mecsred

Just imagine the legal system as a money duel. If you have little money you can be crushed at no cost. Trying to fight someone with big money, even if you're likely to win, will take a lot of time and money. Unless the fraud was black and white or you're in for the long haul it's easier just to lick the wounds.

This may come as a shock, but it's actually unsafe all the way down. Turns out everything needs to become machine code eventually, and CPUs can do all kinds of nasty stuff. Doesn't make containing the unsafe codes to a region of the program any less of a good idea.

It just doesn't matter until it does. It's fine to work at a higher level of abstraction. But people who understand a lower level of abstraction can do things people will call "impossible" with fault injection exploits, rowhammer etc.

Sure, your standards are what you set them as. Settle for what you think is appropriate. It does mean you should whine less though.

Well, I simulated it and the numbers seem to agree with you. The example is interesting. I still have trouble seeing why my original reasoning doesn't hold though. I'll give an example, if anyone can clear up the issue that would be appreciated.

1/10 odds, 10 entrants, one winner expected on average.

Given a particular winner: Expect: 0.9 + 1 winners

Given the same particular loser: Expect: 0.9 winners

Over all cases we see: 0.1(1.9) + 0.9(0.9) = 1 winners

Checks out, but if the numbers are correct then any winner should be able to calculate the higher average and be right knowing only that there is at least one winner. So in cases where there is at least one winner: P(winners>=1)=1-(9/10)^10=~65% The expectation should work out to 1.9. The rest of the time we expect zero winners. However if I use those numbers I get an overall expected number of winners as 1.237, which has increased the overall number of winners across all cases. In order for that number to work out to one, the expected winners when there is at least one winner would have to be ~1.535. Which suggests that the expected outcome is different depending on if you check your own ticket, or someone else's, even if you see the same thing?

Am I just not on for math today? I thought the solution to the paradox would be that the higher expectation discounts outcomes with zero winners.

> Your winning ticket doesn't affect the average number of winners.

I think this is a good hint that the conclusion isn't true. Just think about what it would mean if this were true for a sample of lotto winners. For a winner, if they win, their average number of winners is higher than the global average. Repeat this logic for each individual winner... And every winner wins with a higher number of winners than the average. Which is clearly impossible.

It would be true if you were guaranteed to win, since that's the assumption you have conditioned the probability on, but that's not a lottery then. If you want to get the actual expected value across all samples you need to take a weighted sum including the expected value when you don't win.

I think you could reasonably describe that as "pattern matching at the wrong level". If you tell most people the first answer is wrong they will go up a level or two and work out the correct answer.

It is 13kb. They were optimizing for a small binary over performance.

I'm trying to visualize the amount of water here, but it's hopeless unless an elementary student can calculate how many oil drums it would fill or football fields it would cover to a depth of one yard.

I think this misses a really important political dimension to advice. Sometimes people tell you to do things they want you to do for their reasons, instead of what's in your best interest. It can be really hard to tell when that is happening sometimes. I find my advice is dropped most often when I present it analytically, like people believe there's some hidden motive that's not worth searching for. I get way more engagement by presenting the same advice as charismatically as possible, with simple justification and a big smile.

Like when cigarettes are replaced with lollipops in cartoons, you can debate if it does anything for kids or changes the meaning of a show or even matters at all, but you call it censorship. That's what it is, by definition.

Sure, you can have them learn by ear or learn by sheet, both possible. According to the analogy you can't do engage without doing either show or tell. Which one doesn't matter.

But the reason they are a student is because they can't play the music. Showing them the notations and demonstrating how to play it are steps towards them playing it themselves.

Not sure why the negative votes on this one, one of the only takes that doesn't make me feel insane so far. I'll reword my understanding of it.

Society requires effort and investment that doesn't produce immediate material benefits. Rationalizing everything down to profit and loss encourages people to see the collected effort as a tragedy of the commons. You need to actually want to be part of a society to start, then if enough people join you, you can actually build one!

