teisman

In the Netherlands, there's a difference between universities (which are a form of scientific education, and often set you up for an MSc), and what they call "universities of applied science" (which are more practical in nature, and set you up a for BSc).

Studying computer science to become a software engineer is probably wrong, or at least not the most efficient choice. The study of computer science primarily sets you up to become a _computer scientist_.

The "problems" people face with universities are probably more about incorrect expectations of the students rather than false promises by the universities.

But if you apply statistics, you will see that the open rates only differ significantly 5% of the time, if you use a 95% confidence interval.

For my website, normally I'd be in favor of allowing users to create multiple accounts with variations of email addresses (e.g. foo@example.com, foo+bar@example.com, f.oo@example.com). I sometimes create multiple accounts like that myself as well.

Coincidentally, today a spammer is creating hundreds of accounts with such variations of the same email (gmail) address -- something that should be stopped right away.

I use Linux, despite the absence of these essential tools. In my ideal world software vendors would start supporting Linux, and this is why I created SoftwareOnLinux.com - to create pressure groups and give vendors insights in the demand for their software on Linux. Would be cool if you'd show demand for Photoshop through this page: https://www.softwareonlinux.com/programs/8-adobe-photoshop

I found this on namecoin: https://bit.namecoin.info/

Looks interesting.

Thinking about GNS and the Sci-Hub issues got me wondering. Isn't there an interesting application for blockchain technology as a DNS "ledger"?

Is this a feasible application? Do there already exist projects that do this?

> Whether this price is appropriate depends on your confidence in the forecasts and their respective probabilities.

Did I miss something or did the authors not mention a discount rate, or Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)? Unless I'm wrong, a discount factor is needed to calculate the present value, regardless of using a probability-weighted DCF or a simple DCF model.

If true, then without more information on the WACC, the price they state does not only depend on our confidence in the forecasts and their respective probabilities.

> ... it's only interesting to such companies in the public markets where you can act on your beliefs by going short.

I disagree. As Keynes stated, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

Armin isn't the author of requests; that's Kenneth Reitz.

It is interesting how this blog-post directly follows the "The Post-YC Slump" post [0]. One can easily make the mistake of considering time spent on financial statements "fake work", fake work being identified as one of the reasons for the slump.

The fact that there are financial misstatements indicates that there is more need for this type fake work, or perhaps the whole fake work thing isn't so fake after all.

[0] http://blog.samaltman.com/the-post-yc-slump

Same. And I'm still surprised to see how often this is the case.

Could it be that it is slow because localStorage is updated on every keypress?

I share your skepticism, but there's one thing you might be overlooking.

Canals can act as a buffer in case of heavy rainfall. This requires the canals not to be connected to open water. In anticipation of heavy rainfall you would pump water out of the canals, into open water (sea). The canals can then act as a temporary buffer for excess rainwater. True, this wouldn't help against dike-breaks.

Related to this: in Holland there are many farmlands in the proximity of rivers that are designated as buffers like these. When necessary, they let these farmlands run full of water in a controlled way to prevent downriver cities from flooding.

The simulation actually follows a binomial distribution, meaning the standard deviation can be calculated as sqrt(npq), where n is the number of trials, p is the probability of success (pi/4), and q is 1-p. For a simulation of 10.000 iterations, the standard deviation is approximately 41. You say you observed 3.135 after 10.000 iterations, meaning you observed about 7837 hits. The expectation was to observe 7854 hits, meaning there was only a difference of 17 hits - well within 1 standard deviation.

edit: naturally you can also use this information to calculate the number of trials needed get a desired probability that the estimation falls within certain bounds from pi.

Using equally spaced points doesn't produce an unbiased estimator, while a monte carlo simulation does.

True. And the people objecting against the whole G+ / YouTube integration are probably the early adopters that could lead the herd.

Of course, users can also simple adopt a modern browser, rather than updating their system. Additionally, if Microsoft doesn't support modern browsers for old operating systems this may deteriorate the Windows experience, which may lead to desktop/laptop conversions to Ubuntu.