标签：#Science

I recently calibrated a recovery-rate model that had only two weak features. Its point accuracy was almost nothing — R² basically zero. I expected its uncertainty estimates to be junk too. They weren't: the 90% conformal prediction intervals covered ~89% of held-out outcomes. Valid, just wide . That surprised me enough to nail it down, because it contradicts a belief a lot of us carry around: "my model isn't accurate, so I can't trust its uncertainty." For split conformal prediction, that's backwards. Here's the precise statement, a runnable demo, and the one caveat that actually bites. Coverage is a property of the procedure, not the model Split conformal prediction gives a distribution-free, finite-sample marginal coverage guarantee : P( Y ∈ Ĉ(X) ) ≥ 1 − α and it holds for any point model, as long as the calibration and test data are exchangeable. The model is a black box. You fit it however you like, then on a held-out calibration set you take the (1−α) quantile of the absolute residuals, and that quantile becomes the half-width of your intervals. Nowhere does that construction require the model to be good. A bad model just has large residuals, so the calibration quantile is large, so the intervals are wide — wide enough to still cover at the stated rate. Accuracy doesn't buy you validity ; it buys you efficiency (narrower intervals at the same coverage). The demo (numbers are reproducible, seed fixed) Same dataset and target, three models from strong to useless, target coverage 90%: model R² marginal coverage mean interval width gradient boosting 0.741 0.895 5.39 weak linear (1 noisy feature) 0.061 0.905 10.39 predict-the-mean −0.000 0.907 10.83 All three land at ~90% coverage. The only thing that changes is width: the good model's intervals are half as wide . That's the whole story in one table — validity is constant, efficiency tracks accuracy. import numpy as np from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingReg

Elsewhere, beyond-classical quantum hardware, plus classical computing fires back.

Why Your Chinese-Tenured Faculty Resume Won’t Work in US Industry US data scientist hiring managers scan a resume in 7–15 seconds looking for one thing: evidence you can solve business problems with data. A Chinese faculty resume often leads with tenure status, publication counts, and grant amounts—none of which translate to industry value. Worse, the CV-style length and Chinese-specific qualifications (e.g., “Professor of Record,” “National Natural Science Foundation PI”) confuse HR software and recruiters unfamiliar with that system. You need to strip the academic frame and rebuild around what a US data scientist does: clean messy data, build predictive models, deploy to production, and communicate results to non-technical stakeholders. Think of every faculty achievement as raw material you must reframe. Core Rewriting Rules: From Academic to Industry Rule 1: Replace Tenure Rank with a US-Equivalent Data Science Title Do not list “Tenured Associate Professor” unless it is your most recent position at a well-known university (e.g., Peking University, Tsinghua). Instead, use a title that reveals your function: “Senior Data Scientist – Research Computing” or “Lead Data Scientist – Machine Learning Research Lab.” The point is to signal the job function, not the academic rank. Example: Before: “Tenured Associate Professor, School of Computer Science, Fudan University” After: “Senior Data Scientist / Research Lead, Fudan University AI Lab” Rule 2: Translate Every Accomplishment into a Business-Relevant Metric Chinese faculty resumes often say “published 15 papers in top-tier journals” or “secured ¥3M in research funding.” That means nothing to a hiring manager at a fintech startup. Instead, describe what you did with the data and the outcome. Concrete example – before and after: BEFORE (faculty bullet): “Led research project on deep learning for medical image segmentation; published 3 papers in IEEE TMI.” AFTER (industry data scientist bullet): “Built and validated a co

Jackery is jumping on the fridge-battery trend with what it says is the "world's slimmest." FridgeGuard also looks nice; a break from power stations that tend to look more at home at a job site than the kitchen or living room. Measuring just 2.63 inches (67mm) thick, the Jackery FridgeGuard power station is meant to […]

Temperatures have climbed up to 45 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, stopping ice from forming in the dead of Antarctic winter.

Transferring genes across species doesn't just happen in microbes.

Warm weather has fueled a bloom that National Park Service workers are trying to kill using everything from hydrogen peroxide to nanobubbles ahead of July 4 celebrations.

Legal victories have dampened the Trump admin’s efforts to halt wind and solar power.

Designers are finding sustainable building solves close to home—in ancient practices and cutting-edge innovations alike.

WIRED surveyed readers on their housing costs. The answers paint a stark portrait of unaffordability, climate adaptation, and the death of the homeowner dream.

A new, AI-assisted model of insurance is quietly exploding in disaster-prone areas—and may be coming for FEMA too. Is it the answer to climate change, or a trap?

