QasimK · HackerTrans

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

In the five years I have used Arch, I have not had a single issue.

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

I don’t know if kids notice, but I can smell the air pollution every time I drive into outer London from outside London. It’s how I know I’m entering London.

QasimK

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

My 2002 MINI was ULEZ-compliant.

I agree with you. The idea that ULEZ means people must give up driving is ridiculous and overblown. It does not affect the vast majority of people at all.

QasimK

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Ah, so _that’s_ why the ente photos app feels so “off” - it’s using flutter.

I’ve tried the app a few times over the last couple of years and had a dislike of the UI because it did not _feel_ right, like it was slow or something. I can’t say exactly what.

It is almost certainly because it is using flutter rather than native DOM elements.

(I’ve been keeping track of ente but never quite made the jump - not solely due to the UI though!)

QasimK

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

This is what self-hosted software should be. An app, self-contained, (essentially) a single file with minimal dependencies.

Not something so complex that it requires docker. Not something that requires you to install a separate database. Not something that depends on redis and other external services.

I’ve turned down many self-hosted options due to the complexity of the setup and maintenance.

QasimK

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

I've been thinking about doing this myself, so it's fantastic to see a project.

I find a files-centric (and more broadly filesystem-centric) approach easier to grapple with than one that focuses on apps (and hiding away the data). It makes it much easier to access my own data for other purposes outside of what the app provides. In particular when the files are in plain-text or otherwise human-editable. I can reuse all of the existing tool that I'm familiar with to search, modify or re-purpose the data.

QasimK

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Super confusing! Through different reasoning I get different answers:

1. More likely to be red because the urn has a greater chance of having more red balls

2. Equally likely by considering all remaining urn possibilities to be equally likely

3. More likely to be green because obviously there is one less red ball than before

I wrote a Python program to simulate the problem. It tells me that the correct answer is (2) - it's equally likely that the next ball is red or green.

I wonder if I've made a mistake, or if that's really the real answer!

    #!/usr/bin/python
    import random
    from collections import Counter
    
    def experiment():
        urn = random.choices(["R", "G"], k=100)
        if urn.pop() != "R":
            return
    
        return urn.pop()
    
    results = (experiment() for i in range(1_000_000))
    results = (result for result in results if result is not None)
    print(Counter(results))

EDIT: I did make a mistake! The above produces a binomial distribution of urns with red/green. As in, the most common urn is one with an equal number of reds and greens, and the least common is all reds or all greens. Whereas they should have equal probability. To actually match the question:

    #!/usr/bin/python
    import random
    from collections import Counter
    
    def experiment():
        num_red = random.randint(1, 100)
        num_green = 100 - num_red
        urn = ["R"] * num_red + ["G"] * num_green
        random.shuffle(urn)
        if urn.pop() != "R":
            return
    
        return urn.pop()
    
    results = (experiment() for i in range(1_000_000))
    results = (result for result in results if result is not None)
    print(Counter(results))

The answer is indeed (1) More likely to be red.

QasimK

8 tahun yang laludiscuss

Absolutely fascinating, it covers so much breadth too!

comments