me_again

There are some comments from participants here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AxieInfinity/comments/qfe7fo/would_...

I'd want a better reason before shelling out personally. Apart from security, other issues are:

- performance. Obviously that depends on the circumstances but if you are working on a function that is used in many places you don't know the circumstances.

- error handling and reporting. Are you going to capture stderr from mkdir? If this fails can you provide a clear indication of the problem to the caller?

- paths. If you run mkdir without specifying an absolute path your program may fail if $path is not what you expect. That can also be a vulnerability.

- dependencies. Now you won't run in a distroless container or other cut down environment

- you lose type safety

Not saying "never shell out" but I've been burned by most of these so I am cautious about it.

Visual Studio also has a community edition.

High and Low Dynamic Range

No.

Will this article disprove the rule that whenever the headline is a question, the answer is always no?

Also no.

Thanks. You might find this interesting. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

"As far as I can tell, there's no other record of any other natural phenomenon on this Earth (climate change related or otherwise), that has been consistently recorded, in writing, more-or-less annually, for the past 1,000+ years. "

We don't need humans to record something in writing. Evidence from physical processes can be used to infer historical climate and temperature, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleothermometer as a starting point.

I don't know whether ivermectin is an effective, let alone transformative, treatment for covid. I certainly hope it is! We could all do with some good news.

I don't have time or expertise to evaluate, let alone conduct, clinical trial methodologies or meta-analyses, so I have to rely on secondary sources. The institutional consensus (from WHO, etc) is that the treatment is unproven, and further research is required. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-adv...

It is apparent that there is a community (ivmmeta, BIRD, FLCCC) who strongly disagree and believe that ivermectin efficacy is already proven.

So the question becomes: who to believe?

We definitely have historical examples of astroturfing, regulatory capture, etc occurring - such as oil companies going to enormous lengths to muddy the science around climate change. And we also have recent examples (HCQ is the obvious one) where a large number of people became very excited about a treatment which has, I think, been fairly conclusively shown to be ineffective.

I have no magic method to determine which of these is the case this time, but my money is on IVM being a washout after further research.

I am skeptical of the BIRD folks, because they are acting and talking like a pressure group, not an open-minded body. I frankly doubt their impartiality when evaluating the evidence - I'm not alleging a nefarious purpose, just the omnipresent danger of becoming too attached to your pet hypothesis. To paraphrase your statement, I hope the truth on ivermectin comes out. And I hope it is an effective treatment. But these are two separate hopes.

BTW: You're providing an example here of how, once you start looking at a particular issue with a conspiracy mindset, you can easily construct an impervious epistemic bubble. The large trials cannot be trusted because they have been designed to fail; shadowy forces lie behind the doubts cast on the Elgazzar trial; and so on. This is not to say that conspiracies never exist. But it is worth asking yourself: what could I learn at this point which would change my mind?

The thing I found most interesting was the ungodly mess they found in the spreadsheet of the raw data. I almost never see papers backed by a link to the spreadsheet or other software used to calculate the results, but I feel like that ought to be expected for publication nowadays. I wonder how many other papers would implode if their raw data were easily available for download.

It's interesting to me how different people come to different conclusions even on technical issues like "is this meta analysis sound after removing that study". Here's someone saying the exact opposite:

https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1416290819565244424?s=20

I'm no statistician, and am left rather unsure what to think.

I worked at Autonomy a long time back. While I was never exposed to the accounting side, I find the allegations quite plausible - the company always played fast and loose, selling software that didn't exist yet, wildly overstating its capabilities, etc.

It's a law of the Internet that any post complaining about grammar or spelling must inevitably contain a grammatical error of its own. Yours is no exception.

And without wishing to be unkind, the fact that you are adverse to this phrasing is not of general interest, which is likely why you're attracting downvotes.

I think you are leaving out the pretty expansive middle ground where everyone lives. The options are not "pretty much any environment where they get paid" and "woketopia". Do you expect female employees to put up with harassment because it's too expensive to improve the working environment? Should employees "just deal with" being yelled at by managers? I'll pass thanks, but I don't think that qualifies me as an activist.

IIRC there was a study which indicated oncologists' ability to detect tumors in X-ray images was degraded even with lossy compression ratios which didn't introduce obvious artifacts. I couldn't find it with a quick search though.

Can't say that makes much sense to me. Stallman's contribution is inextricable from his views. He's not on the FSF board as a programmer hacking on Emacs - surely it is to advocate and advance the cause of free software. His views on software, copyright, etc are obviously pretty relevant. His views on other matters are relevant at least insofar as they affect his ability to advocate effectively.

Perhaps in the resume/interview best to highlight outcomes (supported N users with 99.9% availability solo with $x a month spend) in favor of tech used. "Evaluated kubernetes and [tech du jour]" also gets the keywords in there.

I run a cloud service where you can get a small amount of computing power as part of a larger free trial offer. The number of people who try to rip us off to run xmrig is simply astonishing. By my estimate you could only make $1-$2 a month per fake user but they still keep coming. This blog post's talk about the "Monero faithful" and the "community" seem quite ironic to me.

I think the concern here is some group rewriting transaction history via controlling > 50% of the hash rate, not guessing crypto keys.

We can't know which reviews are truthful. Presumably some are, some aren't. Obviously allowing the business owner to make that determination is dubious.

They don't have a moat. What can they do that Best Buy can't?

I'm curious: anyone feel they have ever successfully "talked someone down from a ledge" in an online forum in this way? Presumably it must happen but it seems vanishingly rare.

Design docs as text files (eg Markdown) in Git doesn't actually sound so terrible to me. Counting impact by number of commits is obviously dumb.

Not much... until you get rings of fake accounts going around giving stars to each others' projects. Think Hacktoberfest but 1000x worse

Others in the Twitter thread have claimed to use the same password without any effect. Would like to see some replication before jumping to too many conclusions.

You're not affected. Even if real this is not a breach of user data.

Isn't spreading dangerously false information about a viral pandemic similar to shouting "fire" in a theatre? I'm not sure it's always so easy to distinguish that actively dangerous conduct from fake news.

Not that this difficulty means we shouldn't try.

I have to wonder whether you read the article. Your comment is technically correct but doesn't address the point that it is making: that we are not counting the apples and oranges in comparable ways.

I had a function which only failed at 8 or 9 minutes past the hour.

It parsed a string containing the timestamp and "08" or "09" was interpreted as an invalid octal number. Argh.

I'm having a hard time picturing a 1.5M LOC front end Javascript framework. Can you tell us more?

IShares CRBN does something similar, I think.