When considering a full deck you don’t really need to estimate the number of dealt hands, because any estimate that is anywhere close to realistic is completely negligible compared to 52!
We’re talking: If every person that ever lived became 100 years old and shuffled one deck of cards every minute of their life, the number of shuffled decks in history is still in practice indistinguishable from zero when compared to 52!
At the same time, all mammals are evolved from a common ancestor on land, which means that whales, seals, dolphins, etc. are the evolutionary result of land-based mammals “re-entering” the ocean.
Genetics is a game of dice. Whatever works (with regards to proliferating a certain gene) will remain in the pool. Virus are just a consequence of that statistical fact.
That simply is not what people want when they look for information.
What? Is there anyone out there that prefers to find small bits of information lying around various sources over a concise summary followed by a solid fleshing out, all in one place? I honestly cannot imagine a use case where I would prefer that a source omits a bunch of information rather than just structure the information so that I can find what I’m looking for. Wikipedia does that. That’s why you have dedicated articles for all those battles in WWII, with their own table of contents and summaries to help you digest them. There has literally never in human history existed any source of knowledge coming even close to structuring and summarising this amount of information as well as Wikipedia has, and you’re advocating that they should make it… not that?
I don’t see why you would want to hide the hoard of knowledge that is a good Wikipedia pare behind a button. There’s already a summary at the top of the page and a table of contents for when you want more on some topic.
The possibilities for actuality are enormous here!
There’s a reason the press is often referred to as “the fourth branch of government”. Journalists that do their job properly are absolutely critical to the proper functioning of a democracy.
To me this is an open question, gonna try tomorrow and report back.
Gonna see if i can cross over to the apartment opposite me by not looking down. This could be a miracle for transportation!
I’m a researcher myself, so I feel like I can weigh in on the “reproducibility crisis”. There are several facets to it: One is of course money, but that’s not just related to corporately funded research. Good luck finding or building an independent lab capable of reproducing the results at CERN. It basically boils down to the fact that some (a lot of) research is insanely expensive to do. This primarily applies to experiments and to some degree to computationally expensive stuff.
Another side is related to interest. Your average researcher is fired up by the thought of being the first person to discover and publish something no one has seen before. It’s just not as fun to reproduce something someone else has already done. Even if you do, you’re likely to try to improve on it somehow, which means the results may change without directly invalidating the old results. It can be hard work to write a good paper, so if you don’t feel your results are novel enough that they’re worth the effort (because they’re basically just equivalent to previously published values) you might not bother to put in the effort to publish them.
Finally, even without direct reproduction of previously published results, science has a way asymptotically approaching some kind of truth. When I develop and publish something, I’m building on dozens of previously published works. If what they did was plain wrong, then my models would also be liable to fail. I’ve had cases where we’ve improved on previously published work, not because we tried to reproduce it, but because we tried to build on their results, and found out that their results didn’t make sense. That kind of thing is fairly common, but not reported as a “reproduction study”.
There’s also review articles that, while they don’t do any reproduction themselves, collect and compare a bunch of comparable work. They usually have some conclusions regarding what results appear trustworthy, and what appear to be erroneous.
I honestly think that whether people like or dislike them is a bit beside the point. I don’t think I can mention any other family “dynasty” that has had the same consistent political power as the Kennedys over decades in the modern world. And I live in a Monarchy.
I will never forget the time I posted a question about why something wasn’t working as I expected, with a minimal example (≈ 10 lines of python, no external libraries) and a description of the expected behaviour and observed behaviour.
The first three-ish replies I got were instant comments that this in fact does work like I would expect, and that the observed behaviour I described wasn’t what the code would produce. A day later, some highly-rated user made a friendly note that I had a typo that just happened to trigger this very unexpected error.
Basically, I was thrashed by the first replies, when the people replying hadn’t even run the code. It felt extremely good to be able to reply to them that they were asshats for saying that the code didn’t do what I said it did when they hadn’t even run it.
here you go
I trusted the upvotes, and dared to click. It’s a safe, informative piece on the topic at hand that I recommend reading.
I completely agree with what you’re saying. However, on the other hand, “black lives matter” and “feminism” are equally exposed to the “all lives matter” and “equality” rebuttals from people that want to shut them down.
I think some progress could be made if those championing equality made a concerted effort to gain ownership of the “all lives matter” and “equality” slogans/campaigns, and then used that ownership to point out the problems (all lives matter, and black lives are currently being stepped on, etc.)
I don’t see how this is so heavily downvoted…? It makes complete sense that humans (by far most of which live in the northern hemisphere) would celebrate that the darkest days have passed and that we’re heading from a dark and harsh winter towards a promise of spring. Coming from the north, I can definitely testify to the fact that you feel in your whole body that the days start getting longer.
The fact that the exact date is slightly off basically amounts to a rounding error, and making a point out of it is just pedantic.
Complaining about congested roads while driving doesn’t make you a hypocrite, even if there are other options available. Hypocrisy would be to argue that people use public transport to reduce road congestion while refusing to do so yourself.
In the example above, the person would be a hypocrite if they themselves also under-paid their employees and over-charged their customers while at the same time complaining that apple does the same. There’s nothing hypocritical about buying an imperfect product and pointing out/complaining that it’s imperfect. That just makes you an aware consumer.
There is no hypocrisy here though. That’s the whole point. Buying an imperfect product, or contributing to an imperfect system does not invalidate anyone’s right to argue that things should be better.
Driving a car while complaining that roads are congested does not make you a hypocrite. It just makes you a driver (who is part of the problem) that is aware that there is a problem that should be fixed.
I try to live by a similar “always try to interpret peoples actions in the most positive possible way”. This means that if someone says something hurtful, they probably didn’t mean it, either something came out wrong or you misinterpreted them. Spend a couple seconds thinking about what they could have meant, and suddenly you’re choosing to interpret them in a way that makes your day better instead of worse.
Same goes for actions. If someone does something you don’t like, you can very often choose to figure out what a good reason for their actions are. Trying my best to think like this has made me a lot happier and more easy-going.
reject all forms of advertising
Yes. If I need something, I’ll go looking for it. If your product is a decent solution to my problem, I’ll find it and buy it when I need it. If you want visibility and/or publicity, you can advertise on your own platform, or do reviews, beta-testing, or press-releases in relevant channels.
There is literally no reason that you should ever shove your product in my face. The people whose job it is to do the shoving should be fired, and replaced by people that actually contribute to solving real problems. We have more than enough of those.
Seriously: What kind of good options exist for migrating a couple GitHub repos (including CI pipelines that work across repos to deploy to azure) cleanly and quickly (i.e. including PR’s, issues, etc.) to a different provider?