ronaldx

On the contrary, it does gives the same result.

$ anchors to the end of the string, \D clears the non-digits from the end to allow \d to match the digit '2'.

> $40k per year is quite close to minimum wage in California.

This didn't sound right, so I checked it for you:

Full-time minimum wage in California is officially about to increase to $14k.

Based on a 30-hour work week (ref: wikipedia definition of full-time) at $9ph (as of July 1, 2014).

You may have missed that the result is not significant, despite the headline, when considering the real data.

Only laboratory questioning showed a significant psychological bias (and there an unnamed hurricane was rated less risky than either).

I can't see the full-text to check the stats, but I'd wager this claim is heavily dependent on single point Fifi: a category 2 hurricane that was amongst the deadliest.

Edit: Ah, in fact, there is no significant result that corresponds to the title at all. Statistically, they have no right to claim the headline is true. Pure link-bait :/

> The name of the setting is "Who can see my friend list"

And the answer is "anybody" - if they just take a minimal amount of time and effort to piece it together.

The setting is giving the sense that the friend list will not be accessible, which is a false implication.

Facebook's use of language is misleading (IMO deliberately), and has significant privacy consequences.

In my opinion, this would be a lot more difficult. I am slightly naive as to exactly how stockfish works, but:

Computers can do a lot of accurate brute-forcing; humans must see the position in a more holistic, intuitive way.

Excellent human players and excellent computer players are presumably doing completely different calculation tasks.

I would suggest that computers are still bad at approaching the task in a human-like way, but they will always be able to improve their method via Moore's law (at a minimum) where humans are stuck at their current level.

Stockfish might be able to tell you what it was doing, but not in a way that it would be reasonable for a human to follow.

What you are looking for is a teacher. You can pay for those ;) The closest we have got to a teacher app is perhaps a MOOC: not much computational progress has been made.

Your questions are on discrete probabilities with knowable objective answers (cards/coins/dice), but the teacher also needs to teach the sense that there are continuous probabilities with fuzzy subjective answers (weather/real life events).

This may be one source of the teacher's frustration: most likely the students are answering the question "what's the probability of rain tomorrow?" as though they are guessing the teacher's password "umm... is it 0.5?", as the teacher has effectively taught them to, when in fact they are being asked to have their own opinion.

The article's point is perhaps that it's better to try and gain some intuition for whether or not you have the right answer, rather than checking the answer key. Relying on the answer key (or waiting for the teacher to say "you are right!") is an extremely poor habit and we should avoid teaching students to depend on that (in maths class or otherwise): in real life, there is no answer key.

One of the philosophical ideas of maths is that there are multiple ways of looking at a problem, and those multiple ways should feed back onto each other to confirm your answer.

Maths is not just a bunch of rules that have to be followed without question: in this case, maths is modelling something practical and the answer needs to match reality. Without that, the probability model could not even have been invented. If you can't get beyond the stage of do_question+check_answer, you are never going to be capable of anything more than grinding out other people's mathematical results.

I'm sorry you weren't taught maths by this person.

It's hard to say that the Sistine Chapel was inspired by religion - it was paid for by religion, yes.

I agree with what you are saying, and I think this is perhaps the most important tradeoff that many CMS designs do not deal with properly.

This is particularly true of the current plethora of 'static site generators', many of which are not really improvements in any aspect.

If you build a static site, you can concentrate on making sure a rebuild is quick; if you build a dynamic site, you can concentrate on making sure the data structure is robust to scaling.

You might never be without these problems, but you can minimise them to the extent that they are no longer costing your users excessively.

It's not that we need to go back and forth: either solution could work perfectly fine for all but the heaviest sites.

Noscript advice from that site:

"Tried everything and still can't sign in? It could be due to one of these issues: Your computer's clock may be set ahead 10 years or more."

Mmm, sort of.

I'm very glad that OpenDNS have done this, as I think it makes them a worthwhile service. I was not prepared to use or recommend them with ads.

However, their lack of transparency on the business justification is a bit worrying.

A possible positive interpretation is that they hope to drive adoption and use this to make more money selling their other services.

IMHO your way is better because the bids will be more genuine.

The parent way can be gamed: the loser may benefit from deliberately bidding a bit higher than they would otherwise to force the winner to pay more.

(Although you can argue this both ways, and auction theory does, I feel like this quirk could create animosity)

Slightly easier fix that doesn't immediately require a trusted middleman: swap pieces of paper after committing that anyone who doesn't reveal loses his stake in the company for 0.

I like to see TempleOS's posts but I think the system works quite well as it is.

He posts with the knowledge that he is banned (rather than creating a clean account), so I would take this as a deliberate policy of his choice. I also don't think he would remain un-banned without being treated as an extreme special case.

Poll wording is significantly biased towards the author's preference, i.e. 'please do this' vs 'definitely do this'. I fall on the latter side but not enough to agree with 'definitely'.

Edited to add: I agree that some option to reanimate valuable comments would be good; this applies particularly to TempleOS but also to other banned users.

Is it wrong that I now want to do these exams for fun?

What you have said is unconvincing, and gives you quite a lot of wiggle room.

by "association with your Google Account", do you include "association with your personal identity"? The description of the server log suggests that your web history will still be easily connected to your personal identity. The claim that Google is doing quite a bit of work to prevent that wouldn't match the privacy policy.

by "deleted from Web History", do you include "turned off Web History"? This seems possible but is not explicitly stated.

