I think if you make your test script compile and then run the tests up to N times, failing on first fail, then when you run bayesect, it just "sees" a test that is "N times more" deterministic, so will behave appropriately.
I'm not sure how to choose an optimal value of N. My first hunch is make it so that it takes at least as long to run all the tests as it takes to setup (checkout, compile link etc.), but it may make sense to go a lot more than that. I'd have to do some thinking about the maths.
I read something about the Challenger disaster being predicted by an engineer and they wrote a memo about the risk because they were worried about it, but it didn't get through. I wondered if this was the only memo ever about risks to the space shuttle, or if it was one of hundreds and it just got the actual cause by luck.
I thought I'd look this up. If you've had 9 successful attempts, assuming nothing has changed between them and no other prior knowledge about success probability, then Laplace’s Rule of Succession says the probability of the next mission being a success is about 83.3%, i.e. there is a 1 in 6 chance of failing next time.
> and no other prior knowledge about success probability
This phrase is misleading, as Laplace's Rule of Succession is equivalent to assuming a uniform Bayesian prior over all values of p. That is, before any experiments, a 50% chance of success. Depending on the situation, this may be roughly accurate or wildly wrong. You cannot appeal to this rule to resolve the situation.
Well, obviously if we have a better prior, then that's better. But assuming no other knowledge, and especially if we think that other people's priors could be intentionally misleading, this rule seems to offer the best estimate.
Generally speaking, you never truly have "no prior knowledge". Some relevant past experience, or "common sense", or something tips you away from "all probabilities are equally likely". I think this rule is rarely a best estimate.
Most of axios' functionality has effectively been promoted to a language feature as `fetch`, but the problem is people don't bother to migrate. I've migrated our direct usage of it but it's still pulled in transitively in several parts of our codebase.
Even left-pad is still getting 1.6 million weekly downloads.
Annoyingly, the times I reach for axios and similar is when I need to keep track of upload progress, which I could only do with XMLHttpRequest, not fetch, unless I've missed some recent browser changes, and the API of XMLHttpRequest remains as poor as the first times I had to use it. Download progress been supported by fetch since you can track chunks yourself, but somehow they didn't think to do that for requests for some reason, only responses.
It means you can sue for product liability under common law. Negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability, depending on jurisdiction. Court decides after harm.
And pray tell, who comes up with common law? And who enforces the judgment of the court? And what gives the court the authority to judge on the matter of glass shards in your tomato paste?
Fun fact about the common law in fact is that it came into existence because the English government after the Norman conquest needed a unified theory of law for the king's courts that was distinct from manorial and canon laws. 1154 Henry 2 the Plantagenet ascended the throne and wanted a code of law that would apply everywhere in the realm as opposed to local laws, the aforementioned manorial laws, as well as being secular, unlike canon law.
So without the government, you wouldn't have this common law your legal theory relies on.
Right, this typically works very well after you spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars getting all the stuff to court in the first place to have a trial drag on for years in discovery all the while the hospital is sending out debt collectors.
Oh, that's if it wasn't actually a shell company in the first place that has no assets.
A good portion of the things you mention existed before we had food regulations, you could sue the business if you had issues with them. The problem is the vast portion of the population is far too poor to do that. Regulations stop the harm before it happens.
My claim is narrower: the principle of retaliatory force is practicable. That is, a society can function using only courts, class actions, and government-as-plaintiff, without preemptive editcs on screw sizes or battery compartments.
As I said earlier in this thread:
> Determining the best means of applying the principle of suing corporations in practice is an very complex question that belongs to the philosophy of law.
You’re assuming that without preemptive permits, nothing stops a company from spewing uranium. But liability, if properly enforced, is a powerful deterrent. The threat of paying full cleanup costs, compensating victims, and facing criminal charges for negligence doesn’t require an official to approve one’s pipe size in advance.
Further, the principle doesn’t deny retaliating in advance when violence can be objectively anticipated.
This does not and cannot exist when the corporate veil exists. Make a corporate shell and throw it away like a used condom.
