As I continue to work in array-oriented languages like APL or J, as I have for years, it's interesting how very slowly the new languages are re-discovering things we've known for decades. As someone I know said, "Google invented map-reduce in 2004 and Ken Iverson cleverly re-invented it in 1964".
Eventually, the idea that novice errors are irrelevant to language design may slowly work its way into the mainstream, along with any number of other unrecognized language desiderata that will seem obvious in retrospect, but I'm not holding my breath.
It's hard to say without doing all the implementation work, but the paper does say that the algo is "...general enough to describe both local polynomial and Gaussian process approximations..." and there is a section called "Local Gaussian process surrogates". So, they do in fact incorporate this in the larger framework of their algo.
In fact, they claim "...that the accuracy is nearly identical for all the cases, but the approximate chains use fewer evaluations of the true model, reducing costs by more than an order of magnitude for quadratic or Gaussian process approximations (Figure 10b)."
Not to dispute that a site like Fandango will lie for money, but for the data from the Netflix challenge several years ago - where they made available an anonymized sample of peoples' movie ratings - the mean was 3.8 (https://www.igvita.com/2006/10/29/dissecting-the-netflix-dataset/), not the 3.0 one might expect for a random distribution over the range 1 to 5.
Upon reflection, this makes sense as people don't watch movies randomly - they watch what they think might be good and avoid what they think will be bad. I know I had trouble thinking of a movie that I had watched that I would rate 1 (except for "The Master of Disguise" to which I took my daughter when she was very young).
I expect that continuing to discriminate against a group will radicalize more members of that group. That's how terrorists work - by provoking over-reaction to sway the "fat middle" of moderates in their direction.
Remember the London bombings of 10 years ago? Remember how the perpetrators were caught? Their families turned them in because they knew what the bombers had done was wrong and they knew they could rely on the British to treat them humanely in spite of their crimes.
As far as I know, Lovelace elaborated some of the theoretical aspects of programming but, since Babbage never finished his "Analytical Engine", she never had to do the hard work of getting code to run on actual hardware. To my mind, this is the nitty-gritty of coding. Without this, Lovelace cannot be anything more than a software architecht, albeit a "PowerPoint architect" (without the PowerPoint) - http://randomactsofarchitectur... .
This article - http://www.vanityfair.com/news... - by Michael Lewis, makes the case look like extreme over-reach by our corporate overlords.
Not to mention that the code that Aleynikov allegedly stole is worthless without a substantial investment in supporting code and trading infrastructure to take advantage of it, not that the higher-ups at a place like Goldman necessarily understand this.
The double-jeopardy bypass is also astoundingly corrupt. Not so astounding is the arrogance by which Goldman takes advantage of open-source while ignoring the rules around it.
Basic vocabulary is a good place to start. Going forward, knowing how to type and how to use an editor efficiently will probably stand them in good stead, brain-reading computer overlords excepted. Knowing how to look up relevant things on the internet might be a longer-term goal, which depends on having a good conceptual framework. Motivation is key but not something you can really teach other than by pointing out some of the possibilities and hoping something grabs their attention.
For a comprehensive look at what can be done with a very unusual language, the J essays are hard to beat: http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki... . They provide context around why you might want to do something one way rather than another and are much more literary and wide-ranging than typical documentation.
The details of the vocabulary - linked to from the "Vocabulary" page (http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Vocabulary) are also pretty good because they combine general definitions with explicit usage examples.
This US gov't site - http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=... - lists New York state #50 in terms of per capita energy consumption. I recall reading elsewhere - sorry, no citation - that the energy consumption of a resident of NYC is 60% of the average in the USA, which makes sense based on personal experience. I, like many New Yorkers, don't own a car; most of my travel is by foot, bike or public transit, like most people I know who live here.
I thought that charging/discharging batteries was a major source of inefficiency but it appears better than I thought: up to about 90% according to this - http://www.otherpower.com/imag... . However, there is a lot of variation under practical considerations.
In any case, comparing 35% efficiency of internal combustion directly to a battery is misleading because it fails to take into account the full cycle of generating power, transmitting it, storing in a battery, then using it. This - http://auto.howstuffworks.com/... - makes a stab at overall efficiency estimation but provides no references for its figures; it concludes that battery-powering a car is about 26% efficient as opposed to 20% for internal combustion.
Except that the population of the world only hit one billion in 1800; by 1900 it was still under two billion - now we're at seven billion. Wood doesn't scale: it pollutes, renews only slowly, and provides bulky, inefficient fuel.
I bought 5 SSDs in 2014 - now in all my machines, so I'll be playing the part of (near) bleeding-edge adopter in the upcoming years. So far, am loving the performance.
I remember seeing something very much like this - http://www.gshotts.com/HUMOR/f... - billed as a "system programmer's exam" back in the '70s.
Among my favorites:
21) Sketch the development of human thought; estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought. and 23) Define the universe in detail. List three examples.
Slashdot Mirror
As I continue to work in array-oriented languages like APL or J, as I have for years, it's interesting how very slowly the new languages are re-discovering things we've known for decades. As someone I know said, "Google invented map-reduce in 2004 and Ken Iverson cleverly re-invented it in 1964".
Eventually, the idea that novice errors are irrelevant to language design may slowly work its way into the mainstream, along with any number of other unrecognized language desiderata that will seem obvious in retrospect, but I'm not holding my breath.
