I disagree. Elections and redistricting have always been a messy. I might agree with a boom/bust type cycle for gerrymandering but "weaponizing" is not new.
The detailed data, particularly demographic data, and modern computerised data analysis, has weaponized it in a way that wasn't possible before. Historically there was a certain amount of guesswork in Gerrymandering -- you could use, say, racial demographics because they were reasonably visible, but it was still fuzzy. These days we have a whole lot more data available with a whole lot more detail (just look at the level of analytics Facebook and Google can do solely for the sake of advertising), and a lot more compute power to analyse, slide, dice, infer and predict. Modern Gerrymandering looks very different indeed.
Stop lying to yourself and take 1 hour to read the white paper. Then you will know why you should start buying. Its time to take money away from banks and governments.
Even if I completely buy into that line of thinking it in no way justifies the current price of bitcoin. The current market for bitcoin used as a currency just isn't big enough for that sort of valuation. And the current spike only makes things worse: given the volatility its value as a currency decreases due to the uncertainty in exchange. The fact that its a fundamentally deflationary currency just exacerbates the problem. Why buy anything with bitcoins? If you just hold on to them they'll be worth twice as much next month, and a thousand times as much next year... which just leads to a deflationary spiral where their only value is not as a currency but as a speculative investment.
When bitcoins value is based on their actual utility (and actual usage) as a currency or means of exchange I might be interested: there is some good technology and ideas there. But that is not at all what the current valuations are based on -- they are based on bitcoin as a speculative investment vehicle and are spiralling out of all relation to any actual value.
Assuming you are living off the returns of your capital (and for many fortunes in the Gilded age and before this was true), if the rate of return on capital is lower than the rate of inflation you will end up eating into the capital to maintain the same lifestyle. In this way you can damage fortunes via inflation. As you note, this need not be the case -- a reduction in lifestyle, or an alternative source of income can ensure no effective damage to capital. This is, of course, rarely what happened.
But, guillotines weren't needed to end the Gilded Age, and I see no reason why you think they're necessary to end the new gilded age. Market forces have done the job in the the past
Market forces did not end the Gilded Age, it was ended by two world wars and significant inflation (in part for countries to pay of debts from the wars). These were major shocks to accrued wealth globally, breaking apart, or inflating away the value of, most family fortunes. Sure there were no Guillotines, but I don't think we want to go through the disasters of the 10's , 30's and 40's again just to get some wealth distribution back.
Just for reference the important caveat is no logic that can encode basic Peano arithmetic can be consistent and complete. There are plenty of axiomatic systems that are complete and consistent, even complicated mathematical ones (the first order theory of complete ordered fields, a.k.a. the real numbers is complete and consistent). Also a stronger logic can prove the consistency of a subset contained within it. Thus the first order theory of Peano arithmetic can be proved to be consistent via second order logic. Finally you may also want to look up Tarski's indefinitability of truth -- a theorem which gives the results you have here as a corollary, but is simpler: in sufficiently power logical systems you can't even define a truth predicate.
You are simply mis-reading what is stated in that document. The US citizen parent had to be resident in the US for ten years (prior to the birth). How can I be so certain? I am in a similar category, but was born outside the US to a US mother and a father who had not been ten years resident in the US. I had, since birth, US citizenship until I renounced a few years ago.
In that case I would be asking what what Apple wants to do with distributed graph analytics because that was probably Turi's most interesting/unique product and expertise. They have a great library for handling extremely large graphs distributed over many nodes, and a lot of expertise in exactly how to do that really well.
I have to admit to being a little unclear as to Apple's plans here. I'm somewhat familiar with Turi's product offerings (at least, I was back when they were called Dato). It's more of pure data analytics tool than anything, and personally I found the underlying python libraries which are open source far more compelling than the point and click predictive analytics and charting GUIs which seemed to be their main product. And even on that front I would put more stock in scikit-learn, pandas, dask and the many open source deep learning libraries (mostly built on theano and tensor flow) if I really wanted to do machine learning and distributed machine learning.
Now don't get me wrong, Turi has some nice products, but they tend to be standalone suites designed to let front-line analysts have a nice GUI interface to basic machine learning tools, not "push the envelope AI". I really can't see what Apple would do with it beyond build up a business analytics suite to compete with Tableau and Azure ML. Anyone have any better ideas?
