<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Mean estimation and regression under heavy-tailed distributions--a survey · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1906.04280/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1906.04280/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Mean estimation and regression under heavy-tailed distributions--a survey — mentioned by maxov</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24254284</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1906.04280:24254284</guid><pubDate>Sun, 23 Aug 2020 18:51:32 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;For the sake of clarity, and because it&amp;#x27;s your primary point, I do think it&amp;#x27;s worth to point out even in the article you cite nuclear is the cleanest, but safety depends on how you perform the estimate. I found the comparisons in analysis they performed here: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#why-do-b... interesting. One estimate results in nuclear being more deadly per TwH produced than wind, hydro, and solar (about 2-3x), and the other results in it being less deadly by the same amount. It is important to note that a significant portion of deaths from nuclear seem to come…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1906.04280/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.ST</category></item></channel></rss>
