ChrisLomont

5 ms·

1.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>it's that you can't apply statistics to prove this at all If there are not statistical differences, then there are no performance differences. Cheating by definition should imply performance differences. If he is cheating, the
2.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>It only takes using an engine move once or twice to completely demolish a much better opponent in a game. That's not true. Pick an engine, set to a few hundred points above your strength, then try to beat it using only one or two m
3.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>You either have evidence or you don't. This quasi economic modeling of chess players is ridiculous Modeling provides the best evidence in all aspects of life (design, science, invention, marketing, medicine, ....). All human knowle
4.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>this really weird brute force statistical analysis Care to explain why you call the method "really weird"? Is there a flaw in the statistics that you can correct? Here's [1] his publications - all well cited, his h-index
5.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>Pay attention when you get a mortgage. I've done quite a bit of modeling for predictive house pricing and investment questions, so I am very aware of how mortgages, math, and housing markets worth. As far back as around 2001 I was
6.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
The article covers that.
7.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>ideally it would be designed to not take you more than say, 8 years to pay off Making minimum payments always increases the length. How do you define your pay off? For the record [1], in recent years around 58% of bachelor's degree
8.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
Making the loans shorter will make monthly payments scale up, making mortgages less affordable for people.
9.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>Allow bankruptcy for college loans. Making loans higher interest to handle increased risk, making it even harder for someone to pay for college.
10.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
Very few people are going to be able to follow in your path, which is why looking at statistical outcomes is a much better way to analyze features of a choice.
11.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>I live in a country where college is paid by the taxpers, May I ask which country? Whenever I look at education stats for a taxpayer college funded system versus the US, there are tradeoffs made, such as less of the population getting c
12.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
Yes, it's easy to get an outcome you like by removing context. But go ahead and do minimal work at all your jobs, then report how well that worked for you. Then we can empirically see which world view is more accurate. Of course, crypt
13.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
With minimal effort expect a minimal career. Don't complain when late in life you have minimal success.
14.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
If you even looked at the research, they sample all programs for which there is code to be viewed, and find such bugs. Of course you could show that sampling is an invalid way to gather estimates of frequency, and rewrite all of statistic
15.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
Yes, and you replied "Nice excuse. But just wholly untrue." I just provided thousands of examples where it is true. To offset all that evidence can you provide, say, millions of examples where zero (your phrase) use-after-free bug
16.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
My other post listed several thousand use after free bugs in hundreds of commercial programs, so your "zero times W is zero" claim is not accurate in practice.
17.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
From the literature on bugs, even this specific bug is common far beyond "C and Google code". And, if you really want to restrict to your goalpost moving subset, then go ahead and demonstrate that the above general trends are not
18.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
Are you claiming that use-after-free bugs do not scale with codebase size? If so, please provide evidence, because that would be amazing.
19.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>The mistake is thinking everybody else is in it too Which project of similar size doesn't have bugs? You seem to imply most don't, which is empirically untrue. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sd
20.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>get rid of any engineer and the minimum impact is 3-6 months code and culture familiarisation On a big project, say 100 devs over 3 years, 6 man months is 1/600th of the work, so a single person is replaceable and it's not eve
21.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
Deutsch Bank has been hit with $600M for laundering, $7.2B over mortgage assets, $2.5B for interest rate manipulation, among a lot of other fines. These are some pretty astounding sums.
22.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>The (vast majority of the) Tornado Cash contracts Thousands of little contracts doesn't absolve a financial institution from a few many-billion dollar illegal transfers, especially after they've been warned repeatedly.
23.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>Given that it also has legitimate uses, You're not addressing the point about "(a)(1)(B)(ii), which concerns reporting requirements". If they cannot meet US law for reporting requirements, then they are breaking the law,
24.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
Is there anything on that page about any movement in Congress? On Congress site nothing shows movement since the introduction long ago.
25.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
The bill was introduced on 3/26/2021, and has no further action. It's likely just posturing.
26.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
They tend to get lots of other tax breaks, including some that affect oil (and any manufacturing plants).
27.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
Why that article points out the US spends $12k/capita on healthcare the singles out administrative costs at $1k/capita while ignoring all the other relevant factors is beyond me. They then use the misleading infant mortality stat,
28.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
> to justify the unethical system that allows millions to die unnecessarily Which people are those millions? The system saves millions of lives that would have died in generations past. How do you factor that into your claim?
29.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>what about the prior probability of a good-faith statement in presence of a strong conflict of interest? The definition of your prior would incorporate that. >Having no ability to directly verify the truth, wouldn’t you require stron
30.
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
Yes, that is still a misapplication. A perfect coin has a 50/50 chance for heads. That is a prior. Getting 10 heads in a row does not change that prior. Getting 1 billion heads in a row does not change that prior. Unlikely outcomes don

More ›