Well it's a combination of the automatic array flattening, and the fact that perl subroutines take an arbitrary number of arguments and just shift them off the list, allowing you to "overwrite" expected arguments with the flattened list -- ideally you might hope for an error with "too many arguments to function foo". The end result is that as long as you can force things to be arrays (or lists) when people don't necessarily expect that (like, say, the cgi module handling mutiple parameter definitions) you can get up to some serious funny business.
UBI as generally described is not increasing the real money supply, but instead reallocating the existing money supply. That leaves plenty of scope for lack of inflation of things that aren't currently production limited. Prices will rise on some things (housing, for instance, is at a shortage and UBI would add demand without any immediate ability to increase the supply to meet it), and not on others (we generally have food surpluses on basic staples in developed countries, there is not reason to expect general price increases on many of those). Predicting the end results of such a complex system is hard, and I agree with the previous poster that hand-waving and glittering generalities will certainly not cut it.
It all depends on what you want to do with your matrices. Various operations have various costs in different sparse matrix formats. The standard ones are COO or coordinate format: a list of triples (i, j, val); DOK or dictionary of keys format: the hashmap you are thinking of; LIL or list of lists format: a list for each row and a list if pairs (j, val) in each list entry; CSR/CSC or compact sparse row/column: an array of indices where each row starts, an array of column indices and an array of values.
COO and DOK are great for changing sparsity structure; LIL is very useful if you have a lot of row-wise (or column-wise) operations, or need to manipulate rows regularly. CSR is great for matrix operations such as multiplication, addition etc. You use what suits your usecase, or change between formats (relatively cheap) as needed.
I've had sat psychologist administered IQ tests a year apart and had my score differ by 10 points. I've been told that, in fact, this is perfectly normal and well within the accuracy expected of IQ tests by psychologists who take them seriously. I wouldn't worry about IQ scores changing (they may well do that, but it is equally likely measurement error). IQ is a very imperfect measure to begin with. Our ability to measure it, even under the best of conditions, is extremely poor. Take most IQ studies with a grain of salt.
...not a sequel, but a cash-in remake. It's not a Mad Max movie. The main character isn't Max, the atmosphere isn't Mad Max's, it just happened to have spiked cars chasing plated cars in the wastland.
Indeed. What they should have done was get the writer/director of the original film, who I gather had been trying to get a sequel made for over a decade, to come and write and direct the new one. Clearly whoever they got to write this didn't really understand Max's character at all.</sarcasm>
It's stupid if you're benchmarking relative efficiency -- it's not an efficient implementation (and you'll have no trouble finding explanations for why the Python and Java code they wrote, while simpler, is not efficient).
And this is why we should not teach CS101 in Java or Python. If they'd been forced to use C this whole experiment would have turned out differently.
Not at all. If you wrote your C in memory string handling as stupidly as they wrote the Python and Java you will still get worse performance in C (e.g. each iteration malloc a new string and then strcpy and strcat into it, and free the old string; compared to buffered file writes you'll lose). It's about failing to understand how to write efficient code, not about which language you chose.
I'm guessing the reason he doesn't take money from the fossil fuel industry is because he just can't be bothered with such trifling sums. The average salary in the US is more like $350k or $400k, IIRC. 120k is for total losers.
I can only presume your talking about research grants combined with salary, despite saying "The average salary" because otherwise you are simply flat wrong. The average salary for (full) professors in the US is $98,974.
Should we teach everyone basic first aid and CPR, fundamentals of mechanics, and the basics of how to sew, cook, etc.? Yes, yes we should.
I don't think the "Teach Everyone to Code" movement is about making everyone professional programmers; it's about ensuring that everyone gets exposed the basics of how programming works, just like they get exposed to the basics of a great many other things in their schooling.
Seems to me that Apple is playing catch-up in the phablet arena. Apple was late to the party and lost the toehold because of its tardiness.
No, no, you're looking at this all wrong. Apple stayed out of the Phablet market until they were "cool/hip/trendy". The vast sales Samsung had were merely to unimportant people. Apple, on the other hand, entered the market exactly when phablets became cool, because, by definition, phablets became cool only once Apple had entered the market.
