2 ms·

Or c) you didn't "develop a deep understanding of cutting-edge ML concepts."

• basch 8y ago
  Don't get me wrong, there is immense value to being an index of what tools are available to solve a job, which works best for what, what is on the horizon, how to put the pieces together in a way they compliment each other, when to wait for the next big thing vs jumping into the legacy way of solving a problem. Just call a spade a spade, and admit youre more of a journalist/strategist/architect/historian than a scientist. I dont understand what is to gain by trying to paint ML as a new field, vs being Applied Statistics, unless the end goal is to CREATE confusion and mysticism, which all in all seems very unscientific.