Aside from the obvious bit size changes (e.g. i8 -> i16 -> i32 -> i64, or f32 -> f64), there is no "hierarchy" of types. Not all ints are representable as floats. u64 can represent up to 2^64 - 1, but f64 can only represent up to 2^53 with integer-level precision. This issue may be subtle, but Rust is all about preventing subtle footguns, so it does not let you automatically "promote" integers to float - you must be explicit (though usually all you need is an `as f64` to convert).
> Aside from the obvious bit size changes (e.g. i8 -> i16 -> i32 -> i64, or f32 -> f64), there is no "hierarchy" of types.
Depends on what you want from such a hierarchy, of course, but there is for example an injection i32 -> f64 (and if you consider the i32 operations to be undefined on overflow, then it’s also a homomorphism wrt addition and multiplication). For a more general view, various Schemes’ takes on the “numeric tower” are informative.
Virgil allows the maximum amount of implicit int->float injections that don't change values and allows casts (in both directions) that check if rounding altered a value. It thus guarantees that promotions and (successful) casts can't alter program behavior. Given any number in representation R, promotion or casting to type N and then casting back to R will return the same value. Even for NaNs with payloads (which can happen with float <-> double).
For those who are curious, `...` is a placeholder value in Python called Ellipsis. I don't believe it serves any real purpose other than being a placeholder. But it is an object and it implements `__eq__`, and is considered equal to itself. So `...==...` evaluates to `True`. When you prefix a `True` with `-`, it is interpreted as a prefix negation operator and implicitly converts the `True` to a `1`, so `-(...==...)` is equal to `-1`. Then, you add another prefix `-` to turn the `-1` back into `1`.
`--(...==...)--(...==...)` evaluates to `2` because the first block evaluates to 1, as previously mentioned, and then the next `-` is interpreted as an infix subtraction operator. The second `-(...==...)` evaluates to `-1`, so you get `1 - -1` or `2`.
When chaining multiple together, you can leave off the initial `--`, because booleans will be implicitly converted to integers if inserted into an arithmetic expression, e.g. `True - -1` -> `1 - -1` -> `2`.
> There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
This article is obviously completely tongue-in-cheek, but I feel the need to point out that this sentence is not meant to be a complete inversion of the Perl philosophy of TIMTOWTDI. The word "obvious" is crucial here - there can be more than one way, but ideally only one of the ways is obvious.
excellent explanation, to add to this since I was curious about the composition, '%c' is an integer presentation type that tells python to format numbers as their corresponding unicode characters[1] so
is the expression being evaluated here after you collapse all of the 1s + math formatting each number in the tuple as a unicode char for each '%c' escape in the string corresponding to its place in the tuple.
I've personally always thought of the Dirac delta function as being the limit of a Gaussian with variance approaching 0. From this perspective, the Heaviside step function is a limit of the error function. I feel the error function and logistic function approaches should be equivalent, though I haven't worked through to math to show it rigorously.
All these would be infinitely close in the nonstandard characterization. I just picked logistic because it was easy and step is discontinuous so it shows off the approach’s power. If I started with delta instead I would have done Gaussian and integrated that and ended up with erf.
It is, in a way. The whole point of distributions is to extend the space of functions to one where more operations are permitted.
The limit of the Gaussian function as variance goes to 0 is not a function, but it is a distribution, the Dirac distribution.
Some distributions appear in intermediate steps while solving differential equations, and then disappear in the final solution. This is analogous to complex numbers sometimes appearing while computing the roots of a cubic function, but not being present in the roots themselves.
I've been experiencing this exact issue in the US. Lately a medical issue of mine has been getting worse, and the earliest I can see a new PCP is in May 2025. I managed to get a referral to a specialist by visiting urgent care, but they referred me to a different specialist, and I won't be able to see the latter until late January 2025. Meanwhile my medical issue is continuing to get worse, and I have no one I can talk to about it. I'm looking into alternative options but things are looking bleak. I'm probably going to have to go out-of-network and drive 2 hours to find a doctor that has wait times on the order of weeks (as opposed to the in-network providers, that have wait times on the order of months).