Logic is a binary function. Something is in a logical set - or it is not. Being illogical is not a synonym for being mistaken. Degrees of precision are irrelevant for set inclusion. Fuzzy logic is not logic.
Fuzzy logic is logic. So are linear logic, intuitionistic logic, temporal logic, modal logic, and categorical logic. Just because you only learned Boolean logic doesn't mean there aren't well developed consistent logics beyond that. In practice bivalent logics are the exceptions.
... a lot of people respond to this by saying the criticisms are stupid, that "if you know what you're doing" then you'll understand what's really going on, etc.
Yes; "if you're just willing to get your hands a little dirty and muck in and learn then you can bend the hugely complicated interface to your needs" they'll say; they'll complain that your just not willing to learn things, and thus it is your fault. Such people will inevitably state that they are "power users" who need ultimate configurability and are (unlike you) willing to learn what they need to to get that.
They will inevitably deride GNOME3 for it's complete lack of configurability. Of course they'll gloss over the fact that GNOME3 actually exposes pretty much everything via a javascript interface and makes adding/changing/extending functionality via javascript extensions trivial (GNOME3 even has a javascript console to let you do such things interactively). Apparently actually learning an API and coding completely custom interfacdes from myriad building blocks is "too much work". They are "power users" who require a pointy-clicky interface to actually configure anything. Even dconf is "too complicated".
For those of us who learned to "customize our desktop" back in the days of FVWM via scriptable config files calling perl scripts etc. it seems clear that "power users" are really just posers who want to play at being "super-customised". Almost all the modern DEs do have complete customisation available and accessible; some of them just use a richer (scripting) interface to get such things done.
It's not the features that you stare at with no idea what they do that cause a problem. As you say, a quick look at the manual can help to sort that out (though it does add to the overall cognitive load). It's all the potentially subtle things that you don't even realise are features and so never look up and don't realise that, contrary to first inspection, the code is actually doing something subtly different to what you expect.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Elections and redistricting have always been a messy. I might agree with a boom/bust type cycle for gerrymandering but "weaponizing" is not new.
The detailed data, particularly demographic data, and modern computerised data analysis, has weaponized it in a way that wasn't possible before. Historically there was a certain amount of guesswork in Gerrymandering -- you could use, say, racial demographics because they were reasonably visible, but it was still fuzzy. These days we have a whole lot more data available with a whole lot more detail (just look at the level of analytics Facebook and Google can do solely for the sake of advertising), and a lot more compute power to analyse, slide, dice, infer and predict. Modern Gerrymandering looks very different indeed.
Stop lying to yourself and take 1 hour to read the white paper. Then you will know why you should start buying. Its time to take money away from banks and governments.
Even if I completely buy into that line of thinking it in no way justifies the current price of bitcoin. The current market for bitcoin used as a currency just isn't big enough for that sort of valuation. And the current spike only makes things worse: given the volatility its value as a currency decreases due to the uncertainty in exchange. The fact that its a fundamentally deflationary currency just exacerbates the problem. Why buy anything with bitcoins? If you just hold on to them they'll be worth twice as much next month, and a thousand times as much next year ... which just leads to a deflationary spiral where their only value is not as a currency but as a speculative investment.
When bitcoins value is based on their actual utility (and actual usage) as a currency or means of exchange I might be interested: there is some good technology and ideas there. But that is not at all what the current valuations are based on -- they are based on bitcoin as a speculative investment vehicle and are spiralling out of all relation to any actual value.
Assuming you are living off the returns of your capital (and for many fortunes in the Gilded age and before this was true), if the rate of return on capital is lower than the rate of inflation you will end up eating into the capital to maintain the same lifestyle. In this way you can damage fortunes via inflation. As you note, this need not be the case -- a reduction in lifestyle, or an alternative source of income can ensure no effective damage to capital. This is, of course, rarely what happened.
But, guillotines weren't needed to end the Gilded Age, and I see no reason why you think they're necessary to end the new gilded age. Market forces have done the job in the the past
Market forces did not end the Gilded Age, it was ended by two world wars and significant inflation (in part for countries to pay of debts from the wars). These were major shocks to accrued wealth globally, breaking apart, or inflating away the value of, most family fortunes. Sure there were no Guillotines, but I don't think we want to go through the disasters of the 10's , 30's and 40's again just to get some wealth distribution back.
