How do they control for environmental influence and correlations between environments and particular genes? Can someone elaborate on the "new statistical methods" briefly mentioned in the article.
"All association studies were performed on individuals of European descent; standard quality control procedures included correcting for population stratification and filtering on minor allele frequency"
As you've described it, the consumer's "win" is determined by Amazon's competitors. Every private advantage Amazon has serves to undercut the profits a competitor would need to develop their own productivity gains. Those are the gains that would actually show up for consumers. How are they winning?
It can't be both? Isn't that the least comforting? Not that it proves anything; People often believe what they fear is true. All you need to know is that MKUltra existed. The people responsible were never brought to justice. Maybe some of you have loose morals but I could never join this shit.
That's a pretty lame exuse: if anything, OS integrated JIT engines are likely to be less secure, and a more diverse engine ecosystem makes attacks less attractive. Witness how JIT engines don't cause many problems (and never really have caused many problems) on desktop. Which isn't to say they're immune from security risks, just that there are lots of other components that pose just as many risks (or more), which are not (or cannot) be avoided - not least of which the first-party JIT.
Furthermore, many exploits don't care if their running on a JIT or on a scripting engine - that's an implementation detail. And if you really cared about security, you could design a verifiable native subset (as several systems have done) - webassembly shows that even slow standardization processes that need much more complicated cross-device compatibility can move meaningfully in that direction.
Disallowing non-first party JITs completely for security reasons is at best delusional, but more likely intentionally anti-competitive. Minor security bonuses are just gravy.
Also, as noted elsewhere in this thread, the App Store rules explicitly ban third-party browsing engines, so it doesn't help even if you go without a JIT entirely.
Yeah, but on the other hand there are only a handful of companies that make Browsers, and even fewer that make browser engines. The vendors could pay Apple to audit the codebases and it would be worth it to be on the platform.
My business is not your business. Privacy is not a business asset. It's a fundamental human need. Please ignore this comment though. I'm apparently a bot. I wonder how I ended up like that...
Please please please explain how that is inhibiting or restraining personal freedom. Or how it is inhibiting or preventing the expression or awareness of your thoughts or desires.
Oh, but you're expressing your thoughts and desires perfectly well though. You want someone else (not you, of course) to maintain Python 2 for you for the princely sum of of £0.00, so that you don't have to do any work on upgrading to Python 3.
And when the time finally comes around that those people, who have been maintaining Python 2 for many many years (for free), want to focus their efforts on an easier to maintain and more modern language that actually has a future they are repressing you?
>Oh, but you're expressing your thoughts and desires perfectly well though. You want someone else (not you, of course) to maintain Python 2 for you for the princely sum of of £0.00, so that you don't have to do any work on upgrading to Python 3.
That's how it works with programming language communities.
Not everybody is directly involved in maintaining the language, but the whole community has a stake (and a say) in the future of the language.
Furthermore, it's not just the core team that's responsible for the success of the language, but also the users and the companies that adopted it. Without those, Python would be some obscure toy language by a Dutch academic, and he wouldn't have a job in Dropbox etc.
There are lots of people that have been major contributors to Python's success, including large businesses that employed people like Guido, which also have concerns regarding the switch.
> That's how it works with programming language communities
Not always, python has a BDFL rather than a steering committee. But nonetheless it's the people who actually maintain the language who drive it forward.
> but the whole community has a stake (and a say) in the future of the language.
Comments like "the core team are repressing me by not updating 2.7" and random people making half-baked 2.8 releases don't help the future of the language.
Look, it's simple. Core team doesn't want to update Python 2.x anymore for a large number of good reasons. For some people (including you I assume) this isn't the decision you wanted.
But this decision was made years ago. Either move to a different language, update to Python 3 (again, you've had years of warning) or pay for a supported 2.7 version. Or just carry on using 2.7, it's supported until 2020.
Bitching about non-existent repression on hacker news archives squat.
So? For one, almost everybody I've read, even if they are OK with Python 3, say that that decision wasn't the best course the core team could have been taken.
Now, given that the decision has already been taken and followed through for 6+ years, should they now stick with it and see it through? It depends. There's no reason some of us should not just say "no" to that.
>Either move to a different language, update to Python 3 (again, you've had years of warning) or pay for a supported 2.7 version. Or just carry on using 2.7, it's supported until 2020.
Or you know, we can do all/either of those things, and still criticize Python 3 and try to get them to change course.
It would not prevent you from receiving updates, it would prevent you from receiving updates for free. You may of course pay somebody to update 2.7 for you. The Python Software Foundation never promised they would continue maintaining any release indefinitely, and it's unreasonable to expect them to do so. But in fact they are continuing to fix critical bugs even in 2.7, so they are being generous. Nobody is being blackmailed or repressed.
No, but it's reasonable to expect them to hear the concerns of the largest use base of Python, which is 2.x users - even if they decide not to follow them in the end.
Except if they just do it "for fun" and "for the sake of it" and could not care less for adoption or the community in general.
