As a counterpoint, what fraction of the future engineers who will touch the project are likely to be able to competently edit the finite automata based version without introducing bugs and what fraction will be able to competently edit the if statement that checks the particular policy?
I'm not in near deep enough to have any ideas what you're talking about, and the link didn't really help. Can you explain?
Who is Tim Peters? How were they slandered? What did the author do that you disliked? Who is Glyph Lefkowitz? Why is citing Glyph Lefkowitz an indictment of the author?
>On the other hand, even 0.01% is not acceptable when the system is responsible for human lives.
I've got bad news for you about a whole lot of medical tests and interventions if 0.01% is unacceptable for you. I get your point that the stakes might be higher with medical technology than in some other fields, but you're still setting the bar too high.
The first pathogen I saw mentioned by name while skimming through the linked article was H. Pylori, where the false-positive and false-negative rates for various currently used tests are several dozen times worse than that at about 0.30-0.90% [0]. Even just being hospitalized in and of itself has failure rates. Just eyeballing some of the numbers at [1] and elsewhere, I suspect that at least 0.01% of hospitalizations result in a death attributable to a hospital acquired infection.
For those who don't know, the rind can also be just plain eaten. Maybe I'm just a heathen, but I find it far too delicious to ever waste on a pot of soup.
Nice, I really enjoyed listening to a couple of the ones you added. They were at the top of the page when I loaded it, and I listened to and enjoyed them before connecting them with your comment.
I don't think "consumer gadget" comes across particularly negatively or dismissively, and don't see this playing out at all like the Ratner's case.
Also, it seems like you might be a bit anchored to the low end of the smartwatch price spectrum from your own preferences, but I don't think it's particularly expensive among major smartwatch brands. Apple has by far the biggest market share, but I also tried to piece together how it compared to other companies with leading market share according to this chart[0]. It's a couple years out of date, but from looking at more recent data I don't think the market leaders have changed all that much. I might have made some mistakes navigating the websites of the various brands to piece together the comparison.
1) Apple - $150 is cheaper than all their models
2) Samsung - cheaper than all but one model
3) Huawei - similar to their second cheapest
4) imoo - $20 more than their cheapest model
5) amazfit - the cheaper brand you already mentioned
6) Garmin - cheaper than all their models
You're already using the cheapest smartwatch brand in those top 6 brands, so while $150 might feel expensive to you it's actually on the cheaper end of major smartwatch brands.
As a side note, this was all a bit interesting to learn about as someone dedicated to my $15 casio dumb watch.
How is the book a smartphone training guide? I've read it a few times with my toddler and enjoyed it, and felt like it was a very different experience from screentime (which they don't really get). I don't think it would have been enjoyable at 6 months old, since it's more about the kid doing things (encouraging them to help shake the book, et cetera) than just reading straight through.