Just for reference the important caveat is no logic that can encode basic Peano arithmetic can be consistent and complete. There are plenty of axiomatic systems that are complete and consistent, even complicated mathematical ones (the first order theory of complete ordered fields, a.k.a. the real numbers is complete and consistent). Also a stronger logic can prove the consistency of a subset contained within it. Thus the first order theory of Peano arithmetic can be proved to be consistent via second order logic. Finally you may also want to look up Tarski's indefinitability of truth -- a theorem which gives the results you have here as a corollary, but is simpler: in sufficiently power logical systems you can't even define a truth predicate.
Python is completely unusable just due to this issue.
Indeed, it is completely unusable which is why absolutely no one uses it, and there are no significant projects of any kind that use it as a language.
You are simply mis-reading what is stated in that document. The US citizen parent had to be resident in the US for ten years (prior to the birth). How can I be so certain? I am in a similar category, but was born outside the US to a US mother and a father who had not been ten years resident in the US. I had, since birth, US citizenship until I renounced a few years ago.
In that case I would be asking what what Apple wants to do with distributed graph analytics because that was probably Turi's most interesting/unique product and expertise. They have a great library for handling extremely large graphs distributed over many nodes, and a lot of expertise in exactly how to do that really well.
I have to admit to being a little unclear as to Apple's plans here. I'm somewhat familiar with Turi's product offerings (at least, I was back when they were called Dato). It's more of pure data analytics tool than anything, and personally I found the underlying python libraries which are open source far more compelling than the point and click predictive analytics and charting GUIs which seemed to be their main product. And even on that front I would put more stock in scikit-learn, pandas, dask and the many open source deep learning libraries (mostly built on theano and tensor flow) if I really wanted to do machine learning and distributed machine learning.
Now don't get me wrong, Turi has some nice products, but they tend to be standalone suites designed to let front-line analysts have a nice GUI interface to basic machine learning tools, not "push the envelope AI". I really can't see what Apple would do with it beyond build up a business analytics suite to compete with Tableau and Azure ML. Anyone have any better ideas?
Well it's a combination of the automatic array flattening, and the fact that perl subroutines take an arbitrary number of arguments and just shift them off the list, allowing you to "overwrite" expected arguments with the flattened list -- ideally you might hope for an error with "too many arguments to function foo". The end result is that as long as you can force things to be arrays (or lists) when people don't necessarily expect that (like, say, the cgi module handling mutiple parameter definitions) you can get up to some serious funny business.
UBI as generally described is not increasing the real money supply, but instead reallocating the existing money supply. That leaves plenty of scope for lack of inflation of things that aren't currently production limited. Prices will rise on some things (housing, for instance, is at a shortage and UBI would add demand without any immediate ability to increase the supply to meet it), and not on others (we generally have food surpluses on basic staples in developed countries, there is not reason to expect general price increases on many of those). Predicting the end results of such a complex system is hard, and I agree with the previous poster that hand-waving and glittering generalities will certainly not cut it.
Over 15 years ago Segfault.org reported their classic: "What If Linus Torvalds Gets Hit By A Bus?" - An Empirical Study. If we learned anything from that, it's that we also have to watch out for muffins.
It all depends on what you want to do with your matrices. Various operations have various costs in different sparse matrix formats. The standard ones are COO or coordinate format: a list of triples (i, j, val); DOK or dictionary of keys format: the hashmap you are thinking of; LIL or list of lists format: a list for each row and a list if pairs (j, val) in each list entry; CSR/CSC or compact sparse row/column: an array of indices where each row starts, an array of column indices and an array of values.
COO and DOK are great for changing sparsity structure; LIL is very useful if you have a lot of row-wise (or column-wise) operations, or need to manipulate rows regularly. CSR is great for matrix operations such as multiplication, addition etc. You use what suits your usecase, or change between formats (relatively cheap) as needed.
I've had sat psychologist administered IQ tests a year apart and had my score differ by 10 points. I've been told that, in fact, this is perfectly normal and well within the accuracy expected of IQ tests by psychologists who take them seriously. I wouldn't worry about IQ scores changing (they may well do that, but it is equally likely measurement error). IQ is a very imperfect measure to begin with. Our ability to measure it, even under the best of conditions, is extremely poor. Take most IQ studies with a grain of salt.
