gnaritas

86 ms·

751.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Over any one year, sure, even over a few years, sure, but when you see consistent winners over decades in numbers that exceed what random chance would expect, it's foolish to still insist the market is random other that it being a good
752.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> it's that you can't distinguish them from lucky winners. Jim Simmons doesn't agree, see Renaissance Technologies as an example. And time would week out lucky winners; luck isn't consistent over long time periods and
753.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" is real. reply It's a real book, but it doesn't prove the market is random, nothing does as the efficient market hypothesis is just that, an unproven hypothesis lacking even enough e
754.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Your mistaken, and this opinion is what the second sentence was for; just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything. FTL is likely not physically possible. That's not to say it's impossi
755.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Wormholes aren't known to exist; they're theoretical implications of some math, not known things. It's entirely possible they don't exist at all.
756.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> Magic operates in ways we don't understand. Witches would disagree. :) > I think we understand negative energy density, we just don't know if it's possible in reality. Exactly as in magic. When you propose things are
757.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Mathmatically compatible with GR (which is known to be incomplete) doesn't mean possible in reality, in fact, read your own source, it makes that clear.. > Although the metric proposed by Alcubierre is mathematically valid (in that
758.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Still fiction; it relies on magic , i.e. things not known to actually exist.
759.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Since we're pretty sure FTL is pure fiction and not possible in reality, that likely won't be an issue. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we don't know anything.
760.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion? You're here aren't you? Had it not been sufficient, the human animal wouldn't have survived for 200k years. Morality is innate, instinctual, and is present across the anima
761.
by gnaritas 10y ago
You are blinded by your ideology, it's making you ignorant to the truths that everyone else clearly sees.
762.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> made a >100% return in the last 6 months by buying companies that made products that I understand and use frequently: nvidia and Amazon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc You're maki
763.
by gnaritas 10y ago
I'll just assume English isn't your first language because nothing you just said makes a lick of sense.
764.
by gnaritas 10y ago
No, homeopatic anecdotes are not science. Science has studied homeopathy and found it to be complete and utter nonsense. That's the end of the story, it's superstition and does not work. You either understand that, or remain wi
765.
by gnaritas 10y ago
There's a body of anecdotal evidence for anything you can imagine, that's we don't value anecdotal evidence once we've looked for real evidence and not found it. Most people are greatly confused by the placebo effect, i
766.
by gnaritas 10y ago
There is no mechanism of homeopathy other than the placebo effect, homeopathy is pseudo-scientific bullshit, simple as that, it's fiction. If you think it works, it only demonstrates that you have no understanding of the placebo effect
767.
by gnaritas 10y ago
You've succeeded in convincing me you that you have limited experience and an inability to see that the real world is much messier than your ideals. Do please stop trying to speak for .Net as if you represent the entire community, you
768.
by gnaritas 10y ago
You're being absurd, all I said was "no you're not thinking clearly" in response to being accused of not thinking clearly. I was perfectly civil, and I created another account because of your unjustified slow ban on me.
769.
by gnaritas 10y ago
I've had my own micro ORM before any of those other ORMs existed or the term micro ORM was a thing, so one can hardly call that NIH. In fact there weren't any ORM's in .Net at all when I wrote mine. I love using good externa
770.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Correct, glad someone understood it.
771.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Generics can apply to classes, not just methods, as you can see in the typed lists included in the framework, you can use generic methods without them taking generic params as you can get the generic param from the class itself resulting in
772.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Explicitly I don't because the container has already been specialized to a type at construction.
773.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Getting to use C# on a fast runtime, none of those things you mention allow me C#.
774.
by gnaritas 10y ago
I neither expect or would use an ORM that was considered part of the standard library, it's going to be far too crappy trying to please everyone. ORM's are something you get aftermarket, from core I just want raw database drivers
775.
by gnaritas 10y ago
If you're worried about the speed difference between reflection and a hand written command, you're spending your time in the wrong part of the code. Reflection isn't the bottleneck, the database is, by far. Yes, if you speed
776.
by gnaritas 10y ago
:) Well, it's pretty ugly now that expressions exist, however prior to expressions it was quite nice since S expressions is all they are and I've had this for nearly a decade in .Net, long long before such niceties like expression
777.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Yes yes yes, but better yet, write your own. Micro ORM's are "micro", it's pretty trivial to create something better than Dapper and there's no framework in the world better than your own, to you, because there won&
778.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Speed of course, and a huge standard library that works with multiple languages, Ruby and Python are dog slow compared to C#; can't speak to Go, haven't used it.
779.
by gnaritas 10y ago
That isn't a matter of "thought", it's a matter of fact. The constitution defines itself as a living document through its amendment procedures.
780.
by gnaritas 10y ago
No, you're not thinking clearly; the constitution requires a super majority, and yes, if a super majority of people want to be governed a particular way, then they deserve that right, even if it's stupid; but you'd never get

More ›