In response to GP post, it's a valid concerns to programmers (to some extend to machine in form of AI/LLM code generation cost see ref [1]), and certainly we have nice things in programming language as D language aptly shows.
>Aspects of language design that are way more important are: the semantics, including type system, memory model, concurrency model, module system and so on; tooling; performance; FFI and OS interface; and lots of other things.
D have pretty much all of aspects of your main concerns and being much better than Rust and Go [1].
[1] Language Plasticity is More Important Than Ever:
It's not clear from the revised title either though. In fact I found it even more confusing. The issue is the ambiguity of the wording "with a two-stone handicap", not where it's located in the sentence.
Sir, have you considered a career in social networking engagement?
Edit: 10 years since i made the HN account and I only now notice you can't see the scores of other people's comments. Here's hoping the brilliance of the above comment is appreciated.
The problem is that "with a handicap" is in itself ambiguous. People sometimes use it positively, sometimes negatively. That is, you say that Shin had a two-stone handicap, that can in itself be understood as either "Shin was given an advantage of two stones over the AI" (the reality) or "Shin was playing with a disadvantage, giving the AI two extra stones" (the more common reading of "to have a handicap").
Handicaps can be positive, e.g. in fixed distance racing one way to handicap is to "give" a starting distance to the racers who are slower than the scratch racer; in this system a higher handicap is more of an advantage.
Since the AI was playing scratch (the normal, unmodified play style), it seems odd to say it had a handicap. Rather, the human had a positive handicap of two stones.
Youre just mixing up who has the handicap. The handicap gives starting distance to the slower racer, but its still the faster racer that has the handicap.
fwiw, as a native speaker, your revised version sounds wrong. I'm terrible at grammer, but i think it's because when you put the "with" early in the sentence, it acts as a preposition modifying the noun, where later in the sentence it acts as an adverbial phrase modifying the verb defeat. The handicap is describing the manner of the defeat and not a trait of the grandmaster, so the with has to go at the end of the sentence.
Or that at least is my guess as to why it sounds wrong.
>All our moral codes and social norms we live by are purely human invention, derived from things that happen to work to produce a somewhat functioning society.
Religious people would disagree, and the evidences are all to see, hear and ponder from their sacred holy books. But the main questions are that which holy books are truly sacred, meaning that purely and utterly God words. Otherwise it's human innovation/exaggeration or something in between (i.e corrupted God words).
Based on these holy books, religious people adhere and follow their prophets teachings and actions to the best of their ability since the prophets are their fellow human beings and not angels send from the heavens.
Just wondering on the reported accuracy of the SQL queries generated by SQL based on RAG. Reports have been not encouraging and also confirmed by these results but perhaps your methodology is different from these reports [1],[2],[3].
>On this benchmark, a pure LLM generated an accuracy score of zero. Adding RAG, prompt engineering, and agentic AI raised accuracy to the 10+% range.
[1] Any text-to-SQL benchmark should address difficulties of real-world data stores (acm.org) (21 comments):
Perhaps you can try DECT NR+ the new reincarnation of DECT and also backward compatible with the original DECT [1]. It can also do roaming.
It's under 5G standard but for non-cellular connectivity that means you can use it without base-station like Wi-Fi direct. It's geared toward IoT but its data rates are from 1 Mbps up to 1.3 Gbps depending on the operating frequency and the type of modulation being used [2].
[1] DECT NR+: A technical dive into non-cellular 5G (30 comnents):
For non-invasive heart disease risk prediction nothing beat ECG, period.
Somehow American Heart Association and its European counterpart are in denial, and still pushing dinasour screening mechanism with very low accuracy for heart disease risk prediction.
The standard risk model for CVD based on PREVENT (US) and SCORE-2 (Europe) like parameters are very poor as reported in the recently published paper on the their accuracy performance by the Swedish team [1]. As all CVD risk stratification with cardiologist review (expert-in-the-loop), the most important accuracy metric is sensivity/recall (avoiding false negative that will escape review) of PREVENT and SCORE-2, 26% and 48%, respectively.
The paper alternative proposal increased the sensitivity to 58% by performing clustering instead of conventional regression models as practiced in the PREVENT and SCORE-2.
These type of models including the latest proposal performed very poorly as indicated by their otherwise excellent and intuitive display of graphical abstract results [1].
[1] Risk stratification for cardiovascular disease: a comparative analysis of cluster analysis and traditional prediction models:
I'm not sure how ECG relates, how would ECG predict heart disease risk? I don't see any evidence of that, it's not even mentioned in the article you linked, which is odd considering the whole approach of clustering is gathering as many risk factors and relevant test results as are available.
That's the main contention point, believe it or not current standard for heart diseases risk prediction method do not include the 'elephant in the room' ECG.
There are many related research work with excellent results, patent, etc by biomedical researchers around the world that I'd care to mention, including yours truly. Biomedical researchers even has yearly global competition organized so called CINC that used ECG as one of the main input for heart disease risk prediction since it's readily available [1].
In particular check out work by Prof. Friedman on ECG [2]. Somehow his excellent work is mostly being ignored by AHA and their counterparts because apparently these standard risk prediction models in US and Europe are not including it as part of their parameters.
There are lots of different types of heart disease. An ECG can be useful for diagnosing some of them but you're overstating the relative value. For many patients, a CT coronary calcium score or CT angiogram may be more valuable in terms of detecting the type of arterial plaques that might require medical management or major lifestyle modifications in order to prevent a heart attack. These are also non-invasive, although they do involve some radiation exposure.