...meet AGW refugees.
It's hard to say without doing all the implementation work, but the paper does say that the algo is "...general enough to describe both local polynomial and Gaussian process approximations..." and there is a section called "Local Gaussian process surrogates". So, they do in fact incorporate this in the larger framework of their algo.
In fact, they claim "...that the accuracy is nearly identical for all the cases, but the approximate chains use fewer evaluations of the true model, reducing costs by more than an order of magnitude for quadratic or Gaussian process approximations (Figure 10b)."
If, by "mature", you mean "get more frightened and selfish", you have a point.
More like "way back in the 1890s": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Mmm, so hungry.
Not to dispute that a site like Fandango will lie for money, but for the data from the Netflix challenge several years ago - where they made available an anonymized sample of peoples' movie ratings - the mean was 3.8 (https://www.igvita.com/2006/10/29/dissecting-the-netflix-dataset/), not the 3.0 one might expect for a random distribution over the range 1 to 5.
Upon reflection, this makes sense as people don't watch movies randomly - they watch what they think might be good and avoid what they think will be bad. I know I had trouble thinking of a movie that I had watched that I would rate 1 (except for "The Master of Disguise" to which I took my daughter when she was very young).
I expect that continuing to discriminate against a group will radicalize more members of that group. That's how terrorists work - by provoking over-reaction to sway the "fat middle" of moderates in their direction.
Remember the London bombings of 10 years ago? Remember how the perpetrators were caught? Their families turned them in because they knew what the bombers had done was wrong and they knew they could rely on the British to treat them humanely in spite of their crimes.
Yes. Yes, I did.
As far as I know, Lovelace elaborated some of the theoretical aspects of programming but, since Babbage never finished his "Analytical Engine", she never had to do the hard work of getting code to run on actual hardware. To my mind, this is the nitty-gritty of coding. Without this, Lovelace cannot be anything more than a software architecht, albeit a "PowerPoint architect" (without the PowerPoint) - http://randomactsofarchitectur... .
But ... but ... but it's the bandwagon! Don't you want to jump on it?
It means anyone carrying a gun in that area is subject to arrest.
This article - http://www.vanityfair.com/news... - by Michael Lewis, makes the case look like extreme over-reach by our corporate overlords.
Not to mention that the code that Aleynikov allegedly stole is worthless without a substantial investment in supporting code and trading infrastructure to take advantage of it, not that the higher-ups at a place like Goldman necessarily understand this.
The double-jeopardy bypass is also astoundingly corrupt. Not so astounding is the arrogance by which Goldman takes advantage of open-source while ignoring the rules around it.
Yeah, those darn scientists, just making up stuff to grow rich and fat on our hard-earned tax dollars: http://www.washingtonpost.com/....
How dare they draw conclusions from numerous studies covering hundreds of thousands of people: http://www.scientificamerican.... .
...and when.
Basic vocabulary is a good place to start. Going forward, knowing how to type and how to use an editor efficiently will probably stand them in good stead, brain-reading computer overlords excepted. Knowing how to look up relevant things on the internet might be a longer-term goal, which depends on having a good conceptual framework. Motivation is key but not something you can really teach other than by pointing out some of the possibilities and hoping something grabs their attention.
For a comprehensive look at what can be done with a very unusual language, the J essays are hard to beat: http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki... . They provide context around why you might want to do something one way rather than another and are much more literary and wide-ranging than typical documentation.
The details of the vocabulary - linked to from the "Vocabulary" page (http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Vocabulary) are also pretty good because they combine general definitions with explicit usage examples.
This US gov't site - http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=... - lists New York state #50 in terms of per capita energy consumption. I recall reading elsewhere - sorry, no citation - that the energy consumption of a resident of NYC is 60% of the average in the USA, which makes sense based on personal experience. I, like many New Yorkers, don't own a car; most of my travel is by foot, bike or public transit, like most people I know who live here.
I thought that charging/discharging batteries was a major source of inefficiency but it appears better than I thought: up to about 90% according to this - http://www.otherpower.com/imag... . However, there is a lot of variation under practical considerations.
In any case, comparing 35% efficiency of internal combustion directly to a battery is misleading because it fails to take into account the full cycle of generating power, transmitting it, storing in a battery, then using it. This - http://auto.howstuffworks.com/... - makes a stab at overall efficiency estimation but provides no references for its figures; it concludes that battery-powering a car is about 26% efficient as opposed to 20% for internal combustion.
Except that the population of the world only hit one billion in 1800; by 1900 it was still under two billion - now we're at seven billion. Wood doesn't scale: it pollutes, renews only slowly, and provides bulky, inefficient fuel.
In the case of the Mayans, it may have been weather change: extended drought - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... .
I bought 5 SSDs in 2014 - now in all my machines, so I'll be playing the part of (near) bleeding-edge adopter in the upcoming years. So far, am loving the performance.
I remember seeing something very much like this - http://www.gshotts.com/HUMOR/f... - billed as a "system programmer's exam" back in the '70s.
Among my favorites:
21) Sketch the development of human thought; estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.
and
23) Define the universe in detail. List three examples.
Can't someone else do it?
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/...
Good to hear about the trans-Atlantic stupid-party co-operation.