...not a sequel, but a cash-in remake.
It's not a Mad Max movie. The main character isn't Max, the atmosphere isn't Mad Max's, it just happened to have spiked cars chasing plated cars in the wastland.
Indeed. What they should have done was get the writer/director of the original film, who I gather had been trying to get a sequel made for over a decade, to come and write and direct the new one. Clearly whoever they got to write this didn't really understand Max's character at all.</sarcasm>
I believe Ada has pretty decent performance; The classic "Language Shootout" game has it scoring faster than Rust for the most part.
It's stupid if you're benchmarking relative efficiency -- it's not an efficient implementation (and you'll have no trouble finding explanations for why the Python and Java code they wrote, while simpler, is not efficient).
And this is why we should not teach CS101 in Java or Python. If they'd been forced to use C this whole experiment would have turned out differently.
Not at all. If you wrote your C in memory string handling as stupidly as they wrote the Python and Java you will still get worse performance in C (e.g. each iteration malloc a new string and then strcpy and strcat into it, and free the old string; compared to buffered file writes you'll lose). It's about failing to understand how to write efficient code, not about which language you chose.
Write-only code is easy in ANY syntax.
Write-only code is possible in any language. Some languages make it easier than others.
I'm guessing the reason he doesn't take money from the fossil fuel industry is because he just can't be bothered with such trifling sums. The average salary in the US is more like $350k or $400k, IIRC. 120k is for total losers.
I can only presume your talking about research grants combined with salary, despite saying "The average salary" because otherwise you are simply flat wrong. The average salary for (full) professors in the US is $98,974.
Should we teach everyone basic first aid and CPR, fundamentals of mechanics, and the basics of how to sew, cook, etc.? Yes, yes we should.
I don't think the "Teach Everyone to Code" movement is about making everyone professional programmers; it's about ensuring that everyone gets exposed the basics of how programming works, just like they get exposed to the basics of a great many other things in their schooling.
Seems to me that Apple is playing catch-up in the phablet arena. Apple was late to the party and lost the toehold because of its tardiness.
No, no, you're looking at this all wrong. Apple stayed out of the Phablet market until they were "cool/hip/trendy". The vast sales Samsung had were merely to unimportant people. Apple, on the other hand, entered the market exactly when phablets became cool, because, by definition, phablets became cool only once Apple had entered the market.
Logic is a binary function. Something is in a logical set - or it is not. Being illogical is not a synonym for being mistaken. Degrees of precision are irrelevant for set inclusion. Fuzzy logic is not logic.
Fuzzy logic is logic. So are linear logic, intuitionistic logic, temporal logic, modal logic, and categorical logic. Just because you only learned Boolean logic doesn't mean there aren't well developed consistent logics beyond that. In practice bivalent logics are the exceptions.
... a lot of people respond to this by saying the criticisms are stupid, that "if you know what you're doing" then you'll understand what's really going on, etc.
Yes; "if you're just willing to get your hands a little dirty and muck in and learn then you can bend the hugely complicated interface to your needs" they'll say; they'll complain that your just not willing to learn things, and thus it is your fault. Such people will inevitably state that they are "power users" who need ultimate configurability and are (unlike you) willing to learn what they need to to get that.
They will inevitably deride GNOME3 for it's complete lack of configurability. Of course they'll gloss over the fact that GNOME3 actually exposes pretty much everything via a javascript interface and makes adding/changing/extending functionality via javascript extensions trivial (GNOME3 even has a javascript console to let you do such things interactively). Apparently actually learning an API and coding completely custom interfacdes from myriad building blocks is "too much work". They are "power users" who require a pointy-clicky interface to actually configure anything. Even dconf is "too complicated".
For those of us who learned to "customize our desktop" back in the days of FVWM via scriptable config files calling perl scripts etc. it seems clear that "power users" are really just posers who want to play at being "super-customised". Almost all the modern DEs do have complete customisation available and accessible; some of them just use a richer (scripting) interface to get such things done.
It's not the features that you stare at with no idea what they do that cause a problem. As you say, a quick look at the manual can help to sort that out (though it does add to the overall cognitive load). It's all the potentially subtle things that you don't even realise are features and so never look up and don't realise that, contrary to first inspection, the code is actually doing something subtly different to what you expect.