> I won't be able to see the latter until late January 2025
Where are you? This is unusual.
In America, the "average wait time for a [cardiologist, dermatologist, og/gyn, orthopedic surgery or family medicine] appointment for the 15 large metro markets surveyed in 2022 is 26.0 days" [1]. In Canada, the "median national wait time 1 was 78 days," with wait ime "defined as the period between a patient’s referral by a family physician to a specialist and the visit with said specialist" [2].
Broadly speaking, American medical wait times are quite good, particularly for specialists [3]. But PCPs/capita vary greatly from state to state [4].
I've seen this too, in the northeast US. I didn't go to our family doctor of 10+ years for 18 months during COVID-19. When I called for a new appointment, they said I had was no longer a patient and had to wait at least 90 days for an appointment to address a painful condition. I still haven't gone back, and now I just use urgent care if needed.
I had similar problems with a specialist. Their appointments are typically six months out, and if you need something more urgent, the answer is "sorry that's all we can do." My last actual appointment, after the ~six-month wait, was a simple 15-minute telehealth visit. It's insane.
I have great insurance and I've never had any problem paying. It's amazing to me that doctors seem to really push back against having patients, or their patients having appointments. Isn't this how they make money? What kind of weird market effect incentivizes this behavior?
It's interesting that dentists and oral surgeons seem to be the opposite. I've never had a problem finding one and they usually seem welcoming, happy to help, and glad to have the business.
Every doctor I personally know is double booked at least a substantial portion of every single day. They count on last minute cancellations and no shows just like airlines do in order to maintain their schedules.
Making friends with folks in the medical field is eye opening to say the least. The system is operating redlined and has been since before Covid. Covid just caused the fractures to finally start showing to the average person.
The real thing coming for us is that every doctor I know other than some specialists are simply counting down the days until they can leave the field of direct patient care entirely. Whether this be early retirement, paying off student debt and bouncing, or making a lateral move to research or a tech firm. The field has gotten to be untenable for many, typically the ones who actually care. The profession as a whole has lost its personal agency to the administrative class. It’s not idle talk either - plenty have actually already executed on these plans.
>The profession as a whole has lost its personal agency to the administrative class.
This has happened all across the American economy, in every business, every industry, every company.
My father was a grocery store manager for decades. He retired and went to be a contractor for a decade. The grocery chain recently tempted him back, by offering him top position (over other candidates, who kinda deserved the position, but that's just how much this company loved my dad, he was literally legendary in the company) in their "show off store" which they had purchased to scoop up the location from a competitor that they want to keep out of the market (yay capitalism) and spent millions to completely re-roof, rebuild, redesign as their premier location, to be used exclusively to lose money in a busy market, to show off for the C-Suite, and to shoot commercials in. My father was clearly super excited to get back to the company, to get back to management which he is very good at, and to get stable health insurance.
He gave up after a few months. Everything is that kind of awful "automated" that any software developer could immediately recognize, with KPIs and useless metrics created by someone inexplicably above you who has zero familiarity with what those KPIs even measure.
No more agency for lower management. Just shut up and follow the whims of the useless nepo-baby who runs your division as it continuously fails to do anything.
It is really frustrating but I've found that most doctors and hospitals have two systems. One for new or very infrequent patients. One for established or regular patients. The latter gets appointments fairly quickly in most cases.
It is rather messed up but One Medical (now owned by Amazon) and a few other services can be worth the money because they have access to the fast track appointment line.
I only know this because after many many months of searching for a primarily care doctor and waiting for an appointment I was told about this. New patient scheduling for my doc is months out. If I email and ask if I can come in next week they always say how about tomorrow/the next day?
Right, we have a shortage of physicians and the problem will only get worse as the population grows older and sicker. The first thing we need to do is get Congress to increase funding for residency programs in order to eliminate that bottleneck.
I think it's likely simply gotten worse since those studies.
A friend of mine needed a specialist. She called multiple offices across two different states, and the soonest appointment available was about 4 months out.
Four or five years ago, we didn't typically see wait times like that.
I believe most of the offices she called actually required referrals for all initial appointments (regardless of insurance), so I don't think that's a factor here.
