5 ms·
While the pitchfork argument may be appealing, the actual article makes a convincing case that it's just combinatorial expansion: > As a result, the Transparen
by chris_va 3y ago
While the pitchfork argument may be appealing, the actual article makes a convincing case that it's just combinatorial expansion:
> As a result, the Transparency in Coverage rule requires insurance companies to do the math for patients and, in most cases, publish prices as dollar amounts. That’s helpful for patients, but it requires that a price be pre-calculated for every possible service.
... So, they could publish the rules engine instead of the combinatorial expansion of all possible inputs, but it sounds like the regulation did not specify that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ramraj07 3y agoI work with petabytes of data. A petabyte of text is an insane amount of text. You need a billion X multiplication of basic data. That’s not just combinatrionics, it’s deliberate obfuscation.
- beachy 3y ago4 tables, each with 1k rows and one of them with a 1K text column in it, joined together to give a cartesion product, will give you a petabyte of data. So it doesn't sound impossible (just absurd).
- grumple 3y agoThat's a very artificially bloated way of compounding the data in memory with lots of data duplication. From storing the example tables you used, you'd need to store 62.5 million times that to get a petabyte of data. It's an absurd amount of data.
- ramraj07 3y agoeven taking your contrived example, you have to store it in the stupidest way possible to get that level of storage - even assuming your 1K of text is incompressible, you only have 1K unique values. The most basic compression algorithms will make easy work out of compressing the crap out of it, leave alone the advanced compression algorithms used for any big data storage formats.