Add to that a company can cause a trillion dollars of damage while having only a billion dollars on hand. Criminal charges don't fix things, if they did there wouldn't be murderers in jail.
Courts, police, and the army are proper. That's government. The difference is what kind of government. A proper government holds a monopoly on retaliatory force, it acts after someone initiates force or fraud. It doesn't dictate your screw size, battery compartment, or production method before you've harmed anyone.
Yes, to settle disputes. The purpose of these laws is the protection of individual rights, not consumer “rights” or any other special “rights” that belong exclusively to one group or race and no other.
It's not arbitrary. It's called the distinction between retaliatory and preemptive force. Retaliatory force requires a victim and evidence of causation. Preemptive force has no objective anchor, hence arbitrary by definition. You can't jail a man for a crime he might commit tomorrow.
What im saying is that this distinction is arbitrary. Running a society isn't all about punishing crimes. That's just one minor aspect of a states responsibilities. Standardization is another, arguably more important one.
It's far from minor. To ban physical force from social relationships,
people need an institution charged with the task of protecting their
rights. People's rights can only be violated by physical force. To
prevent this, the government's only solution is to hold a legal
monopoly on the use of physical force.
If this vested power remains unchecked and unlimited, the government
will violate the rights of its own citizens. That's why we should
limit its power to retaliatory use.
Standardization is a very valuable asset, I don't deny that. But:
1. Standardization is not limited to forced standardization;
2. It's better to live in a world not fully standardized than to
accept the premise that it's right to violate rights for a good cause.
The "good cause" shifts the question from "should rights be violated?"
to "what kind of violation do you want?" Once we accept that, we lose
to totalitarianism. A man who says "let's violate a tiny fraction of
rights" would lose to a man who declares "let's violate rights of
thousands."
If people without an access to clean water want it, the proper route is to trade with those who do, not victimize them. There can be no right that involves sacrifices of one man to another.
Trying to wield sacrifices at the point of a gun (by an official or legislator) is the most important and disturbing modern issue. It paves the road to all actual social conflicts, unrest, and misunderstanding.
The people withholding the water in this scenario are the ones victimizing the ones without. That's where the state monopoly on violence has to come in as a corrective mechanism.
If "withholding" means actively blocking someone from acessing water they already have a right to, you'd be correct. But that's not what's in your link. Passive possession, "I have water, I'm not giving it to you," is not initiation of force. It's simply not being someone else's servant.
And it's unjust to assume humanity wouldn't help unless forced to.
By calling upon sacrifices, the first target would be engineers, plumbers, and utility workers. Forcing the people who actually produce and deliver clean water isn't justice.
What exactly do you mean by "economic violence"? If you mean fraud or theft, we already agree those are crimes. If you mean something else, I'd like to know what.
I'm probably missing something, but I don't think this is as bad or as useless as the article implies. E.g. as a parent I can set up my kids PCs with their age so stuff like app stores know to only serve them age appropriate things to download. It's the minimum to comply with the laws. It doesn't stop anyone owns a machine, but it does provide a useful option to set if you want it.
I encrypt some data and keep the key. I send the encrypted data to you (probably some cloud provider). I tell you to do some operations on the data. I don't tell you the key or what the data is or what the operations mean. You send the results back to me. I use the key to decrypt them.
You have helped me with my compute task, but the data you have is totally meaningless without the key, and only I have the key.
It's hard to believe that it's possible to make encryption where this can do useful work, but it is.
I was also thinking this about 3 weeks early for April 1st.
If it's serious, I don't know why humans have to change to add hidden bytes, and we assume AI won't naturally learn them, or if it does the AI companies will be expected to filter them out. Why only on dashes? If the plan requires AI companies to make changes to their output, why not just say only AI should add extra invisible characters, and why not before or after any punctuation?
I'm not sure how to choose an optimal value of N. My first hunch is make it so that it takes at least as long to run all the tests as it takes to setup (checkout, compile link etc.), but it may make sense to go a lot more than that. I'd have to do some thinking about the maths.
reply