OP is correct in my anecdotal experience. I live in a large urban area and wait time for PCP is several months out. Even longer for Women's health as I hear from my partner.
I don't remember it being this bad in the past. Perhaps things have changed in the several years since those publications were published.
> I don't remember it being this bad in the past. Perhaps things have changed in the several years since those publications were published.
There's an analogous pattern happening in clinical trials that I suspect is related: there has been a consolidation by private equity[0].
There are several reasons for this, but the gist of it is that pharmas have moved much of the actual work of running large clinical trials to contract research orgs (CROs) and the cost of recruiting patients for trials, training staff, records keeping, and administering the trial becomes out of reach for small independent sites where clinical trials are executed. It's also more efficient on the sponsor side to interface with one large entity rather than several small entities.
I suspect that the increasing demands of technology and burden of records keeping in both clinical trials and health insurance makes it difficult for small independent sites to operate profitably. So what happens is that many small, independent offices end up joining a larger entity that can consolidate some of the "system level complexity" more efficiently. The tradeoff is that it's no longer about the doctor-patient relationship; it's about efficiency and profits.
I also suspect that part of it is that PE realizes that consolidation lets them control prices. If they can control a network of trial sites, then they have more power to negotiate rates with sponsors and CROs for each patient they sign up to the trial. The bigger the network, the greater their leverage. I think this probably also holds true for healthcare and insurance providers in general.
I live just outside a large urban area, and my wait time for a PCP is weeks if I agree to see their PA (the PCP will review all findings anyway), or days if I put myself on their cancellation list. Maybe try calling around just outside of your urban area.
Is it? That's pretty normal in my part of the US, and that's assuming you already have a PCP. If you don't, then finding one that's accepting patients can take much, much longer.
> Is it? That's pretty normal in my part of the US
Are you in a state with a shortage of PCPs [1]? If so, yes. But most Americans aren't in those states, and in at least a few of them the harm is closer to a political choice than an oversight.
I have heard the same comments from people in states all across the nation. It may very well be that it's a minority of states (I don't know), but it's certainly a very substantial portion of the population that's affected.
I'm not asserting that what I've experienced, seen, and heard represents the majority experience. As I mentioned, I don't know. But it's not exactly a rare experience.
> In America, the "average wait time for a [cardiologist, dermatologist, og/gyn, orthopedic surgery or family medicine] appointment for the 15 large metro markets surveyed in 2022 is 26.0 days" [1].
I want to point out the important missing fact there that the "America average" time tells you nothing about variance across geography, specialty, or patient population, and you really need to at the very least look further down at the charts where they talk about shortest and longest times in the different cities and specialties.
For instance I see Boston's longest 2022 time for family medicine is 136 days, average 40 days. And Massachusetts is one of the top states on your list for PCPs per capita. At least that's better than 2017 where the longest time was "fuck you, get rekt, lmao".
Connecticut. Everything is like this here. I have genuinely considered moving because of this. My current employer has another location in California, and as much as I hate the idea of moving back there, it might be necessary for my own physical well-being.
Wait times for certain types of appointments are just as long in much of California. But the variance is huge, so it could be better (or worse) depending on exactly where you go and which providers are in your health plan network.
Sometimes a doctor is available but crappy scheduling software hides that.
I got a small scratch from a squirrel and since it did cause a little blood to appear I figured better safe than sorry and went to Kaiser's site to make an appointment with my PCP.
They had nothing for a few weeks.
So I changed to requesting an appointment with any doctor at the same facility. It then gave me an appointment with my PCP for the next day at 9 am.
I've seen similar problems with vaccine scheduling using their web site. It will sometimes only show appointments at a bigger Kaiser facility in the next town, or an even bigger one 30 minutes away.
But if I actually go in and talk to the people at the front desk at the Kaiser office in my town they can often make me an appointment at that facility.
As it should be. One of the few levers we have to control costs across the healthcare system is shifting much of routine primary and urgent care to PA/NP practitioners. I understand that might mean a loss of quality in some cases (have been on the receiving end of that myself) but we'll have to lower our expectations and be content with good enough.
