BorisVSchmid

7 ms·

1. 31.▲
   by BorisVSchmid 10y ago

   Nice. Currently working with another probabilistic modelling extension of Clojure, named Anglican. How would this compare to Anglican? (not so much in actual state of the library now, but in goals) http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk&#x2F
2. 32.▲
   by BorisVSchmid 11y ago

   Somehow, physics does not appear to need such extensive vetting - to me (as an outsider) it seems like physicists can find what they need on arxiv.org Hope that model successfully crosses over to biology (biorxiv.org). For now, I use the fo
3. 33.▲
   by BorisVSchmid 11y ago

   Late reply, but ran into another plotting library, also from dvdt. https://github.com/dvdt/gyptis It is a nice wrapper around vega. Using that now.
4. 34.▲
   by BorisVSchmid 11y ago

   Can we add some nuance here? It is not like in the last few decades there has been no new knowledge generated. Just in my own field of biology, the amount of progress we have made in understanding how cells regulate themselves (20 year ago
5. 35.▲
   by BorisVSchmid 11y ago

   As a scientist, I use a mix of Incanter, Quil, and gg4clj bridge to R's ggplot2 for visualization in clojure (none of these outputs to a browser though). R's ggplot2 beats Incanter (or anything other charting library) by a large m
6. 36.▲
   by BorisVSchmid 11y ago

   From my experience, scientists, -at least in biology, where like in sociology you might have a lot of noise to deal with-, have an internal intuition that a single paper with a significant result does not mean that we have found the truth.