• 0 Posts
  • 194 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle

  • I, for one, could not be made to care one iota about what Jack Dorsey has to say. He’s a weird little fuck, and only getting weirder.

    Time long past to be a lot more honest about these tech billionaires – pretty much every one of was just immensely, immensely lucky, and until they can talk honestly about how nearly everything to do with their success compared to any other mid-level software developer was just blind luck, we should assume everything coming out of their mouths is pure grandiose delusion.


  • Google loves to have entirely ai-driven moderation which makes decisions that are impossible to appeal. They are certain that one AI team lead is more valuable than 20 customer service agents. Meanwhile, YouTube shorts is still a pipeline to Nazidom and death by electrical fire.

    Might be the worst customer service in the tech industry, though that’s a highly competitive title.

    They also don’t offer replacement parts (even major parts like the charging case) for their headphones. So I guess they’re intended to be a disposable product. Evil shit.

    If you’ve ever had an entirely positive interaction with Google customer service… you’d probably be the first.




  • And what might be the most important part cannot be elided over: market capitalism is HIGHLY efficient at solving optimization problems, but it only responds to incentives.

    So if you can create the right incentives to reward the result you want and punish results you don’t want, a market solution is going to do a marvelous job. It’s great at, say, price discovery. But if the incentives do not align with the desired result, it’s going to grind you under heel.

    The incentives the insurance companies are responding to, frankly, are the ones you have outlined and essentially no others. Collect more premiums, make fewer payouts. There’s no “breaking point” here because they have an absolutely vast customer base that has no choice to opt out of the system for a variety of reasons (ranging from the ACA individual mandate to the fact that it is not possible for an individual to make fully-informed financial decisions about their health even WITH advanced knowledge and training that nearly no one has).

    Health insurance is pretty much a textbook example of the kind of service that shouldn’t be on private markets.

    So over time, market capitalism is going to make them collect endlessly-increasing premiums and pay out less and less. It is going to continue to get worse because the incentives of the system have defined ‘worse’ as being the optimal result. Period. It will eventually get nationalized. Period. All the argument in the meantime is just over how long we want to continue to let people be sick and broke before we apply the only fix.


  • In the US, restaurants absolutely do hire more people than they require. Employees are paid on tips. Add as many $2.13/hr servers as you can. Hire hire hire. Never stop hiring. You’ll be sloughing off people constantly because they aren’t making enough money, so you have to keep hiring ever more aggressively to feed the beast. But you’ll have 5 people to run every plate of food, bus every table, all that stuff.

    Of course, one really competent server is as good as 5 of the ones being churned, but it’s too hard to get and hold onto one competent server, so better 5 incompetent ones.

    This is why the only way to judge how well-managed your favorite bar/restaurant is to look at their (non-family) staff turnover. If the same cadre works there for multiple years, you know it’s top-notch. If there’s a new cast every few months, you know its management is a shit parade.



  • Outside of the US, you can get a 10k or less electric mini-van, mini-truck, or mini-car which would serve 90% of most peoples’ needs. Most US trips are under 3 miles after all and giant fast luxurious vehicles for those bike-range trips is just totally silly.

    Meanwhile the cheapest new car in the US is what, a Mitsubishi hatchback for $18k? It’s ridiculous. The US Automakers are in a tacit conspiracy to squeeze us as hard as they can by refusing to sell anything affordable – by inflating sizes and bloating features to justify way higher MSRPs. Meanwhile the French have access to cheap ICEs like the Skoda Citygo and even ultralight city EVs like the Citroen Ami for half that price while still being easily 90% as capable for most people.

    Or for roughly the same price as that bottom-of-the-market US ICE car you can get a totally workable EV like the Dacia Spring.

    The US subsidizes huge vehicles in a million pointless ways. I absolutely refuse to believe that vehicle inflation is just caused by some cultural woo. It’s mostly just that we create giant roads, giant parking spots, giant highways, and have automakers that intentionally go as big as the market can bear because bigger means more money. And sprinkle on some bullshit tax loopholes and state agencies/NHSTA being ultra-conservative and you have a disaster. Smaller cars thrive in the old world because the old world doesn’t make it as convenient as possible to have a goddamn road yacht. They’d go big too, but it would just be a nightmare dealing with those huge cars because their governments don’t prioritize making way for them in every way possible.

    And that’s not even getting into the frankly fine $2-3k EVs you can get in China. This is all just Europe.




