie. you don't, in fact, learn more from failure than success -- at least when it comes to founding failed startups).

Edit adding source: [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=933932

It beat the winner of TCEC-2016, Stockfish, with a record of 28-72-0. That's zero losses.

Not to mention distortions from everything else

That author claims that tax exemptions aren't subsidies "according to Dictionary.com".

Tokens do not have to be bearer shares. Filecoin isn't.

> An equal amount of money is spent on lost elections too.

That's false. There's a pretty strong correlation between outspending and winning elections. The losing side usually spent less. In aggregate, much more money is spent winning elections than losing them.

eg: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/th...

This is experimental so far: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2033#issuecomment-309...

> The key point then is that the experimental RFC is not enough to stabilize something. For that, we need a proper RFC that lays out the plan. This RFC can be informed by the experience and working implementation, so we should have a lot of data to use.

It's being merged into nightly (behind a flag) to gain understanding of how the feature would work. This isn't the day to celebrate Rust having fully-fledged co-routines coming soon to stable because there is no such guarantee yet.

Edit: removed extra word

I still don't understand. Everyone already has a social network where someone earns pennies by making the experience worse.

Or possibly strapped to another part of your body. You'd still get the benefit of not having a cord pulling on your head or tripping you.

> Or it could skip requesting the tree and verify the whole file at once.

To clarify, this works by the client deterministically reconstructing the tree once they have the whole file, then checking the root's hash, correct?

They meant 12:06 PM, actually, but still

That's a good point that I didn't consider. You could squash commits to get that property back, but the results wouldn't carry much meaning.

If your test-suite pass rate is significantly greater than 70% (and statistically independent), you can gain throughput by grouping PRs into batches.

For example, if the pass rate is 80%, then by batching 3 PRs together there's a 51.2% chance to pass with all three, which would save 2 test runs. and a 48.8% to fail, which would cost 1 extra run. That's a pretty substantial increase in throughput.

Number of "people" in the us: 318.9 million (2014) => more like 1 in 13. Also, I'm pretty sure that 24 million figure includes the military.

A limited form of incremental compilation is already available on nightly. And yes, more is coming.

Yes... it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

It's not a fallacy. The truth table for implication and its contrapositive are the same.

    A | B | A => B | ¬B => ¬A
    T | T |   T    |    T
    T | F |   F    |    F
    F | T |   T    |    T
    F | F |   T    |    T

My original point was that my parent was implicitly claiming that only living things need resources. That seemed absurd to me because of things like viruses, companies, governments, etc.

If "not alive" => "doesn't need resources", then "needs resources" => "alive". That doesn't seem right to me.

Do you have a source for that I could read?