Nick Maclaren wrote: > The word "better" is emotive and inaccurate. Such calculations are > numerically meaningless, and merely encourage the confusion between > consistency and correctness. There is a strong sense in which giving > random results between -1 and 1 would be better. I did, of course, mean more consistent (and yes, random consistent results would be "better" by this definition and indeed I would prefer that over inconsistent but more accurate results ;-) Cheers, - Andreas
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4