The article compares the return on the cost/investment of hiring a rock star vs NOT hiring a toxic. It acts as guidance on what part of one's hiring pipeline is most worth investment.
Some readers seem to be getting thrown by the casual tone of this article. For those struggling to not rage my two takeaways were:
* Automated checking of rusts std lib could improve rusts security
* Don't use unsafe if you don't need it
* Releasing a fix for a security vulnerability should be complemented with a cve if you want people (such as anyone using Debian) to not still be vulnerable two years later
Note: despite the initial slant, the author is very pro rust.
You have missed the point. Nothing in the study mentions a higher rate of reported cannabis use than in the general population. The record scratch is due to implying generalisations based only on a non-typical population of infertile couples without any control.
Project the data, not the model. You need to do it anyway and has the side benefit of making overfitting more difficult. Protecting the model is impossible anyway since most advancements terms to be trying lots of publicly known techniques and discovering that a particular combination works best for your data. Once one knows which techniques those are these nothing stopping a competent engineer from reimplementing them at another company.
It does not. That's like comparing apple orchards to single oranges. But if you want to just compare print volumes then the paper claims ~127cm^3/hr build rate in a prototype system with a peak extrusion rate of twice that.
Firefox is much easier and faster to compile but still complicated enough that you need to follow their build guide. Chromium is held back by Google's overzealous build systems that assume everything is built on a unified build server and permanently cached somewhere on their corporate network which results in actual build times being unoptimized.
From my reading those phrases are actually attempts to use terms a lay person can understand i.e. the opposite of esoteric. "Holographic duality" is the only phrase that is legitimately esoteric, the rest is just baby talk.
Stallman almost certainly has a different definition for "Libertarian" to you. He would most likely call your definition "Antisocialist". https://stallman.org/glossary.html