KingMob

Hill climbing is a statistical method for finding maxima in a function. If your function's range is "does stuff well", then hill climbing is equivalent to finding improvements.

Also, Wikipedia's search is free to anyone on the internet.

> those who'd committed the thoughtcrime of dividing 50b by 342m and suggested that 146 bucks per person doesn't buy much healthcare are downvoted into oblivion.

I suspect the criticism isn't as absurdly narrow that ALL we have to do to get M4A is swap out the war funding. It's probably people pointing out that the govt wastes plenty of money on immoral and useless things, of which the Iran war is an example.

I'm always a bit surprised when people cite TigerBeetle for anything (Zig excellence, coding style, etc). They've made some unique choices that work great for them, but it really doesn't seem like they can be universally applied.

I'd bet only a small % of people praising TigerStyle actually disallow all runtime allocation in their own programs.

> I'm sure people already do. But you can't truly test things at scale.

Do they, actually? I got the impression from the article that little revocation testing of any scale happens. If so, then even a limited test would be useful.

Cute, but I wish they'd spend more effort fixing all the bugs in Apple Music on macOS, and improving their navigation and recommendation algorithms.

The thing is, his reasoning isn't even wrong (assuming what he said about the spread of PoCs and the ease of finding the vuln was true), but it clearly prioritized Chainguard customers over the broader ecosystem.

None of the test certs would be used for real, whether they're intermediate or leaves.

They'd be created with big red warning signs, installed into browsers and other places by anyone who wants to test, and then publicly revoked every month. Rinse, repeat.

Unironically yes, in some ways.

It's a godsend for those looking to do what they want with old hardware. You can now pretend to be the authoritative domain for updates.

Any world where sufficiently wealthy capitalists can bend the govt to their will, i.e., most of them.

Right, I read that as a possible explanation, but that's not the root explanation.

Roughly, my question is "Don't we see other post-collision galaxies that still have dark matter, and if so, why?"

If we have two identical scenarios with different outcomes under a theory, that doesn't bode well for the theory.

> explain away dark matter

This kind of presumes dark matter has been definitively proven already, though.

From the outside, CDM may be a better theory than MOND, but it doesn't seem settled to me. I haven't heard anyone describe it as a "Law" yet.

Couldn't someone equally characterize the creation of dark matter as "adding and tweaking mass until you fit the data"?

Can you expand more on #5?

It seems that having some galaxies without dark matter is also pretty bad for CDM. Why would CDM be absent in those cases? Without an explanation, isn't it bad for CDM (as well as MOND)?

Nobody wants a theory where exceptions can be hand-waved away as "Oh, that galaxy must not have DM" or "That galaxy has too much/too little/different balance/etc".

This has nothing to do with tech, and is also boring. ESG rules preclude military startups? As they're intended to do?

What's next, tobacco company bemoans anti-smoking ad restrictions?