tgv

11,340 カルマ登録 7 年前

コメント

13 時間前議論

I know survey data is weak. I think you'll find that 95% of all psychological research is bad.

But your explanation isn't "much more plausible". It is based on absolutely nothing, and the priori are against it. You only have a vague idea of correlation between answers (based on probably equally unreliable papers), but nothing on the missing factor. In this paper, however, they at least take some effort to find structure in the responses, and this factor correlated stronger than the others. Shaky, but it has a basis: phones/social media/etc. are terribly addictive.

> In contrast, psychologists mightily struggle to find replicable experimental results. That's what you need here.

No, that's not needed here. The paper might not be good, but we need to get rid of the phones. It's obvious that it's a problem. Just try to take someone's phone away. What "we" do not need here is distraction from the problem.

19 時間前議論

Why not just link to the C code then?

23 時間前議論

> A much more plausible causal explanation

Why is that much more plausible? It implies that it has always been there, and that nothing has changed since the last century, which is unlikely. Unless you want to introduce some other recent factor, but that is going to be even less likely.

And why? Because other studies have shown how addictive "phone" use is, and how it isolates people. And addicts (drugs, alcohol) are bad caretakers.

So there's really nothing that makes the explanation implausible.

You may ask yourself if it's not your own addiction speaking.

一昨日議論

Saying a variable is of type pointer to any value instead of just any value doesn't make a difference for the semantics (except in some bad cases, like default parameter values).

> It's also pragmatic...

So it's almost like Javascript. That something is not a source of bugs, is not proof of strong typing. Python uses type information in some cases, that's it. E.g., it's trivial to load some record or file of the wrong type, and only find out much later. That's a real source of very unpleasant bugs.

一昨日議論

It's not just unsafe, it's this:

    let r = unsafe { &*p };

It looks as if it's building structs out of information in (mutable pointers) to other structs without an Rc in sight. Which makes sense for a C parser: you've got a table with data, so you just link to it. It's fast, and when you know you're not going to touch it, it's safe. But this doesn't make the Rust code any better than the C code.

一昨日議論

Puthon is so strongly typed it lets you assign a string to an integer variable, and or compare the two or add a float and an int. Or multiply an array by a number; something which gets overturned if you use numpy. Python's strong typing mostly boils down to some operator rejecting mixed types.

3 日前議論

You're right, it is called LibRedirect.

3 日前議論

> Don't look at what your marketing/landing page does first

True. Also: the landing page and all the other corporate boasting are often run by a marketeer or similar, who knows nothing about the technical part. They just have a design, and outsource implementation. So it just ends up somewhere.

4 日前議論

There are browser extensions (eg. Redirect for Firefox) that will automatically replace x.com with xcancel.com.

4 日前議論

Then the US used to bribe our researchers. It's tit-for-tat in this case.

5 日前議論

The discussion was about caching vs propagation. You're already mixing them.

5 日前議論

But is there a functional difference between push and pull in this case? Is there something that cannot be explained in terms of propagation? Perhaps timing: there's no reason for propagation to wait an hour or a day.

BTW, only last week I explained a potential problem of a DNS change with caching, and it was understood. There doesn't seem to be a need to simplify it.

6 日前議論

Same here. Needs one of those "standard" html headers, I think.

6 日前議論

> We ran those queries several times and took an average.

The whole thing is bizarre. They could at least have drawn 100 samples and evaluated the model's response. But no, they ran it a few times and hoped that the slight randomness in sampling magically resulted in a balanced assessment of accuracy and contrariness, at some point in time for which we don't even know how much training data there was, nor if that data accurately reflects the opinions of that time. But hey, we've got a graph, so it must be true.

How can people be so stupid?

> cheap bioethanol ... [has] yet to bring about the breakthroughs we prophesied.

Oh.

9 日前議論

Two words: Google Play.

10 日前議論

The OP means "concept". The author doesn't want to use fancy words or has no idea of (psycho)linguistics.

11 日前議論

Animals communicate, and it may be primitive, but a lot of it doesn't seem to require consciousness. Should someone insist, it then depends on what you call "a word".

11 日前議論

I do occasionally suspect corruption, but neither Google nor Apple have any incentive to pay off officials to get this passed. They can't beat each other, and the rest of the mobile OS'es is no threat to their revenue.

12 日前議論

The prompt is yours to copyright, the algorithm belongs to Google or Suno or whoever, but not the output. It is not your creation.

12 日前議論

Many? Not all? Sounds strange.

The article says: "Another mitigating factor, according to KDDI, is that some passwords were stored in hashed and/or encrypted form"