halpmeh

Technically, updating priors wouldn't necessarily be warranted. Consider a statement X implies Y, e.g. The government is corrupt, which implies SBF won't go to jail. Just because X implies Y does not mean ~Y implies ~X. E.g. SBF going to jail does not imply the government is not corrupt.

This is a straw-man argument. Emerging economies get money and jobs out of the globalization arrangement. That's more than enough to sell emerging economies on the idea. Globalization needed to be sold to western economies. Why, after all, should the western economies sacrifice money and jobs? Western economies, they were told, would benefit due to more efficient economic operations, or so the neo-liberal economic orthodoxy went.

Now globalization is unpopular in the west because the west realized neo-liberalism is bullshit, for lack of a better term.

You've conveniently omitted the independent third-parties that had seen the data. It's a messy world. Unexpected things happen. How do these third-parties factor in to Occam's razor? You need to add more parameters to your explanation as to why the third-parties would verify the existence of non-existent data.

Here's another possibility: During goes to DePalma to collaborate and asks if DePalma still has the data. DePalma says he doesn't. During sees this an an opportunity to claim credit for the work.

It's impossible to tell which scenario is more likely. Are you really willing to ruin someone's career over purely circumstantial evidence provided by a biased witness?

Apparently he doesn't have the data anymore. According to the article, independent third parties did see the data and didn't think it was suspicious. The implication of what you are saying is that if you lose data for any reason then you're automatically guilty of data forgery. Obviously that's not a great precedent to set.

During, the other author, also has an incentive to discredit DePalma so she can claim to be the sole discoverer of the asteroid timing.

Without conclusive evidence, it’s irresponsible to get out the pitchforks.

Don’t forget to include mice studies.

I'm still not understanding the correlation between a centralized exchange and perpetuating a scam. Tether doesn't rely on a centralized exchange. If an entity, centralized exchange or otherwise, is willing to pay off the entire market to perpetuate a scam, then yes, DEXs will be impacted. That doesn't seem related to whether or not an exchange is centralized.

Well for one, I don’t want to add another language to my tool chain. Many languages can compile C directly. For instance in Swift or Go you can add C source files directly to your project and have them compile as part of your Swift or Go build. You can’t do that with Rust or C++.

C is the lingua franca of the software development world.

The issue with this type of promotion is that you usually want to preserve the type. Like if I add two int32s, I probably want an int32 as a result.

A cooler feature would be requiring the compiler to prove the addition wouldn’t overflow.

C is an amazing language. If you want to integrate into another language via FFI you basically have 0 other options.

That being said, it’s too easy to do something wrong in C. The desire to use Rust isn’t because C is stale, rather it’s too hard to write C correctly.

From the industrial revolution to some time in the early-to-mid 20th century, materials were more expensive than labor. It made total sense to ornately decorate things as the cost was not much more than the material itself.

Now labor is vastly more expensive than materials. Making this easy to build makes them way cheaper.

That's quite interesting. Who enforces the parking limits? Surely the city has a very advantageous negotiating position if the city is responsible for enforcement.