Fingers crossed for Canada to be next.

It looks like Apple has still not applied in Canada as of March 2019 https://mobilesyrup.com/2019/03/21/health-canada-apple-apple...

I’m with you. I’ve been enjoying the Watch 4 for tracking my workouts and calorie burn heuristics and general heart rate. I’m interested to see the ECG results.

They were very open about the study and it needed a separate app to be installed https://med.stanford.edu/appleheartstudy.html

The feature is subject to approval process in each jurisdiction similar to FDA in US.

I think it it's more like someone locking your front door.

Occasionally I see a car with the window down, that someone appears to have parked and left mistakenly accessible. When I was younger I'd have opened the door and wound the window up (checking for pets and other occupants obvs). Now, I leave the car alone because if someone comes back at the wrong moment it just looks like you're breaking in.

The HyperLogLog was a very nice article, but I wanted to ask, is this related to the estimation of Naci tanks during WW2 by Allies? https://www.wired.com/2010/10/how-the-allies-used-math-again...

The German Tank Problem guesses the size of a set, given a limited sample and successive serial numbers. If they had randomized the serial numbers it wouldn't have worked.

HyperLogLog is different because you have the entire population (not just a sample), and it's a multiset (the same element can appear more than once). Getting the size of a (non-multi) set is easy, you just keep a counter and increment it for each element; it only takes enough memory to maintain the counter. Counting the distinct members of a multiset takes a lot more memory because you have to remember whether you've already seen a particular element or not.

The tl;dr is that the German Tank Problem is about making an estimate of size when you have imperfect information, and HyperLogLog gives you an estimate when you have perfect information, but it's too expensive to make an exact calculation.

Well in the article is a photo of Ted so I think they assumed no description was needed.

I think this has to do with types. In what you propose the returned type for primitive types (int, ...) would always be `Nullable<T>` and you would have to cast them to get the type `T`.

In many cases you can guarantee that the sub-property is not null and you can safely access the value. I think the proposed operator `.?` is the perfect solution and gives you the flexibility to decide what you can guarantee and how you want to access the sub-property.

I don't think you should involve nullables ,the compiler would simply rewrite to check if link in the chain is null and then assign to null.

But value types are a good point, either it could then set it to default(T) or not set it at all, but it kinda has to be default(T) because null makes most sense for reference types. Might give some unexpected behavior if it variables are set to 0 because of a null reference

Specifically here http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?st=grid&co=prok