jmcdl

This was my thought after getting through a few paragraphs as well. At first, I was thinking, this is interesting, maybe worth sharing with colleagues. But then it became too obvious it was AI written or "assisted". Can't take that seriously.

How worthwhile is it without being able to run the code examples and do the exercises? Getting Oz working is a real pain at best.

There is an extension called "bypass paywalls" that I definitely don't advocate using.

The fact that alcohol has been a part of human existence for so long might support my hypothesis, if you believe that humans physiology is at least partly shaped by human dietary habits over many thousands of years.

What is the advantage of "thinking in vectors" in R versus "thinking in vectors" using numpy in Python (for example)?

This is a common refrain but at the same time it seems to be the one substance commonly used across most of the world since ancient times. None of the other supposedly less harmful, banned drugs are so ubiquitous. Perhaps there's a good reason for this (besides varying availability of other substances)?

This kind of supply destruction is going to be very bullish for oil prices and oil company stocks in countries not looking to handicap their own companies.

Could nuclear power plant operators be incentivised by using "proactive risk detection" metrics or something along those lines?

I suppose there will then be incentives to exaggerate or "invent" new risks for career advancement, but is that not preferable to the alternative?

Shouldn't checking for bugs be of primary importance. How many times have impressive research results turned out to be a mirage built upon a pile of buggy code? I get the sense that is far too common already.