How can we build a society that supports volunteer work in open source? Should governments step in and provide open source grants for important projects just like it does for research work? So much of the world now depends on open source software. This problem needs to be solved soon.
Readit Newsfoo101 commented on RIP Pipenv: Tried Too Hard. Do what you need with pip-tools medium.com/telnyx-enginee... · Posted by u/laktak
I really thought that pipenv was an anti-pattern. How hard it is to run "python3 -m venv venv; source venv/bin/activate; pip3 install -r requirements.txt" that one needs to create a whole new tool just to combine these three simple commands together? If it is so hard to just use three commands, just put those three commands in a script or Makefile and move on.
I know pip has its own flaws with not-so-great package and dependency management. But does that warrant a whole new tool? Or does that warrant fixing the existing tool?
From the outside, it seems like Javascript developers are all in high school, participating in a popularity contest, feel the need to sprinkle emoji everywhere and communicate solely with memes and gifs.
> From the outside, it seems like Javascript developers are all in high school
I wonder what the reason is for this kind of behavior to exist only in the Javascript community? Could it be that a vast majority of Javascript developers are really in high school? Are there any good stats sources for it?
* The law states that in many naturally occurring collections of numbers, the leading significant digit is likely to be small.*
Pretty much all of them.
You are quoting from Wikipedia and that quote is an oversimplification.
If you redefine the law like that, then sure, I agree that there are many uniform distributions too where the 1st digit is likely to be small. Here is another simple example: Consider the distribution of positive integers from 1 to 2. If we pick a number at random from {1, 2} then the 1st digit is likely to be small. This kind of analysis is boring.
But (fortunately!) that's not what Benford's law says. Benford's law provides a specific formula. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law#Definition to see the specific formula that must hold good for a set of numbers to be said to obey Benford's law. That's what makes Benford's law so interesting whereas your example ranges are degenerative cases where nothing new, surprising, or interesting is going on.
You can create all the strawmen you want. I am going to quote from Wikipedia:
The law states that in many naturally occurring collections of numbers, the leading significant digit is likely to be small.
I have explained why that happens for the vast majority of UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED VARIABLES.
The vast majority. That implies that there is a collection of all possible uniformly distributed variables, and in particular those that are sampled from real world processes.
As long as they are uniformly distributed, with 0 as the minimum and M as the maximum, the first digit will appear more commonly.
I explained it several times. Why are you still insisting that statements about MAJORITY of uniform distributions are weird?
Yes statements about collections of uniform distributions are not statements about ONE SPECIFIC uniform distribution. And?
Can you provide an example range of uniformly distributed integers that obeys Benford's law?
foo101 commented on Ramanujan Surprises Again (2015) plus.maths.org/content/ra... · Posted by u/tmbsundar
Ramanujan also claimed 1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12.
How does that work? Who can explain this to me?
This is simply wrong, and creating a new green account and downvoting me isn’t going to change that.
It is trivial to see that literally any range with min = 0 and max = any number other than a power of 10 makes it LESS likely that a 9 will come up as the first digit. For example the range 0-300 has 1 and 2 come up as the first digit way more than the rest. Don’t you think the same is true of 0-30000 and 0-300000000000000000000000? The size of the range doesn’t make your assertion any more true, that for large ranges every leading digit begins to have an equal chance of appearing.
My point is that, given a uniform distribution from 0 to a max, it has to have a max somewhere. If we assume that max itself is uniformly distributed then we derive the proportions you find in Benford’s law.
Look to put it another way, Benford’s law comes from the numbers which are the same number of digits as the max. The rest are evenly distributed but those numbers are the most numerous at that point and they contribute the phenomenon. Ok?
Are you convinced?
PS: There has got to be someone who figured this out before 2020. Come on. Someone post a link to this derivation.
> creating a new green account and downvoting me isn’t going to change that.
It is impossible on Hacker News for a new green account with less than 500 points to downvote someone else.
For the record you’re changing the goalposts. The op claimed that his example proves that the digits always have the same chance of appearing, which is clearly false.
When the max is uniformly distributed then Benford’s law emerges. I mean, all you have to do is read the link - where I derive it.
What exactly is the law — please don’t handwave. If the law is those exact point values mentioned in the article then I just showed you how we arrived at them.
You just keep going round and round with handwaving that makes no sense. I read your link. I did not see Benford's law emerging anywhere in your link.
What does "max is uniformly distributed" even mean? If you think that the Benford's law holds good for a set of uniformly distributed numbers, why not simply provide that set? It would be so easy to prove your claim if you just provide an example set of numbers that obeys Benford's law.
All sets of numbers you have presented so far (0-300, 0-30000, 0-300000000000000000000000) do not follow Benford's law. It is very simple to show. In all these sets, the probability of first digit as 1 is equal to the probability of first digit as 2 which contradicts Benford's law.
What programming languages' de-facto thread implementations are not wrappers around pthreads? I think Go has its own thread implementation? Or am I mistaken?