Trust but verify. If you're doing your homework you should be able to notice things not lining up and ask the model about them. Human teachers can also make mistakes (though usually less than an AI hopefully) and it's the same process dealing with those.

In my opinion the best teachers just direct your questions in the direction where the answers you find give you the most useful information. I'm optimistic that AI could be an improvement to the average for scientifically minded learners, though I wouldn't expect it to be more effective than a 1 on 1 with a good teacher.

It's not only about hitting a human. Of course you can say the risk is small if you pick the smallest target? Houses, roads, barns, gas stations, and infrastructure makes up a small but relevant part of the land area here. We already have examples of space junk hitting houses, and examples of large junk than expected touching down. If we continue business as is and keep scaling up rocket launches, the risk just keeps increasing until property starts getting damaged. Is it a huge risk? No it's a manageable one. But definitely not a negligible one.

Why do you think that qualifier is random? There's very little risk when things hit the ocean, it's a non populated area. That's why we do launches over it. In a populated area, there are things like houses and roads which can be hit, and cause a lot of problems. I really don't see how people can think it's "negligible" when we already have space junk hitting houses, and the pieces are getting larger. That sounds like... Negligence to me.

Did you see the size of the pieces they found? Do you believe junk the size of a car door falling at terminal velocity on a populated area is a risk "so small as to be unmeasurable"?

Not my area of expertise but I believe the explanation is: the radiation profile is blackbody radiation proportional to the heat of the flame. The metal salts color the flame by absorbing light and re emitting it according to their electron transitions. However the don't add additional energy so there will be no UV light, since the original flame doesn't produce (almost any) photons that energetic. Magnesium burns much hotter and emits uv directly from blackbody profile.

Those options aren't mutually exclusive though. You can use an ad blocker and pay for the service at the same time.

Yes it's very confusingly worded.

"->Should do ... ->Or ... Throughout the week."

Not sure why they worded it that way, maybe adults with busy schedules engage less with _ per day than _ per week recommendations.

Luckily this is a very common situation for people, so there is a good body of research to answer your question! A good answer is about 30 mins of moderate cardio activity a day: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-ac....

First of all, I take no responsibility for your safety, I'm just some person on a forum.

That being said, it's all a function of how much light enters your eye. You can look up the exposure limits of the human retina for different frequencies of light to get an idea how little is actually required to damage your eye. The target or sensor should be sensitive enough to react to that much incident light. Just putting something behind the glasses and have it not get cut is definitely not enough to indicate no eye damage.

Best bet is to buy two pairs and stick one in the path of the beam with a sensor or target behind it. Otherwise you're looking up charts for the materials spectral absorption in your lasers emission band

The comment you made questions how much excersise operating a bailer involves, which is what I responded to. I don't see anything in your comment or the parent talking about how common that excersise is, which is why I offered it as an explanation of the incongruence between your dataset and your implication that bailing is effortless because it involves a machine.

It's a pretty significant workout. Hooking up, detaching, cleaning and maintaining a bailer is a lot more effort than even a good distance walk. The statistics you're quoting are more so due to the fact that most people in rural areas don't operate a bailer or really any farm machinery. Which showcases one of the problems with relying on "actual data" without having a good understanding of the situation.

Yes, passively looking for devices is very different from noteing each device, tagging it with a location, and adding it to a central database.

Bluetooth is a wireless protocol. It's "normal thing" is to connect two devices. It CAN identify and locate devices by abusing beacons, but saying "that's what Bluetooth does" is crazy. That's like a falcon x rocket destroying my house and someone tells me "that's just what a rocket does". No, someone flew it there.

I agree with most of that, but I feel like I can tell the difference between "strongman" and "out of shape and overweight" pretty easily.

"vast" is a pretty non specific word so I can maybe see why you would think that? I feel like it's pretty obvious from context I'm not talking about an inland sea here. The quoted 5000 "acre-feet" in that project is a considerable amount of water for a man-made structure!

Either way, the details page[1] supports all of my above points. It even comments on the page how rare it is to find a suitable site like the one they've chosen.

[1]https://www.whitepinepumpedstorage.com/project-details