Having a CAC done is fairly cheap, ~$100 in the US. Insurance typically doesn’t cover it, but if anyone is concerned, it’s worth calling to set one up.
My dad’s doctor said he should get one, Medicare denied it, but he paid out of pocket to get one anyway. He found out he was 95% blocked pretty much everywhere and had a quadruple bypass. It likely added many years to his life and avoided a heart attack.
If you’re under a certain age (I want to say somewhere in your 50s), there isn’t any guidance for what normal is. If you’re in your 20s or 30s, I wouldn’t run out and get one. But if you’re in your 40s with a family history, or up into your 50s and beyond, it’s worth thinking about. I’ve also heard you’re only supposed to get them every 2-3 years, it’s not a yearly thing, due to the radiation.
There is a heart surgeon on YouTube / TikTok that has a couple of videos on this topic.
He says, without symptoms, never get a stent. Never get a bypass unless you have chest pains, shortness of breath, or other symptoms.
Lot of people have plugged up heart arteries. If it does not impact them, don't mess with them.
My story:
61 years old. excessive fatigue. echo cardiogram, no-exercise showed no issues. CT scan looked like a christmas tree. Heart Catheterization was unable to get into the vessels for stenting. Triple CABG a few days later.
The CT scan was easy, cheap (my insurance covered it), and fast. And it put me on path to get my heart fixed.
It was just added to the recommended screenings list and my doctor expects that insurance will cover it soon because of that. Still at under $100, it was well worth knowing that i don't need aggressive treatment. (Though a quadruple bypass beats a heart attack)
Then again, CAC measures end-stage calcified plaque, not the soft plaque it started as, equally clogged arteries but also able to break off to cause strokes until the body calcified it.
The time to take action is long before you have a CAC score. e.g. Start tracking ApoB regularly, see if you have genetic LPa exposure, and avoid the foods that increase your exposure while ignoring the grifters telling you it's a nonissue.
GP was talking about screening though, not diagnosis. Coronary angiography are specialized, expensive and require intravenous constrast. Doctors aren't going to order them for everyone who shows up for a routine consult.
Emphasis on non-invasive diagnostic screening as invasive testing like angiogram need to be operated by specialist and can take months to be arranged, and only done after incidents e.g heart attack.
ECG is excellent for generic top level CVD anomaly conditions for examples arrhythmia and ischemia.
CT scans cannot detect some of CVDs since it mainly cover the vascular vessels part of the CVD not the function of the cardio engine (heart). The test procedure is only recommended if someone has CVD symptoms but not for screening. In most of the countries it will take months to perform the procedures and get the results due the scarcity of the facilities and the severe shortage of the cardiologist to perform the diagnostic with ratio to population of around 1:100,000.
ECG is the only one technique that cover comprehensive CVDs screening and it's purely non-invasive (no injection necessary). If someone has blocked arteries or even genetically malform heart like Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) it will show in the ECG traces, that can be cross checked with other relevant CVD diagnostic techniques. The main problem is that the screening GP and even the cardiologist has trouble performing the correct interpretation. This is where advanced signal processing and analytics, ML, AI, etc can really help, but somehow the heart fraternity like AHA is very much still in denial on this matter.
Please check the short overview article from Prof. Friedman on ECG based CVD detection in my other comment, ironically commemorating on the 100 years of AHA.
> "And if you really care about your health you should do them every 3 months to catch problems early!"
When I moved to Houston just after law school, I found a doctor and made an appointment to get a routine physical exam; I hadn't had one since getting out of the Navy three years earlier.
Doctor: So what brings you here?
Me: A triennial physical exam.
Doctor (incredulously): You get a physical exam three times a year?
Huh? I get a blood panel every year and 90% of the things it looks for are normal year after year. But there is always 1 or 2 things flagged that I need to pay attention to.
An ECG if it was just part of the normal yearly panel of things that get looked at I don't think ppl will stop doing it just because it doesn't find something right away
Nobody said anything is worse. Half this thread is satire. But on a serious note. ECG is really time prohibitive, drawing 3ml of blood is relatively quick, and doesn't require specialist training like an ECG does.
This paper is.. not great. Their clusters and risk model were developed and validated on the same sample. There’s no train/test splitting, no cross-validation anywhere. As a result, all the performance metrics they report for their model are optimistically biased. The comparator models weren’t refit to this sample, either, so the comparison between their model and PREVENT et al. is really an internal validation versus an external validation, which isn’t apples-to-apples and disadvantages the existing models from the get-go.
You could say that it’s almost as if their model has a home-field advantage. Because of that fact alone, you can’t really conclude anything about the comparative performance of their models versus the existing ones from this paper.
Get as many scans you can under insurance. Data is king and Claude happens to chew it all pretty well. Apple Health data by itself and family history is enough to make a starter PDF for your cardiologist.
Getting an ECG, EKG, TTE, CAC, carotid duplex US, lipid panel, CMP, TSH, 25-OH Vit D, B12 + folate were what my cardio recommended before appointment #2 on hypertension. Both of us are data guys.
You don't even necessarily need insurance. Some of those tests you listed are pretty cheap so most people reading this can afford to pay out of pocket even if they're not covered by insurance.
That's a pretty broad question. If you could be more specific in terms of the test results, recommended medical intervention, and patient profile (location, age, income, disability status) then I might be able to point you in the right direction.
[1] Epigrams in Programming:
https://engineering.yale.edu/academic-study/departments/comp...
reply