neura

ie: it's almost not rated as "junk" and for that, we should be scared.

I struggle to see the tech/data being used in that way. At a much higher level, the data is more likely anonymized (where possible) and/or not directly exposed to anybody. Think of the initial github copilot that used source code across all of the repos and how it was able to take instructions for what you wanted to build and give you essentially a consensus built piece of code that fit what you asked for, be it by auto-completion, comments, or direct requests.

"I want to build a business that does X using Y. Give me revenue predictions, spend over time, and customer demand predictions." etc

IMHO, this is not the point. The core problem is that they're building systems that will remove competition altogether. You may still get your current systems to market ahead of your competition, but future "competitors" will be built off of your data and Atlassian will be one more company in the list of companies profiting from everybody else building systems using their data, probably destined to fail because everybody else can do it just as easily, but the money required to fund Atlassian's systems that built it for them, however large or small, will have already been sent. Those systems that Atlassian will profit from will be built from the data of "customers", who also paid Atlassian will giving up their own data.

With almost zero control over whether or not this happens (politically or individually), the only reasonable action to take is "take advantage while there's an advantage to be had".

Worse off, if anything.

Yes, it would be great if there were literally any other comparison other than repeated but slightly different views of Feb vs Mar in 2026 only.

Same issue with Switch 2. You can only wake it with a Switch 2 controller. Nintendo's own Pro Controller for switch, which used to wake the Switch just fine, cannot wake the Switch 2. Seems like a forced upgrade issue, to me. :(

I do not believe that _you_ are trolling with this question, but answering this is just asking to be trolled.

That said. Fortnite. Yes, I still play it with friends and cannot play it on Mac or Linux. :(

I'm sure others have similar examples. Also there are just simple things like playing with friends and streaming on Discord. Anybody streaming from Windows always comes across smooth and HD to the other participants while anybody on Linux seems to consistently be received (I don't know where exactly in the chain the problem exists, so just "received", as it may not be a broadcasting or encoding problem, I'm not an expert in this) with a lot of artifacts and lower framerates.

This is both somewhat funny, but also sad. Such a mood. :D

A pretty cool one, at that!

Even your description sounds like a startup, to me.

There was a hook to get the funding (easy to get weapons funding in wartime). Recruiting the top talent. Urgency (beat everybody else to the punch). Outsourcing the building of infrastructure while you focus on the unique/hard part.

I'm not seeing how you can't see the parallels with startups.

I love that this comment came up directly after (at the time I'm writing this comment) "Math doesn't care about your feelings."

I've tried to explain this a couple of times, but I keep falling back on the calculations used to show the problem (that it's not the numbers themselves, but the pattern). This comment nailed it with simply "It's that they're all round numbers". I've always been terrible at rephrasing things to make stronger points in a more concise way. Thanks! :D

It's more that if you start with those clean, single decimal percentages and a total number of votes, you'd end up with decimals for number of votes, which isn't possible. So if you then remove the decimal from the votes, you get slightly different percentage values when taken to 7 decimal places, but the original decimals would still be the same.

The chances of those numbers occurring normally for all 3 vote counts together is just ridiculously tiny.

I think you are correct, but that's missing the point of the article's content. I'm just a programmer, not a math expert, but I believe these statements are accurate.

1. It's very easy to arrive at the provided values, if you make up some percentages that only go to a single decimal value (1/10th). Though doing so would result in vote counts that are decimal, as well. Then if you just remove the decimal from those values, the given percentages don't change enough to be incorrect, but even when taken to 7 decimal places, the new values are pretty clearly due to the rounding (44.2%: 44.1999989%, 4.6%: 4.6000039%).

2. While yes, the chance of these vote counts coming up in this kind of pattern is similar to the example you provided, even if you were using 0-9 for your example of 6 values, the total combinations is about an order of magnitude less than the total vote count provided here.

3. The finer point made is that there's a very small chance for one of the vote counts to show up as a number that so nicely fits the single decimal percentage, but in this case, all 3 vote counts fit this pattern. The calculations are shown for just 2 of the candidates (so not including the "other") resulting only a 1 in 100 million chance.