4 ms·
I don't understand your point. It seems to me you mix statisticals approaches and algorithms, meaning you completely ignore the fact that code runs on computer
by C4stor 8y ago
I don't understand your point.
It seems to me you mix statisticals approaches and algorithms, meaning you completely ignore the fact that code runs on computers, and that computers have mechanical characteristics, making two implementations of the same statistical approach wildly different in performance.
I used to work at a company where some guys spent literally weeks inventing a fast way to do a dot product over huge vectors. Which doesn't mean they invented the concept of dot product.
- kamaal 8y ago>>I used to work at a company where some guys spent literally weeks inventing a fast way to do a dot product over huge vectors. Very nice that you bought up this point. This is exactly what I was trying to point out. If a team of full time working people took weeks to arrive at a working solution, despite a massive body of open knowledge available as a reference to prior solutions, there is absolutely no way a candidate can give even arrive at a decent direction to the solution in under 45 minutes in a interview situation. No one is saying algorithms are not useful. But there is a very big difference between knowing an algorithm and inventing an algorithm. Testing the former is no indication of the latter, as illustrated by your own example.