3JPLW

29 ms·

271.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Autogenerated code is very easy in Julia — there is no string processing at all. You can splice things directly into quoted code (working at the literal syntax level) or manually modify the `Expr` representation in a lispy manner (in which
272.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
> This does make it risky to implement a competing compiler however. Unless, of course, you can satisfy the terms of the license and include the copyright/license and a list of changes (which is indeed a little strange if it's
273.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
An empty range in Julia is `1:0`. So yes, they can form monoids just fine. I highly recommend you work with them _directly_ instead of carrying around the two endpoints separately. For example, you can divide any range into two parts with:
274.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Your rant comes down to a distaste of +1s in certain situations. My point is that Julia's emphasis on arrays allows you to compose ranges with mathy operations in very powerful ways. You're concerned about composing APIs that tak
275.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Use them like the first-class vectors they are. You can use _any_ array manipulation on ranges.
276.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Not many folks use the macros that those macro-trait packages define, but the technique itself is in widespread use throughout the core language and standard library. That's where it was first posited and implemented, in fact: https:&
277.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
I find the original red-light story that precipitated this fine to be more interesting than the fine/engineer word story. His side of the story is here: http://www.jarlstrom.com/redflex/ . In short, the timings do
278.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Are you aware the author of the blog post is doing exactly what you say? Kevin is not an author of the original paper. He's seeing value in it, citing it, and synthesizing it.
279.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
It's a useful interrogation technique, but only if the public believes it works. Example in fiction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrO_rAaiq0
280.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Is there a non-developer overview of what this patch does? Pull requests often aren't the best thing for Hacker News submissions as they assume a very deep level of understanding of a project… especially when they chronicle long develo
281.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Or, you know, just use the `mod1` function in those cases: https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/base/math/index.html#Base.m... . Even more fun is that you can use the special `end` index to implement a stupi
282.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
The core devs are in on the scrambling, too! This is now one of my favorite interactions on GitHub: https://github.com/JuliaStats/StatsBase.jl/pull/404
283.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Definitely agree. We just revamped the website and I'd love to see some domain-specific examples of Julia code in the multi-tab "ecosystem" section. I think it'd make a great addition. :)
284.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Sure can: # Magic julia> Base.to_indices(A, inds, I::Tuple{Complex, Vararg{Any}}) = (real(I[1]), imag(I[1]), to_indices(A, Base._maybetail(Base._maybetail(inds)), Base.tail(I))...) julia> A 4×5 reshape(::UnitRange{I
285.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Sure it matters. Let's say there's a local zoning board meeting, asking for comments on a new landfill that'll go in just a few blocks from your house. You and your whole neighborhood put in your anonymous comments (~50), b
286.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Please do! Not only are the folks at Invenia technically talented, they're also really kind and wonderful. I'm sure I'm not speaking out of turn to say that I think they would very much appreciate bug reports, API feedback, a
287.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
In the case of Julia, you can check out the original motivation back in 2012 or this recent answer on the message board. https://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia https://discourse.ju
288.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
My driver license number is entirely predictable based upon my name phonetics, DOB, and sex.
289.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Yes, it is now. When I posted every single comment in this thread was FUD-dy, but it wasn't yet clear how common of a thing this was. There's more evidence now, so I'm updating my prior.
290.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Yes, now there are. When I authored my post there were less than 20. https://web.archive.org/web/20180501201626/https://discussio...
291.
by 3JPLW 8y ago
Given that this was posted back in January and nobody else has chimed in with a "my computer too" or "oh my goodness that's how my peripherals all died" post, I'm guessing it's an isolated failure.
292.
by 3JPLW 9y ago
> The problem is that you cannot define what is a "real effect" without begging the question That's precisely my point. We don't know the sizes of these populations, so you really can't say anything quantitative
293.
by 3JPLW 9y ago
You're falling prey to the very common "p-value fallacy." P-values talk about the likelihood of the data, not the likelihood of the hypothesis. The two are unfortunately not linked.
294.
by 3JPLW 9y ago
Were I to run 100 independently designed experiments that all tested real effects, my choice of p-value does not determine the number that erroneously find no result. If the effect is small and I didn't gather enough data, a p-value o
295.
by 3JPLW 9y ago
Then that is incorrect. The situation is simultaneously better and worse than your interpretation: > while a low P value indicates that your data are unlikely > assuming a true null, it can’t evaluate which of two >
296.
by 3JPLW 9y ago
Ah, yes, I read you as saying that "1 out of every 20 statistical tests in every journal is guaranteed to be wrong. It's just stats, people." If what you mean to say is that "1 out of every 20 statistical tests of a fals
297.
by 3JPLW 9y ago
It's different because you're ignoring my second bullet point. There's a very common misconception that p-value is the percent chance the data confirm that the effect is real. That's not at all how p-values work. They
298.
by 3JPLW 9y ago
Absolutely! I'm only addressing the common misconception in the grandparent that the p-value is the percent likelihood that the effect is real. That's not at all accurate. There are definitely other reasons that lead us to such
299.
by 3JPLW 9y ago
> The statistical tests currently in widespread use as a criterion for publication in peer-reviewed journals guarantee that at least one result in 20 will be due to chance and not because the hypothesis being tested is actually true. Tha
300.
by 3JPLW 9y ago
Negative results are really hard to do right, and even harder to do interestingly. There are so many possible confounders in experiment design and execution that they generally aren't worth evaluating. So we choose to spend our time r

More ›