ikura

It looks like you're writing a letter.

Would you like help?

• Get help with writing the letter • Just type the letter without help

[ ] Don't show me this tip again.

Moore's law is "the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles about every two years". For a while clock speed was a proxy for that metric, but it's not the 'law' itself.

> So what does it say?

It depends on the definition of tenure... if tenure is defined as a closed interval (i.e. defined only for developers who've joined and then left) then it means that, of the developers who have departed, none had wanted to grow with the company, or the company had let them go. For a startup company this might not be a good sign.

If tenure is defined as the length of time the developer had worked, OR, has worked so far, then it means they have a core group of developers and aren't growing the development team particularly quickly. Again, this might not be a good sign for a startup.

Another part of the problem is that companies aren't incentivised to provide parents with the controls they need. Why can't I block an entire channel in YouTube Kids if I know that they make inappropriate content? I have to block every single video? I would hope any legislative efforts focus on incentivising sensible features such as that, but I'm gonna assume I already know the answer to that wish.

Don’t use System Settings to find passwords, open Keychain Access instead, it’s much more direct for searching.

From the article:

   Personally, I think the dichotomy between hypothesis-testing and likelihood-quantification is a false one. The “P=0.05” cutoff we use to “reject” a hypothesis is an arbitrary one. When I read papers, I never “accept” or “reject” hypotheses but rather consider likelihood quantification as a measure of the weight of evidence or a distance of the data from some null hypothesis, as measured by some statistic. I encourage everyone else to consider this probabilistic worldview when viewing our paper: we aimed to quantify probabilities of this system occurring in nature, and P-values were convenient and commonly understood ways of communicating quantiles.

This paragraph does a lot of lifting. Conflating p-values and probabilities is the science equivalent of a code smell.

Because the bank's relationship with its customers, central banks, and society as a whole, is codified in law and not in code. So if you find a legal loophole that's different from hacking the bank to get something the legal system doesn't entitle you to. When the code is the law, a hack is a loophole.

Just because you personally (or even everyone you personally know) don't want something doesn't mean that no one wants it. It's popular for a reason.

I think a Ring Modulator might have some equivalence. Depending on the frequency you set it to the ability to accurately detect the frequency of the input notes can diminish quite drastically.

I'm having a hard time parsing your argument. Could you make this concrete, what are your values and what are the values that are irreconcilable with yours?

Exactly. And then compare the language used in the Open Letter with the claims they are making. One easy example which seriously undermines the Letter's credibility:

Letter Claims: "Distracts from actual mathematics by having teachers develop students’ “sociopolitical consciousness.”"

Referenced Section in Proposal: "Ms. Ross teaches fifth grade at the Jackie Robinson Academy. She has been focusing on developing her students’ sociopolitical consciousness through language arts and wants to bring mathematics into their thinking"

The letter uses an anti-pattern of redefining something and arguing against the definition, rather than doing the hard work of discussing the actual something. Bringing mathematics into a subject where it can be applied is not 'distracting from actual mathematics'. Whether or not the sociopolitcal consciousness element of the curriculum is appropriate for fifth grade is a red-herring as that's not what's being proposed.

Seems like a rather strong conclusion to be based on guesswork. “CDC didn’t cite their sources for this figure and I don’t believe it” isn’t as catchy a headline though of course.

This is a shoddy article that serves only to undermine efforts to deal effectively with Covid, in return for some clicks and eyeballs.

Firstly, the entire premise of the article is not grounded in fact, it's based on multiple in-conclusive statements and reports. Just read the language in the first few sentences - "almost certainly", "appears to be partly based on", "seems to be an exaggeration". But the article then proceeds as if that were fact.

It then tries to reach unsupported conclusions that feed into a convenient narrative at the expense of an inconvenient reality.

That outdoor transmission may have been low is inseparable from the fact that the general population HAVE been distancing, cleaning, masking and other responses. So to conclude that since "<10% is too big of an estimate" masks should not be required for any outdoor activity is gross.

It signs off by concluding that Britain's drop in death rate since January is based on Britain being locked down indoors and carefree outdoors completely ignores the fact that vaccinations have been ramping up.

If you have a genuine conclusion then you don't need weasel words and misleading logic to tell your story.

FTA they created an abstraction layer that makes the abstracted simulated environment closely resemble the abstracted real world environment, which increased the transferability of the model.