kgwgk

39 ms·

841.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> they’ll last forever > You know when it’s time to replace [bearings] when they fail. Fail? They last forever!
842.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> Gopher From the University of Minnessota in California.
843.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> if Apple actually cared about the environment they'd release new models every several years instead of several times yearly Thankfully last year’s model still works and is supported for several years. Nothing prevents you from ign
844.
Unscientific American(city-journal.org)
2 points by kgwgk 2y ago|1 comments
845.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> What if your house collapses due to some event that is not covered by your insurance and you used all the capital to purchase it? This is as an extreme example as the market dropping 50%. Quite a lot of people have experienced a market
846.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Sure. The point is that you wrote that « you can pick any point […] » and when toth pointed out that « there is always a choice of origin implicit in some way » you replied that « you could use an uninformed improper prior. » However, it se
847.
by kgwgk 2y ago
« Nobody » may be too optimistic. https://forward.com/culture/603271/jk-rowling-holocaust-stre...
848.
by kgwgk 2y ago
You would just need to come up with a way to pick a point at random uniformly from an unbounded space.
849.
by kgwgk 2y ago
We may be talking about different things. Let's say that you have a standard multivariate normal with unknown mean mu = [a, b, c]. The usual maximum-likelihood estimator of the unknown mean when you get an observation is to take the ob
850.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> But if you send the point you are shrinking towards to infinity you get the naive estimator again. You get close to it but strictly speaking wouldn’t it always be better than the naive estimator?
851.
by kgwgk 2y ago
(I cannot speak for the original article, I’ve not put the effort to fully understand it so I won’t categorically say it’s wrong but it didn’t seem right to me.) The “paradox” is that it can truly be arbitrary! Pick a random point. Shrink y
852.
by kgwgk 2y ago
I don't understand what you mean. Who assumes what? Take any point and shrink your least-squares estimator in that direction. You get an estimator that it's strictly better - in some technical sense - which renders the original es
853.
by kgwgk 2y ago
This is what the original paper from Stein says: "We choose an arbitrary point in the sample space independent of the outcome of the experiment and call it the origin. Of course, in the way we have expressed the problem this choice has
854.
by kgwgk 2y ago
What does not respect translational symmetry? You have an estimator. If you apply shrinkage towards the origin you have another estimator. If you apply shrinkage towards [42, 42, ..., 42] you have yet another estimator. Etc. Is it a problem
855.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Not necessarily "more likely" but "better" in some "loss" sense. It could be "more likely" in the jars example where estimates may convey some relevant information for each other. But consider this ex
856.
by kgwgk 2y ago
There is nothing magical about the origin, the shrinkage can be done towards any point and in fact when estimating multiple means it's customary to move each point closer to their average. https://www.math.drexel.edu/~t
857.
by kgwgk 2y ago
But - with the exception of equalp - they may fail to identify as equal numbers which are equal (=). I suggested to use = to compare numbers specifically.
858.
by kgwgk 2y ago
I agree that there are some inconsistencies in the naming of functions and parameters like destructive/non-destructive variants and predicates among other things. Also strange names like car and cdr (which on the other hand allow for c
859.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Fair enough. In fact I agree with the broad point that having functions that do things is a source of bugs and CL is a huge language with less than perfect names. My point is that having less functions that do less things does not obviously
860.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> (2) In many (most?) day-to-day cases, the distinction isn't material, and for those the ecosystem is going to end up preferring one more than the others (which may change over time - hence, 'in vogue'). The references I&
861.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> (1) There is nothing in the function name that would indicate the difference between, say, (eq) and (eql) and (equal), any more than you could guess what the difference between (colorise), (clrise) and (clrs) would be on sight. Lisp se
862.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Strange, the link looks relevant https://press.aboutamazon.com/2024/4/amazon-com-announces-fi... and it was working when I sent it - or so it seemed.
863.
Amazon.com Announces First Quarter Results(press.aboutamazon.com)
2 points by kgwgk 2y ago|2 comments
864.
by kgwgk 3y ago
Sometimes it means exactly that: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4968089/ Of course you could still sell the same drug if you get it approved with a different dosage but that is a long and costl
865.
by kgwgk 3y ago
> If Google was really existing in service of its employees rather than its investors, as it would be in a socialist system What socialist system is that where a company is run from the benefit of its employees?
866.
by kgwgk 3y ago
The worst case is worse than that: in addition to composition of matter patents there are dosage patents that can be invoked. https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/novo-nordisk-patent-sema...
867.
by kgwgk 3y ago
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0S61KT/
868.
by kgwgk 3y ago
Prices are higher in US than in Europe - whether the company is from Europe or the US doesn't change that.
869.
Tesla Q1 2024 Update [pdf](digitalassets.tesla.com)
49 points by kgwgk 3y ago|58 comments
870.
by kgwgk 3y ago
The people who didn't get a driving license in 2017 because what was the point if cars would drive themselves in a couple of years may care. Even more so if they finally have to wait to 2050. Anyway, the question was about expectations

More ›