TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Critiqued coronavirus simulation gets thumbs up from code-checking efforts

15 点作者 tanh将近 5 年前

4 条评论

seesawtron将近 5 年前
I am not sure if it&#x27;s a thumbs up when they said the code was &#x27;horrible&#x27; and &#x27;buggy mess&#x27;. Key points to note:<p>The authors reason that they had to adapt an older version of the simulations code and hence did not have time to write everything from scratch. I think we have all been there.<p>Reproducibility doesn&#x27;t imply that the underlying model assumptions were free from flaws. As Taleb pointed out in another talk, &quot;It was wrong to use point-estimates for distributions with heavy tails&quot;<p>The lead author Neil Ferguson was unfortunately caught up in another controversy where he left his house during lockdown measures to meet his &quot;married lover&quot;. He had to resign from some of his positions but this shouldn&#x27;t affect the research work he published.
评论 #23491648 未加载
jgalt212将近 5 年前
This article is all you have to know about the man who is more responsible than any other for the &quot;shut down the world&quot; strategy (which he thought did not apply to him).<p>Coronavirus: Prof Neil Ferguson quits government role after &#x27;undermining&#x27; lockdown.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;uk-politics-52553229" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;uk-politics-52553229</a>
dr_dshiv将近 5 年前
It&#x27;s a strange but good example of the effects of AI on society.<p>It tells me that we are far away from being able to produce models that incorporate and aim to optimize a broader notion of human wellbeing.
rurban将近 5 年前
The criticism was mainly on the wrong model and wrong data, not the code quality. A good model must be robust and verifiable, this is neither robust nor verifiable. Just compare it to a good model, like the Göttingen model with Bayes inference, which successfully predicted results two weeks into the future. Multiple times. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;science.sciencemag.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;early&#x2F;2020&#x2F;05&#x2F;14&#x2F;science.abb9789.full" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;science.sciencemag.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;early&#x2F;2020&#x2F;05&#x2F;14&#x2F;scie...</a><p>Ferguson&#x27;s model was always exponentially wrong, you can even say catastrophically wrong given the economic costs.<p>Nature still defending this catatrophy, interesting. So they also switched to non- science, supporting politics. The political angle is that they want to suppress extreme right-wing shifts as after the last such political&#x2F;economical crisis 1930, caused by fatefully wrong political decisions. As they happened after and because of the Ferguson study.