ahhh, the old "I expect everyone to read my mind about extremely nuanced and specific things, and those who can't are idiots" mentality at play

Essentially this is a good example of parametrized tests, just supercharged with generated inputs.

So if you already have parametrized tests, you're already halfway there.

Yes, when I saw eg Golang people use table driven tests like this, I was wondering why nobody seems to have told them about generating these tables automatically..

correct, I've done this at past places to verify rules engine output for variety of inputs.

to be honest, you;'d have the same issues with that said magic wand and normalcy, because hearing aids do amplify sound and allow you to hear everythig.

You'd have the same issue, if not more, with background noise, group settings and context acquisition

Processing input is the hard part, if you're already having issues, that isn't going to go away

If they've been deaf from infancy, basically the entire hearing center of the brain is non-existent. So they'd be hearing sound, but processing it into meaningful content would not happen, if at all. So basically, its like having a cacophany of sound that you can't filter and process...

As for others, one thing hearing people, particularly monolingual hearing people, don't understand very well is that hearing != understanding. Just because you hear a sound doesn't automatically equate to it having meaning. The default for many people is to just SPEAK LOUDER and slower, which does not help in the vast majority of encounters

And rather than fix the issues with revocation, its being shuffled off to the users.

Good example of enshittification

can also be a linear algorithm that does N+1 queries. ORMs can be very good at hiding this implementation detail

> a linear algorithm that does N+1 queries.

That's what quadratic means.

Typically implemented accidentally: https://www.tumblr.com/accidentallyquadratic

No, N+1 is still linear.

Not really what they're talking about https://stackoverflow.com/questions/97197/what-is-the-n1-sel...

Car insurance in general is a race to the bottom with competition. A good quarter has 70% of incoming premium going out to settle claims.

When you have fender bender claims costing 20-40k USD to repair, how do you price that risk?

> When you have fender bender claims costing 20-40k USD to repair, how do you price that risk?

This is a solved problem. Ask any actuary who specializes in casualty insurance, or read a standard textbook about non-life insurance mathematics.

Shush, I want to see a YC25 auto insurance startup that uses a pile of overheated video cards as a crystal ball to make underwriting decisions.

most people buying specialty casualty insurance also have MUCH deeper pockets than even most people buying a cyber truck

Not really, car insurance rates need to go through alot of state level validation in order to be approved.

Other models are not considered insurable by GEICO as well. So likely small pool of policyholders + exorbiant claim payments == not worth the headache

Rivian is likely heading this way too, there's plenty of stories about a fender bending costing 42000 to fix

https://www.theautopian.com/heres-why-that-rivian-r1t-repair...

> Most of the material you can find is how to solve sudoku (the hello world of the space) or highly technical primary research literate meant exclusively for domain experts

Exactly. I was looking at using a sat solver for a rules engine and couldn't make heads or tails how to use it. After alot of deduction, got a basic POC working, but couldn't extend it to what was actually needed. But the gulf between toy implementations and anything more substantial was very large.

SAT is kind of the assembly language of constraint solving, using a higher level paradigm like CP/SMT/ASP should be easier.