A group of us arrived in Sao Paulo on Thursday (before the course was scheduled to start on Monday) to begin configuring the machine -- downloading/transferring software and databases. We did not trust the internet, so we brought the stuff we needed on a laptop.

We got there thursday, to find out that despite a 6 month lead-time, the machine had not been delivered. Not only that, the weekend we planned to configure the machine, the power to the campus was scheduled to be shut off so that some of the 60+ year old infrastructure could be replaced (our host got a special dispensation to keep the power on in the building we were using). After many frantic calls, the machine was delivered around 5:00 pm on Friday. We worked frantically through the weekend, and managed to get a few things working, a few hours before our first computer lab. Fun times.

Perhaps the right title should be "No way to parse pathological edge cases in 'C'"

And then see how other languages do.

This is a common conservative trope. We don't need regulation because customers can always sue. (Famous interview with Milton Friedman.) Good luck finding a lawyer who will sue because of some glass in your soup can, or, for more serious cases, who can out last (or match the spending of) a billion dollar corporation. Yes, sometimes the underdog wins. Rich people can sue, and may not need the governments regulatory help. For most people, there is absolutely no recourse, particular for technically complex things, like prescription drugs.

The idea that the legal system can consistently make better informed technical decisions than government scientists is not well supported by the evidence.

But I’m comfortable arguing that where science intersects with policy, fraud plays a very minor role. I suspect that most policy “mistakes” (policies that were adopted and then reversed) are more about the need for a policy in the absence of data (covid and masks), or subtle tradeoffs (covid and masks), or a policy choice that seems slightly better than an alternative (mammography) but also has poorly understood harms. Policy involves politics, and science unfortunately plays less of a role than one might like (and fraudulent science an even smaller role). This is not my field, but I cannot think of policies that were reversed because of discoveries of fraud (perhaps thalidomide and other drug approvals).

Non-scientists often seem to think that if a paper is published, it is likely to be true. Most practicing scientists are much more skeptical. When I read a that paper sounds interesting in a high impact journal, I am constantly trying to figure out whether I should believe it. If it goes against a vast amount of science (e.g. bacteria that use arsenic rather than phosphorus in their DNA), I don't believe it (and can think of lots of ways to show that it is wrong). In lower impact journals, papers make claims that are not very surprising, so if they are fraudulent in some way, I don't care.

Science has to be reproducible, but more importantly, it must be possible to build on a set of results to extend them. Some results are hard to reproduce because the methods are technically challenging. But if results cannot be extended, they have little effect. Science really is self-correcting, and correction happens faster for results that matter. Not all fraud has the same impact. Most fraud is unfortunate, and should be reduced, but has a short lived impact.

I can certainly imagine that a very small fraction of Firefox users are generating these results, so that bit flips are not a problem generally.

Not everyone works on web sites using well-optimized libraries; some people need to know about N and Nlog(N) vs N^2.