We have no clue whether they're their assumptions. They claim 100% that they are theirs, but we can't know that. Especially in similar situations, when politics is mentioned and usually too many people have the same assumptions shouted by some "news" sources.
I romanticized even before, because there is a reason why society's view of developers shifted from geek losers to rich in the past 15 years. I remember when 15 years ago a girl told me that I'm different, because I'm not as looser as how she imagined developers.
Yes, however, this causes people who know what they do suffer because of people who don't. My question is whether this affects innovation, because the same thing at different places definitely does, and we actively fight against this exactly to help innovation.
How can you have this widely different amount of cavities based on judgement? How are they not snake oil salesmen, if judgement makes the diagnosis different by magnitudes?
A cavity is just a hole or groove of various depth. It's probably less that one dentist sees a cavity and the other sees nothing and more that one dentist sees a cavity worth addressing the the other sees the beginning of a cavity that they figure will need to be addressed eventually, but there's not a major reason to do it now rather than next year or the year after that.
Also, I imagine some dentists might decide for their patients benefit (as long as there's no pain reported) to let a couple develop to a level is there's a few in various stages of development, so they can do them all at once with a single procedure.
I don't know how likely or accurate those are, but those are some of the obvious ways that came to mind that dentists might be seeing the same thing and suggesting different actions that don't boil down to them wanting to fleece a customer.
My dentist shows me the xray they take once every 5 years. Then they walk me through what a cavity would look like. Then they show me that i have none.
I can understand that the external "poke at it" method requires some judgment, but an xray shouldn't have that much variance.
That's why I also go get a "poke around and look" checkup every year. The X-ray is to spot deeper things, but you can't do that every year without the x-rays becoming a risk factor themselves.
In the United States, it is routine to get your mouth X-Ray’ed every 6 months when you go in for a cleaning. Dental plans include these checkups at no extra charge.
That's what I was led to believe by my dentist when I asked. I just checked danish national guidance, and they say the dose of x-rays is so low the increased risk is incalculable. Instead they say the dentist should only ever use an x-ray if they find it medically necessary out of a principle of minimization.
So it sounds like it's the individual dentists judgment, and their organizing body says that they base it on the occurrence of dental problems in the population the clinics they oversee, with some adjustments based on patient age and risk factors.
So according to Danish authorities, you should be safe getting x-ray'ed every 6 months. They just don't recommend it, since it's a waste.
Yet you are probably in the 90% of developers who cannot estimate properly.
I would like to have a professional judgement closer to how it's done in statics, instead of developers, since you fuck up lives directly with one, and usually not with the other one.
If you ask software development companies, plumbers, builders or lawyers to give an estimate of what some work might cost you'll probably get similar variations?
But that's more a matter of pricing. Not the basic parameters of the job.
Building a wall of known size takes X bricks, Y windows, etc. Contractor 1 might have more markup or estimate different hours to complete the job vs contractor 2 but the parameters of the job are relatively fixed.
The dentist is seeing the same mouth (wall) and telling you there is vastly different numbers of cavities (bricks/windows). And not off by a small margin, but orders of magnitude.
At least software development and laywering has 100s of parameters that can influence some work, even when the requirements are well specified ahead (and those almost always change later, or meet some changed reality).
Tell me you haven't worked in the trades without saying you haven't worked in the trades.
The older the building, the higher the chances stuff will go seriously, sometimes catastrophically with no chance of recovery, wrong. Say for the plumber, according to the plans or the knowledge of the building owner, there should be no more lead pipes left in the building. Lo and behold, you open the wall, and find a lead pipe still under pressure, and next to it a tap to somewhere else that doesn't show up on any plan.
Endboss is if you find asbestos. That turns a jobsite worth a week of work instantly into a hazmat site plus immediate concerns for OSHA aspects.
Or for electricians, the plan was to rip out the entire electrical work in an apartment, and you suddenly find out that half the rooms of the neighbor next to you suddenly don't have lights any more because for some unknown reason half of his apartment actually runs via your client's apartment and no one ever noticed. (In this case it turns out that decades ago, this was one giant apartment that was split as part of a divorce proceeding and then sold off separately)
You're describing the same plumber/electrician changing their estimate after getting more information. That's nearly the opposite of the dentist situation, where it's different dentists giving different estimates with the same information.
> Tell me you haven't worked in the trades without saying you haven't worked in the trades.
Tell me you missed the point without telling me you've missed the point.
Plumbers can give widely different estimates for the SAME job, with the same knowledge (initial or after finding out about all the asbestors, strange piping, and other issues).
Some plan for random bullshit beforehand, some milk you for each and every problem or change request, and some just mark up a "make it worth my time", e.g. if your installation is many decades old and they actually don't want the job or at least get comped very well for their trouble.
There are people who are loud about absolute free speech, who have no clue what that really means, and almost nobody really wants that. For example, because almost nobody wants it to affect them negatively, which it would with real absolute free speech.
So even when people "know", and can say what they "want", they don't really.
Yes, there is an "alignment" in society, but it's a messy, mushy thing, it's not great at all with deterministic machines, even as models are not deterministic in a different sense.
With Gamestop (without reflecting the current AI situation), there was a real fuckup which could be exploited with a high probability, and a few people saw it, and exploited it, and became rich. Whatever happened after January 2021 is the problem, when the short squeeze went already away, but somehow people still invest in a slowly dying company.
They've published several whitepapers and technical documentation on how the secure enclave works and it's been poked at by security researchers for years.
They have been. Through years of use, independent auditing, industry and government certification processes, and their Apple Security Research program.
This is a brand new product. Basically nothing what you wrote applies to it. Also, I cannot find any public independent audit result for this specific product. Heck, I couldn't find even a single one about any Apple products, what I found all of them said that they're not verification at all, and of course Apple never published anything related to these.
The situation AFAICT is something like this: the server mints unique download URLs which can only be used once. This is generally so they can't be shared. It serves the URL to the first comer and when that connection drops (maybe with some timeout) subsequent requests to that URL produce 410 Gone. So if your download fails halfway through, you can't re-request the same URL with a Range, which is how normal resumption works. You need to get a new one-time URL minted and download that.
So from the browser's perspective, these are two distinct, unrelated URLs. There isn't a mechanism where it can know they are backed by the same file.
This browser behavior seems pretty reasonable. I'd try fixing it by doing something different on the server.
reply