Not sure what you are trying to say here... If you're talking about ReadText, first of all its not a startup and second there is only one none-intrusive text-only ad on top and no one forces you to see it, you're welcome to use uBlock or AdBlock if you wish :-)
> Try approaching them and saying: Hi! I would like to reserve two billion DOIs :)
If you've already registered a prefix with them (say it's 10.8888), then you have an essentially unlimited namespace of possible suffixes for forming DOIs. Representing two billion DOIs requires only 6 suffix digits in base 36.
as I recall first they were excited, then calmer heads prevailed and pointed out it was orders of magnitude more DOIs than they had minted since the beginning of time and they were not prepared to make a sudden jump, but they could do a tiny fraction for several times our entire grants budget.
Sorry, I have a bit of a cold so it all made sense to me.
"They" were a DOI representative. "We" were a research team working on a grant involving persistent resolvable identifiers. the "sudden jump" would be the difference from how many DOIs they were responsible for resolving (in 2012)
without any assigned to us v.s. to how many they would be responsible for if they did what we had asked.
> Is there an actual model of light based on his work?
Yes: classical electromagnetism. It's an outrageously successful model of how light behaves. It doesn't predict photons, but that doesn't mean it's not an "actual" model of light.
You can include photons by taking Maxwell's equations and doing something called second quantization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_of_the_electromag...). That gets you quantum effects that can explain behaviors like shot noise, but it misses things like photon-photon scattering. (Nonetheless, I would still call this an "actual" model of light.)
Then there is full-on quantum electrodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics), but that doesn't capture certain behaviors, like what happens to photons at the electroweak scale. But I would still call QED an "actual" model of light.
Even better, p-values should not be used at all. If I have data in hand, I want to use it to find out the probability that my hypothesis is true. But p-value analysis requires me to instead ask a different question that I don't really care about, involving whether my data are consistent with the null hypothesis.
Everything is just so much more sensible if you allow yourself to assign probabilities to hypotheses, rather than assuming a hypothesis from the outset and computing opaque statistics relating to your data.
There is in fact a probability attached to p-values. A p-value of 0.05 for instance means your conclusions will be wrong 5 out of 100 times. You can reduce the p-value to e.g. 0.001 or any other value you want.
No, it means that the probability of seeing an effect of that magnitude on a dataset of that size when the null hypothesis is true will happen due to random chance 5 out of 100 times. It says NOTHING about your hypothesis, it is entirely a statement about the null hypothesis.
If Markdown were around (and widely used) when MediaWiki was written, I imagine there would have been a push to use it as the markup language for MediaWiki.
I don't see MediaWiki markup as byzantine or archaic, except for whatever half-assed LaTeX processor they use. It seems to only recognize some random subset of features from various ams packages. Why they don't just use a fully-featured TeX distro is beyond me.
Wikipedia's talk page workflow (indenting to start a new comment, then inserting a special image to wrap around to the margin once too many indents have accumulated) is moronic.
This is not a "random alternate convention", it's a highly used convention that you aren't familiar with. I wasn't familiar with it, either, until I moved to the Silicon Valley. Now I see it all the time.
There exists a world of finance outside of Silicon Valley. M and MM to indicate thousands and millions are a finance convention, not an SV one, people in SV just happen to talk about finance a lot. Anyone in finance would be familiar with it, and given that the amount here is a dollar amount, the use seems perfectly fair.
I strongly suspect that the page's etymology is wrong -- or more precisely -- not entirely correct. The Latin word for "thousand" is mille, which why the numeral for a thousand is M.
No one would be so asinine to mix numeral systems. Same thing with percent, which originally was rendered as "per-cent", as in "per hundred".
I completely agree with you, while I know $40+mm means $40M it is only because of context, not because I actually parse it as "thousand thousand". In my mind mm is millimeter, even as an American.
HN is the only place I see this notation used.
The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.
You can install custom CSS somewhere in your .jupyter directory. Of course, this feature is undocumented and different from the analogous (documented) ipython feature.
"No."
Someone didn't think this law through...