In a bid to dismiss a lawsuit over xAI’s polluting gas turbines, the Justice Department claimed the company is integral to military operations—including the Iran War.

Isar Aerospace is not hurting for money, but it is sorely lacking in the currency of flight experience.

Will the Sun roast Earth’s plants or starve them?

A new report warns that Miami, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Dallas, and Houston could be particularly hot places to play during the 2026 World Cup.

Started looking for a tourism dataset on Kaggle for a new project. Found one with real UNWTO data, but it only went up to 2022 — not enough for what I wanted (post-COVID trends). Then found a better-looking one: "Global Tourism & Travel Trends (2019-2024)," 24 upvotes, great coverage range. Almost picked it on the spot. Then I actually read the full description. Turns out it's synthetic — 10,000 generated records, not real recorded stats. Had to rename the whole project: from "Travel Recovery Analysis" to "Travel Behavior & Satisfaction Trends (2019-2024)" — same dataset, just honest framing. Still great for practice: 33 features, zero nulls, covers spend, satisfaction, eco-choices, transport modes. Anyone else ever almost build a project around the wrong assumption about their data? 👀

University of Leicester historian thinks Eilmer of Malmesbury saw two different comets: in 1018 and 1066

Every backend engineer has seen this happen, you build an application on a relational database like MySQL, handling thousands of concurrent transactions effortlessly. Then, the business asks for a real time analytics dashboard. But when you run an aggregation query over historical data, suddenly the database that effortlessly managed live traffic starts thrashing, evicting your working set, and dragging application performance down. This isn't a tuning problem, a missing index, or a badly written query. It’s a fundamental architectural collision. OLTP (Online Transaction Processing) OLTP encompasses nearly every concurrent digital interaction triggered across a distributed system. A user downloading a PDF, a microservice firing an automatic maintenance log, a comment on a social feed these are all transactions. Data engineers rely on OLTP systems (like MySQL or PostgreSQL) to capture these concurrent streams of interactions for creating , updating and deleting records. The Tree Based In-Place Engine To reliably capture massive volumes of transactions without corrupting data or locking up the application, OLTP systems rely on a highly optimized, row oriented architecture built around the B+ Tree. Because they must provide immediate, atomic updates to existing records, transactional databases manage state through a strict sequence of physical tree traversal and in-memory page mutation: The B+ Tree Indexing: When a transaction reads or updates id: 1, the engine traverses a B+ Tree from the root, through the branch nodes, directly to the specific physical leaf node holding that row. This O(\log n) traversal guarantees a fast, isolated point-lookup. It ensures the application always hits the single version of the row without scanning irrelevant data. The Buffer Pool & In-Place Updates: OLTP systems perform in place updates. The database pulls the exact page containing id: 1 from the physical disk into memory (the Buffer Pool). The specific row is mutated directly in RAM

I've been going through Jim Kurose's networking lectures lately, and I kept finding myself pausing to re-read the same sections. Not because they were confusing - because things I'd been using for years were finally clicking into place. This post is me writing down what I learned, in the order it started making sense. Before HTTP, there's a webpage A webpage isn't one file. When you open a URL, your browser fetches a base HTML file - and that file references other objects. Images. Scripts. Stylesheets. Each one lives at its own URL. Each one has to be fetched separately. So loading a single "page" might mean firing off 20+ individual requests. This detail matters because the entire evolution of HTTP - from 1.0 to 3 - is basically the story of making those 20 fetches faster. HTTP runs on TCP. That has consequences. HTTP doesn't manage its own connections. It hands that job to TCP. When your browser wants something, it first opens a TCP connection to the server (port 80 for HTTP, 443 for HTTPS), and then asks for the object. Opening a TCP connection isn't free. It takes a round-trip - your machine says "hello," the server says "hello back," and then you can actually talk. That's one RTT(Round Trip Time) just to shake hands, before a single byte of your webpage arrives. So every HTTP request carries at least 2 RTTs of overhead: 1 to open the TCP connection, 1 for the actual request/response. Do that 20 times and you've spent 40 RTTs before the page renders. HTTP/1.0 vs HTTP/1.1: one change that mattered a lot HTTP/1.0 (non-persistent): open a TCP connection, fetch one object, close the connection. Repeat for every object. HTTP/1.1 (persistent): open a TCP connection, fetch as many objects as you need, then close. The server leaves the connection open after each response. That one change cuts subsequent fetches from 2 RTTs to 1 RTT each. For a page with 20 objects, that's real time saved - not microseconds, but hundreds of milliseconds that users actually feel. What an

President Donald Trump says a secret mission moved 100 million barrels of oil through the blocked Strait of Hormuz. That number is impossible to verify.