I'm in Oregon - in the Portland metro area - and a cardiologist appointment for me was about 3 months, neurologist about 4 months, and sleep lab 3 months. My PCP is usually a 1-3 weeks wait, but sometimes I get lucky and he's available in like 2 days.
In my experience it depends on the speciality you need.
If you need to see an Otolaryngologist (ENT), you might be able to get an appointment within a few weeks. If you need to see an Endocrinologist, it might be 4-6 months.
I had this issue due the consolidation of medical networks.
Luckily I have a BlueCross PPO. So I’ll get fast access to a specialist in NYC in Boston then transfer the records back to the local dude if needed. My wife had an issue with a complication, and I found a doctor who was a contributor to a major study on it and we got treated by him. Epic makes managing this trivial.
It’s the best of both worlds, but only if you have the privilege of legacy insurance and PTO.
If you think it’s worth it, you can fly to a few places in East Asia or Southeast Asia where you can see a medical specialist in private hospitals on the same day, especially if arranged a couple of days in advance.
These include Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.
The quality of care in these private hospitals is usually high as well.
For some cases, the costs in more affordable locations among the above—even after including economy flights—could be cheaper than treatment in the US.
I visited an international hospital in Saigon to have a skin infection drained and cleaned and bandaged. I remember them charging me around $14. Strange, as surely the nurse used more than $14 in PPE and bandages.
International hospitals in Singapore and Malaysia will be more normally priced, but still a small fraction of what you'd spend in USA.
I live in Asia. I can see any specialist within the week, and if it is urgent, possibly that evening. I needed surgery once and they told me to come back at 6pm, the same day.
It's half-half. The kernel is c++, but it is small relative to the overall OS which is predominantly use space. Growth in rust far outpaces c++ so in a few years c++ will likely be a much smaller fraction. Also, notably, starnix is entirely written in rust.
No, just download the source and check. It's 14M C/C++ and 4M in Rust. There is another 3.3M in Go and 1.1 in Dart. This is a usual trope that Rust is just about to replace C++ but in fact more and more gets written in C++.
A lot of what you're seeing is third party dependencies, not code fuchsia developers have written. A lot of that is third party code is also dead and isn't compiled into anything (like mesa). If you do a more detailed analysis of what ends up in an actual fuchsia image, it'll look a bit more like 50/50 (and that's close to what you get if you just remove the third_party/ directory). It would be strange on fuchsia to start on a new project and choose c++ over rust these days. Most critical components of the os including filesystems, network stack, linux emulation layer, init system, etc are all rust. Things which are not are likely to be rewritten in rust eventually.
Go and dart are basically gone from the system as well. Go is only used in the legacy netstack which has been displaced by one written in rust, and is otherwise only used in host tools for building fuchsia. I believe dart is almost gone, with a few remnants left in the form of build tools. Flutter does support fuchsia (and that is dart), but that support is not maintained in a fuchsia repo.
I mean, the sentence "The first actual case of a bug being found" implies that "bug" was already being used in the context of a malfunctioning computer. Otherwise, why would they write it?
This confirms that vx-underground is aware of the claim, and that it likely leaked from them, but they are very explicitly not verifying the claim. It doesn't seem particularly verifiable at the moment.
I saw some folks on Twitter pointing out that "TatetheRailsman" is likely a typo of "TatetheTalisman", which is Tristan Tate's (Andrew Tate's brother) account. Weird that it would be typo'd in their list of protected users. I also don't really buy this from a technical perspective. Why on okta? Why is the list of users and keywords so short? Why is everything a screenshot?
It's not a false dichotomy, the article is very clearly about whether the harm reduction benefits (which clearly exist) outweigh the public health risks (which also clearly exist).
And, of course, there's nuance to that question. It's not like our only options are to keep the status quo or ban vapes entirely. One of the ideas presented in the article is to ban flavored vapes, since that's one of the main points of attraction to non-smokers (especially children), and non-flavored (or tobacco-flavored) vapes will still be viable alternative to smokers.
Problem with vapes is they are too inexpensive and you don't have to light a new one every now and then so there are people who are vaping almost without pause all day long.
I know a smoker who ended up increasing his own addiction because of that and went back to cigarettes, smoking more than he used to.