The article says "there is no guarantee whatsoever" and I believe this is no guarantee whatsoever that there is more than a superficial difference.

> Taxing consumption vs. taxing income promotes more savings and less consumption

It promotes saving amongst people who can afford to save. For poor/normal people there are several priorities they are not meeting before they would reach savings.

Poor people generally already consume way below their minimum preferred standard of living - given the option, they won't consume less. Rich people will consume less.

And then, less consumption precludes trickle-down and decreases opportunities for those poor people. Overall, very bad.

> that you have bought at a steep discount from some provider in exchange for a large chunk of your privacy.

I have some doubt that the consumer observes this discount.

If consumers insisted on privacy-by-default, the point of sale cost would not be very different. It's just the industry standard not to provide this.

If we observe a steep discount now, it's because privacy-by-default has become a specialist interest that manufacturers can therefore charge extra for.

1. Sure. My point is that I should have the right to choose what's in my interest, rather than have a company tell me what's in my interest. At a minimum, companies should explicitly say exactly what they are doing with my data. That's part of our agreement, after all. I use DDG for this reason. Actually I'm not super-happy with DDG in this respect: I believe there is some shady blurring of their promotional message vs the small print. But I would rather support DDG than Google, for now.

I don't think DDG needs to or should be catering for the people who find a lack of super-personalised results deal-breaking:

a) the world certainly doesn't need DDG to ape Google. There needs to be more competition in this space, and DDG's position distinguishes it. I hope and believe there is a market for a variety of search engines (as there are around the world).

b) in blind-testing, I'm not aware there is any evidence that Google does better.

2. I hold out hope that the EU data protection principles will one day be properly upheld within the EU. I have no such hope for the US government.

You may have missed:

"Hey, this also has the nice benefit that customers will upgrade to our latest version."

I'm now more hard-line than this on data privacy:

I have come to believe that businesses should not be legally allowed to store any consumer data unless it's obvious to the consumer that it's absolutely required for the primary function of the service, and they should only be allowed to store data for that one function, with an exception if the consumer explicitly and voluntarily opts-in for each additional function.

Large internet companies have been collecting swathes of data with the claim that they are secretly using it to improve people's lives. But it seems to me that A/B testing has failed to improve anyone's life.

Example: I use search engines to search for something I'm looking for.

I do not benefit from being shown 'targeted' ads, nor from the search engine identifying the most populist answers which it uses to spoon-feed me later rather than serve what I asked for, nor from the search engine identifying which particular arrangement of pixels will leave me personally more addicted.

Businesses are welcome to use my data in ways which are in my interest, but they should not get to decide which of these uses are in my interest.

The screenshot you link seems to me indicative of a dark pattern:

User unsubscribes from all categories (one-by-one-by-one) = invent a new category and auto-subscribe the user.

I'm very interested in whether or not manual transcription is pedagogically beneficial.

I personally write a lot. I certainly find it useful to do that.

However, I would not normally recommend Zed Shaw "Learn Code the Hard Way" type of method of writing out over and over again. I think it probably works and you can do it yourself, but I think it's quite inefficient. I don't need to type 10 PRINT "HELLO" 20 GOTO 10 more than once to get a good sense of what's going on.

I think you most of all benefit here from the time you're forced to put in. If you can understand nothing, there's really no other sensible thing that allows you to concentrate for the time you need to make decent progress.

However, I don't think this means transcription is pedagogically ideal. IMHO building something for yourself is more effective; getting expert tuition is more effective: in terms of time spent vs benefit received.

Absolutely disagree.

I personally learned (as I think many people did) by copying code out of books. Whenever something went wrong, I had to figure out whether it was my typo or the book's typo or my conceptual error or the book's conceptual error. That process helped me to learn a lot, and quickly. If everything went perfect, I got to play some creative game which I loved and gave me a sense of acheivement that helped me to progress.

I no longer do this, because it's not relevant to me at this stage of my learning, but I view that as an important part of my early learning process. If you reflect on your own early learning process, I would be extremely surprised if you didn't copy and paste code. Frankly, you are surely still dependent on other people's code now, you just might call it a 'library' instead.

I agree if you're saying professional developers should avoid copy-paste (there are also legal consequences), but new learners can make great progress by using copy-paste. I would say it's an essential part of studying what other people have done.

This is not a good argument for using or staying with Gmail.

In fact, writing this another way potentially identifies a more compelling reason to leave:

By using Gmail, you are incrementally harming the privacy of everyone you communicate with.

The best option I found, to match my own preferences, was Runbox:

https://runbox.com/why-runbox/email-privacy/

Edited to apologise: The cheapest option seems to be $20pa, sorry. I find it excellent value.

OK, I getcha, thanks.

Heads Up specifically means that there are match-ups between 2 players. This doesn't mean it's necessarily a 2 player tournament, e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Heads-Up_Poker_Champi...

I already checked this case and you are right, indeed.

This makes the article correct (although makes no allowance for sampling error, nor for overfitting the available data).

Even so, I still dislike the use of this figure, as ROC AUC overstates a poor score: it hints at the model being correct 67% of the time.

In fact, the model is only knowledgeably correct 33% of the time, and just guessing the rest (taking its binary-choice 'score' up to 67%).

I was burned by this, thanks.