  • Gotta account for a null hypothesis.

    The null would be that it is a fair die (average roll 10.5). Your test is whether the true result is significantly less than 10.5 based on a sample of 100 with a mu of 8.8. Let’s call it an alpha of 0.05

    So we have to run a left tail one-sample t-test.

    Unfortunately, this data set doesn’t tell me the standard deviation – but that could be determined in future trials. For now, we’ll have to just make an assumption that the D20 is fair. For a fair D20, the standard deviation should be be sqrt( ([20-1+1]^2 -1)/12) or roughly sqrt(33.25)

    We can run that t-test in a simply python script:

    import numpy as np
    from scipy import stats as st
    
    h0 = 10.5
    
    sample = np.random.normal(loc=8.88, scale=(np.sqrt(33.25)), size=100)
    
    t_stat, p_val = st.ttest_1samp(sample, h0)
    
    print(f"T-statistic: {t_stat:.4f}")
    print(f"P-value: {p_val:.4f}")
    
    

    Of course, I had to randomize this a bit since I don’t have access to the full data from the true sample. That would make for a better bit of analysis. But at least assuming I didn’t make a serious dumb here, 100 rolls averaging 8.88 would seem to suggest that the you can reject your null hypothesis of this being a fair die at a typical alpha of 0.05.

    Then again, the way I wrote this script is GUARANTEED to be an unfavorable result since the way I randomized it REQUIRES the average end up 8.88, which is, of course, less than 10.5. Your real world testing would not have this constraint.



  • There are no US roads I am aware of where the speed limit is over 80mph.

    Why can a stock US car go faster than 80mph, then? Why does NHSTA approve of cars that can go double, triple that speed? Makes no sense to me, for sure. Especially when similar agencies are doing idiotic and pointless shit like banning Kei Trucks for “safety” reasons when these vehicles are objectively safer and better for the public than any current-model “light truck” 120mph+ road yacht.

    Europe approached this same question with a pretty straightforward answer: Intelligent Speed Assistance. It’ll be mandatory relatively soon for all new cars, as far as I am aware. It’s already mandatory for new cars in the EU. There’s some nasty privacy implications of it, obviously. Very possibly nasty enough to bring me to a “no” overall on the idea. But the safety considerations are without doubt correct.





  • I have not encountered anything broken, aside from maybe binary app docstring stuff (e.g., automated example testing).

    On the contrary, everything seems precise, reliable, and trustworthy. That’s the thing to really like about Rust – you can be pretty much fearless in it. It’s just difficult. I die a bit in time any time I have a return type that looks like Box<dyn Fn(&str) -> Result<Vec<String>, CustomError>> or some shit . Honestly, the worst thing about Rust is probably that you have to manually specify heap vs stack when the compiler could easily make those determinations itself 99% of the time based on whether something is sized.


  • I like Rust a lot, philosophically and functionally… but it is WAY harder. Undeniably very hard.

    Just try and do anything with, say, a linked list. It’s mind-boggling how hard it is to make basic things work without just cloning tons of values, using obnoxious patterns like .as_mut(), or having incredibly careful and deliberate patterns of take-ing values, Not to mention the endless use of shit like Boxes that just generates frustrating boilerplate.

    I still think it’s a good language and valuable to learn/use, and it’s incredibly easy to create performant applications in it once you mastered the basics, but christ.


  • Highly recommend Volts to everyone interested.

    David Roberts is EXTREMELY practical, politically. He’s very no-nonsense, but gives clear and simple reasons for why he categorizes stuff as nonsense when he does. He’s not some techno-wizard optimist, but he’s also clear about how much tech we DO have and how much is achievable on realistic timelines if we just commit. He’s also clear about what the obstacles are, and even sometimes gives useful calls to action.

    His most recent episode on nuclear is an almost perfect example of this. A lot of people are VERY enthusiastic about nuclear. He had Jigar Shah from the DOE on to talk about the field extensively – the upsides and downsides, what technologies work and make sense, what technologies are just mis-advertised, what technologies are total vaporware, why it’s so hard to build nuclear in the US (hint: it’s not the anti-nuke environmental lobby), and all that. Fabulous interview.

    I definitely trend towards doomerism on all this stuff, but it’s good to be reminder the tech really is there decarbonize a LOT and VERY FAST, and probably even achieve planetary net zero or even net negative within my lifetime. Just have to convince people the juice is worth the squeeze – which it undeniably is when the entire ecosystem is at stake.