altrego99

You misunderstand the objective this is not to make a right-wing wiki. But a neutral wiki.

If Wikipedia was called "liberalopedia", not many people would use it either.

And to their credit it didn't start out with any bias. I'll be downvoted for this I know, but it has a bias which developed over time.

For example it blacklists Fox News but allows CNN or MSNBC as valid citable sources.

To verify, and not just take my statement as truth, search for yourself "perennial source list Wikipedia".

There a whole host of other problems, including anonymity and partiality of the high level bureaucrats or admins. It started out as a good system but morphed into one with a lot of bias, because if the bias in high ranking volunteers, which is very hard to get rid of.

I do not know how Elon will plan to avoid similar bias, it is indeed a difficult human engineering problem - not necessity software engineering problem.

It's not that easy.

There's bureaucracy that makes this nearly impossible.

Wikipedia sources include liberal news media (e.g. CNN) but blacklist others (Fox News). So it is highly biased by the rules they set up.

To challenge the sources you need to become an admin, of which there are only 82. And they are anonymous, so you cannot call them out for misinformation or bias.

The edit history is present and you can see "tampering" or bias on many articles, in the form of reverted clarifications citing blacklisted sources or other reasons. There are many examples, one that I was following last year was about "Yasuke", which turned out to be based on very debatable source at best, or likely complete fabrication since it was propagated by one historian who was proven to be fraudulent.

It's been called out many times. Most recently by the 1 and half hour long interview of Wikipedia employee by Tucker Carlson.

But just because the history is there, it doesn't really matter. Some random person looking something up will not see the history.

Agree that this is a problem (if the programmer is not careful).

But serious question, why even bother with this one fix?

The only reason for the fix is so to make it more difficult to make errors.

Fix arrays, then you would fix null pointer, then you might add objects, templating/generics to support a good collections library, rtti, and before you know it you are creating another one of c++, D, go, java. And we already have those.

C paved the way. Why not let it be the end of it?

Yes, that looked like the relationship between number of pirate ships and global warming to me.

I think you did the right thing posting this. If I were in Facebook, I'd like to learn about this.

I have always found the connection curious. In video games, for example, you do exactly this - not calculate something unless it is being observed.

Who is to say the quantum effects are not actually artifacts of some optimizations in the simulation we are in?

In both cases you'd need to know some properties of the distribution to get a random bitstream.

Which pixel would you be looking at? Below what threshold would you call it a 0 rather than 1? How long till you can confidently say next reading will be uncorrelated?

I don't know how the astronomical imaging solved these (and TBH cosmic ray scanning seems a bit overkill to me too).

The only reason I use Windows is that still most tripple A games need DirectX to run.

The article tends to imply P-value should not be used at all, rather than misused. P-value definitely means something. For example, if the p-value is 1e-10 (which is often possible), you know for sure that the hypothesis generating has been disproved. So let me rephrase the title of the article - "It's time to use P-Value correctly."

Take X = all continuous well behaved 1-1 mapping f from [0,1] to R^3, with f(0)=f(1).

A knot is an equivalence class of such functions, equivalence defined as given two functions f and g, you can "morph" one into other continuously - i.e. if you can find a parametrized well-behaved (i.e. continuous, differentiable etc.) function h(x;t) s.t. h(x;0)=f(x) and h(x;1)=g(x) and h(x;t_ is in X for all t.

It's pretty much the definition you'd come up with too.

If I knew Russian, I would translate that into the English Wikipedia page.

I actually found it disappointing, compared to some other similar Disney material I've seen earlier. It is perhaps too simple.

Certain things are so grossly oversimplified, they are misleading.

For example, how does sorting rays following similar direction help? The history book analogy is appalling. It might give the misguided interpretation to a kid that it is always better to sort items - e.g. before summing a few numbers, may be sorting them is a good idea, or before map operations may be sorting them will ease the task for a computer, etc.

Shoot a ray from the camera to an object. Then 'connect' it to all light sources, by measuring the change in angle, and properties of the surface. And add up.

If the surface is refractive/reflective, recursively shoot one more ray calculating the right direction, with correctly diminished intensity and follow the same process.