Taking this as an earnest question—no, I don’t get that sense from that word. To me it describes the direction of an error, not the error itself.
It’s a thing you’d prefer to avoid, sure; but some degree of prognostic uncertainty is totally routine (in fact I would call that definitional: no predictions are truly certain until they’ve come to pass, and by the time that happens it’s usually too late to act). It’s not “bad” any more than mortality is “bad”—it just is, whether or not we wish it were; wisdom lies in managing it as best you can.
In the sense that the gp used the word, I think they allude to a tradeoff: you can reduce the probability of an underestimate by increasing the probability of an overestimate. I took their comment to imply that it would be wiser to risk an overestimate than to risk an underestimate on questions of “can Chinese society achieve a massive goal on a tight timeframe if their leadership decides it’s important.”
No I get what the GP meant. Your comment sounded like a triviality from Lapalisse a bit, because I cannot think of any occurrence where underestimating something is a good thing. Bit like “15 min before my death I will be alive”. But Lapalisse too didn’t mean it literally, he just wanted it to sound like that, it seems it’s what you did.
How do you decide which were the 2% that tipped the scale? Could have been the 18-22 years old too, no? Could have been any cohort, it’s a mathematical fallacy to pretend otherwise I feel.
It would be great if someone had compiled some data (with sources) on home routers based on release dates and date of last firmware update received. That could be translated into a “sw sustainability index” for home router vendors which I believe would be useful.
Finally. I was wondering how long it would take them. For scanned documents with OCR, it makes a lot of sense. At same quality you get significantly smaller files, especially when looking at above 300dpi.
JPEG keep getting extensions like ultra HDR (which really is a hack more than anything else), XYB JPEG (significantly higher compression efficiency than classic jpeg), but all of these habe very limited support tbh, hence introducing jpeg xl seems more logical.
The only downside of jpeg xl to me is that it doesn’t support gain maps (yet?[1]). Without gain map, you have limited control over how the SDR image looks like, which can be very problematic in environments where you don’t know what the hardware presenting the image will be in the end.
But the list of upsides is so long:
* higher bit depth
* native HDR (no hack)
* better compression (still better than xyb jpeg, at high resolutions, the difference becomes huge)
* Bit depth independence (ok, that’s better compression again, I admit)
* Better at Multispectral/hyperspectral imagery with lots of sub-images.
It is becoming the preferred format on so many levels:
* iPhones use it’s encoding (not the file format itself) in its RAW files.
* Medicine scanners are starting to use it (and that’s not really an area that is fast moving when it comes to software…)
* now pdf (also not really known for being a break-neck-evolution environment…)
* Safari supports it as well
I really do not understand why it’s taking so long for Chromium. I do believe they will support it at some point, as jxl-rs [2] is progressing, but really, it already took too long.
no, if people have 1 kid per woman for generations, then the ratio between young and old will remain the same, we will just get less and less people overall.
Seeing that actually the number of kid per woman is not stable but actually dropping worldwide, the ratio between old and young will get even worse than it is today.
This phenomenon has many many causes, and does not represent any statistic on a parents caring for their kids. It is ludicrous you would think so. Please provide at least one study that shows some form of causality.
lots of developing countries have way stronger communities. in these places you can raise your kids in a more "free-range" style and nobody will give you shit about that.
agreed, they collectively care more, would be my view. In many neighborhoods in the US, people only care about themselves, no one else. They don’t even know their neighbors.
reply