Cassandra user in production here. Could you elaborate a little bit on what was messed up (size, false positives etc.) and which version this was? Did you have trouble with Cassandra itself that you tracked down to the bloom filters or trying to re-use the bloom filters in another project?
> Members can log into both sites using the same login. This will allow streaming-only members to add DVD by mail, and DVD-only members to upgrade to streaming, at any time. The websites, however, will remain separate, so that we can start giving these different worlds the unique attention they deserve.
Note that the word closure has meaning in set theory and other areas of mathematics relevant to computer science. SICP explicitly avoids using what wikipedia calls a 'computer science closure' for this reason.
"Speaking of cool places to work, there is of course Google. But I notice something slightly frightening about Google: zero startups come out of there. In that respect it's a black hole. People seem to like working at Google too much to leave. So if you hope to start a startup one day, the evidence so far suggests you shouldn't work there."
"Is it true, Dr. Chandra, that you chose the name HAL to be one step ahead of IBM?"
"Utter nonsense! Half of us come from IBM and we've been trying to stamp out that story for years. I thought that by now every intelligent person knew that H-A-L is derived from Heuristic ALgorithmic."
Do you have a source for this? Every analysis of exit polls I have seen (for example: http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm) shows that Perot split the votes fairly evenly.
I think that is sort of the point people are trying to make. Pretty much every language messes this up badly. It would be nice to see something learned from those mistakes.
The Copenhagen Consensus looked only at a 5 year window. Since most of the likely costs of climate change take place farther in the future it is unsurprising that they found so little benefit for mitigation.
While economic analysis is very important in this case it is also very difficult. You can get any result you want be fiddling with the discount rate.
A few minor corrections. First, most chess programs don't literally "brute force" the problem. A lot of work goes into pruning the search tree and only looking along the most promising paths. Second, humans can actually think many moves ahead along certain paths.
As other's have stated in this thread chess is particularly well suited to be played well by a computer program, but that does not make it trivial.
Figuring out pot odds is an elementary part of poker. Most who play poker well can do that correctly, that is just as well as a computer. On the other hand combining those odds with an estimate of what other players and how they may react is a damn interesting problem for a human player or a computer programmer.