SukadarBukadar

No, I claim that I can't check it without making another, more difficult guess. If my guess is a trading rule, to check it I need to (independently?) model the whole distribution of the multivariate stochastic process that produces it, which is more complex. My question was: how can I claim that my Monte Carlo check is reliable if I need to _guess_ how to check instead of _knowing_ how to check?

How is it useful when the underlying distribution is unknown, specially if it likely isn't stationary? For example, when doing such retirement portfolio projections or testing stock market trading rules, how do we know that the simulations we took into account are representative of what could have happened? Maybe some paths were unreachable and some underrepresented...

Pandas is better for slight in-place or per-row modifications, for loading from less conventional datasets, for transposition/more nuanced row-based aggregation/multi-axis manipulation, for performance when multiprocessing can be used, for interoperability with other libraries (e.g. plotting and statistics)... When you need to operate on huge datasets, use DuckDB, because its performance is even now on-par with Polars regarding speed, while handling huge or more complex joins is a huge win for DuckDB because it better offloads intermediate results to disk, while Polars just dies on me. I haven't tried such joins in Polars 2 though

Ultimate tool for propaganda and manipulation tailored to each person's taste. Highly scalable and can focus on the things you (don't) care about when presenting "both sides".

The stakes are too high for it to not be weaponized, the only question is who will control it.

IIRC, the playtime is also a factor in Factorio. It's nice that the trees soak up pollution, but the inability to plant more of them is actually the only thing I really dislike about the game. I want to have a choice to be even greener and even less disruptive to the local inhabitants in the base game, not as a mod "hack"

That's not being skeptical. It's being cynical. Skepticism is a positive trait. Cynicism isn't and this hurtful mislabeling w/o any gain over skepticism is exactly why it isn't

Let me tell you what's actually "really sad": Bucha as a response to sovereign country's attempt to join NATO. Having a hostile country as a neighbour isn't an excuse for starting a war with it.

Lebensraum

Why would you think so? The conflict will most likely be decided by Israel (and by extension USA) having the biggest influence both globally and locally, and the biggest guns, but there is no misconception about it, so I decided not to add it.

Noone is responsible for others' (overre)actions.

So if you think justice for Palestinian civilians is their cause, it's not them who are responsible for it winning hearts and minds globally

There are two actors and you're mixing up who is responsible for which outcome. I explained in more detail in another comment

How is force working for Hamas? The shift in general sentiment towards Israel came from Israel's blatant disregard for civilian life and from their apartheid politics being put in spotlight. Hamas are still regarded as terrorist savages by everyone sane and their Oct 7 attack served as an excuse for Israel to set them back and hunt them regardless of collateral casualties, terrorizing their compatriots

Is it "just disagreeing with them" or is it taking away privacy _from those publicly renouncing the right to privacy_, with goal of protecting the right to privacy of everyone else, who didn't renounce it, by pointing out the hipocrisy and that it actually is important, even to those who claim otherwise trying to take it from others?