phunehehe0

Consider the chance of winning at least 100 times. It's 1 over 2^100, and you win at least 2^100. So the small chance and the big reward "balance out", kind of.

But the reward is not limited there. Once you reach each and every "balance point", the next step is 50% chance for doubling the reward. If you currently have X, the value of continuing to play is 1.5X. This is independent of how big X is, or how unlikely you have made it this far (sorta a reverse Gambler's Fallacy). And it's why the expected value is infinite.

What I've been taught is, the part of the sentence after the "but" is the part that's being emphasized.

Imagine if you had written:

> I've seen shade-tree mechanics show a complete disregard for the environment, but I'm not in favor of this kind of law.

It seems like you think that's the same sentence as before but to me, and I suspect other readers, they say different things.

This is interesting if true. How can people verify that your extension is compatible with Manifest V3? I can see on the Chrome Web Store that the latest version of your extension was published before the latest version of AdGuard (August 23, 2022 vs August 30, 2022) so there's that.

after reading around a bit I think it means "executive director" (not super familiar with this matter)

I presume it's 3 dimensions for each joint, so 10^3 * 10^3 * 10^3

This is much better than a coin flip. A coin flip would give about 50% true positive rate (which is about the same as the test), but it would also give about 50% false positive rate.

To put it in perspective, imagine 10 people have cancer in a population of 1000 (a rate of 10% which is too high compared to what I think the real number should be). The test would fail to identify 5 of the people with cancer, and it would say that 5 of the people without cancer have cancer. So overall it would misidentify 10 people. The coin flip would misidentify 500 people.

Amusingly in this example if you have a "test" that just says nobody has cancer it would also misidentify only 10 people :) I think this is why they are reporting true positive rate and false positive rate.

Just want to say thanks for the link. I have not seen such a well rounded write up on the topic. Sadly it only contributes more to my own uncertainty :)

It looks like all the replies so far disagree, so I want to let you know you are not alone. I consider a lot of different languages a form of fragmentation.

To extend a naive view, I think it would be ideal if everyone can choose the languages they want to learn and use. This would make it a bit more like programming languages. There is concentration at the top if you want efficiency of communication, but also a lot of choices to explore. Of course this wouldn't work so well with human languages, since you need something to communicate with people around you. There is a little bit more choice if you decide to learn a second language or more.

By the way, some of this is already happening with globalization. I'd expect one's first language to be whatever used where they are raised. Their second language, if they choose to pick it up, is likely to be one of the popular ones. And the third on so on would be whatever interests them.

On a tangent, there is a Freakonomics podcast "Is Learning a Foreign Language Really Worth It?" that covers some of this. The distinctive conclusion I remember from it is, it's only worth it if the foreign language is English. I guess now or soon it could be Chinese, who knows.

I can't say I regret learning Elixir, but a coworker once said he thought I thought it was the worst programming language in the world :)

My biggest annoyance with Elixir is that the ecosystem seems to impose a lot of opinion on how things should be done, and sometimes actively makes it hard to do things differently. In some edge cases I couldn't do the easy thing because it's "wrong", and couldn't do the right thing because it was not yet implemented. I believe this is with good intention and is mainly a side effect of the relatively small and young community, as in many areas the de facto libraries are made by the same few people. I suppose this problem will get better as there are more libraries to choose from and/or more contributors to those libraries.

Another, milder source of annoyance for me is the lack of functional programming features in a functional programming language. To invoke a function that has been passed as a parameter you need a dot. No currying etc. Still, you can get things done and with these limitations it's harder to get yourself into a mess of functions being passed around (but not too hard if you try).

All in all, to me what Elixir brings to the table is more than enough to offset its annoyances. However when it comes to choosing Elixir, I agree with other comments suggesting to choose something the team is comfortable with.