And, just to go back to patio11's article[1] "replace OpenSSL for free" is something that Tarsnap could afford to do as a company, and might make business sense, if it were substantially more profitable. </nag>
The one weak point of the landing page is that it didn't indicate who was not affected. I read to the bottom of the announcement and had to think a while on whether I had to update my laptop because, hey, this seems like a serious bug. Granted, I'm nontechnical... but that's kind of the point.
Edit: not sure why this was downvoted, but if it contains an error please add a comment pointing it out. If you just think it should be lower on the page, no worries.
Usually the algorithm is described in another document without several expressions & lines. "Readability" in some of these contexts means verifying that you've correctly typed in the expression.
It's used consistently in the core language and in well written packages but very inconsistently across the ecosystem. I certainly don't use it in packages I write for my own use and it's pretty unused in most of the packages I download.
Did you write qplot? (rhetorical question) A lot of these "quirks" of R are nice for end users when they're implemented well, but are unintuitive to program and, as a consequence, are inconsistently implemented across packages.
I more or less agree with your specific points, but in the larger scheme of things I'm more concerned that these hypothetical people don't understand the stats than that the tool won't scale or is badly implemented.
That said, it sure is a bitch of a language to try to develop for (since the consensus seems to be: write everything in C) and cran is a ghetto.
Unless I skimmed over part of the post, tarsnap is still run by crontab on a unix/linux box. So, still pretty geeky. And the idea that "affordable encrypted backup" can't be understood by "a suit" is silly.
From the first few graphs I've seen in the links, the shading is discrete and not continuous (e.g. p 40). Discrete shading does address my first point, and it can help somewhat with communication too. Personally, I prefer simulating from the implicit model and plotting, say, 1000 hypothetical sample paths; but I agree that discrete shading can be effective too.
1. If I want a confidence interval, I want to know the end points of the confidence interval. Trying to guess them from a plot like this is annoying and not helpful.
2. This doesn't work for bar graphs, lengths, etc. The uncertainty is often going to be symmetric around the point estimate, but your opacity forces an asymmetric representation of the uncertainty.
3. Box plots are great. If you want more detail than that, a thin vertical histogram or density is going to convey much more information than shading.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7523953https://news.yco...