anordin95

The CEO of this startup was also the CEO of Cruise during the scandal in which Cruise hit a pedestrian, lied and heavily misrepresented evidence to CA investigators. Ethically jarring upgraded to just ethically dubious?

I initially found this odd too. However, I think the catastrophic failure probability is the same as the prior system, and presumably this new design offers improvements elsewhere.

Under the 3-voting scheme, if 2 machines have the same identical failure -- catastrophe. Under the 4 distinct systems sampled from a priority queue, if the 2 machines in the sampled system have the same identical failure -- catastrophe. In either case the odds are roughly P(bit-flip) * P(exact same bit-flip).

The article only hints at the improvements of such a system with the phrasing: " simplifies the complex task", and I'm guessing this may reduce synchronization overhead or improve parallelizability. But this is a pretty big guess to be fair.

I should have mentioned that the government foots the legal bill! That is, you don't need to hire your own costly lawyer. The case will eventually be USA vs. (your old company), and you're a potential beneficiary.

I am a huge fan of the "Explanations" page of their docs: "These explanation pages are oriented towards deepening your understanding of Hypothesis, including its design philosophy."

I feel much more software documentation could greatly benefit from this approach. Describing the "why" and design tradeoffs helps me grok a system far better than the typical quickstart or tutorials which show snippets but offer little understanding. That is, they rarely help me answer: is this going to solve my problem and how?

I would have liked more insight into the control group (so called "matched control") hospitals. Typically, PE firms only step in when companies (in this case, hospitals) are struggling. If the PE hospitals were in dire financial straits pre-acquisition, these results don't seem too surprising.

Ideally, the control would be a set of hospitals that PE firms otherwise wanted to acquire but were blocked for reasons unrelated to financials & performance of that hospital, e.g. regulatory. Granted, I expect that might be quite rare.

To be clear, I think private equity firms have had quantifiable negative impacts in many other aspects of healthcare. For example, acquiring helicopter-rescue/air-ambulance companies and sending them out for non-emergency situations.

Mmm fair point! Though, coroutines aren't really asynchronous objects in that usage, right? Since `await coroutine` would run that coroutine synchronously.

Ah, I'm so glad to hear it. And, thank you for the nit/feedback! I generally use python3.12 for my work which doesn't error out on that line. However, python3.11 and below will raise a SyntaxError on it. I've fixed the issue there and in a few other places and pushed the changes :)

I've used Python's asyncio a couple times now, but never really felt confident in my mental model of how it fundamentally works and therefore how I can best leverage it. The official docs provide decent documentation for each specific function in the package, but, in my opinion, lack a cohesive overview of the systems design and architecture. Something that could help the user understand the why and how behind the recommended patterns. And a way to help the user make informed decisions about which tool in the asyncio toolkit they ought to grab, or to recognize when asyncio is the entirely wrong toolkit. This is my attempt to fill that gap.

A high level overview of the ideas and objects that power Python's asyncio. And, some simple, illustrative examples.