gone35

58 ms·

841.
by gone35 11y ago
Got any data for that, or do you just happen to dislike some of the conclusions? Soo much evidence, you clearly have not been paying attention. See e.g. : [1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=168361
842.
by gone35 11y ago
Why not give market solutions a chance? Because "market solutions" demonstrably fail in the presence of externalities, esp. for public goods. Besides market equilibria are provably intractable in the general case anyway... (Unle
843.
by gone35 11y ago
Academic here. If you don't mind closed-source, use OmniOutliner.
844.
by gone35 11y ago
I can't find one for Zhu Xinwen. 朱歆文.
845.
by gone35 11y ago
Mostly convention, but also compromise. You may like: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/p...
846.
by gone35 11y ago
Trust me on that. Nah, you need much better evidence than that --esp. for such a sweeping claim.
847.
by gone35 11y ago
A lot: the whole random projections thing.
848.
by gone35 11y ago
[T]his (perhaps wrongly) smacks of appeal to authority. Don't dismiss appeals to authority so easily. As it happens, not giving extra weight to experts in proportion to their track record is a provably suboptimal strategy in an adv
849.
by gone35 11y ago
The treatment of statins is very much like the treatment of vaccines: dismissed in a pseudo-intellectual manner by people who know a lot (just not about the subject at hand). This. It's rather unsettling to see so many well-meaning p
850.
by gone35 11y ago
Sorry I wasn't clear. My objection is to the very idea that 'styles' exist in the first place. I claim that's the primal rift that starts it all. Like saying, e.g. , "there are different kinds of human(ity)&quo
851.
by gone35 11y ago
It's the end of the semester, I'm awfully sleep deprived, and I should be doing work instead --that's why. I apologize for misrepresenting your views.
852.
by gone35 11y ago
Sigh . Nevermind then. Sorry for pointlessly rising your blood pressure. (And to all, for bikeshedding this thread.)
853.
by gone35 11y ago
Relax. I'm just trying to encourage you to think about your deeply held assumption, since you seem to care about women. And no, I am not "deliberately ignor[ing]" nor taking out of context anything. Don't assume malice
854.
by gone35 11y ago
No, I don't see that particular line of thought as progressive and empowering for women in today's world. So you reject Standpoint Theory. I guess we agree about that. Yet you also (seem to) accept the notion of "situated k
855.
by gone35 11y ago
[T]he style associated with the feminine gender[...] That very idea is the most profound, insidious form of patriarchy there is. Think about it.
856.
by gone35 11y ago
Ahh, the soft bigotry of different expectations. From your [1]: The masculine cognitive style is abstract, theoretical, disembodied, emotionally detached, analytical, deductive, quantitative, atomistic, and oriented toward values of cont
857.
by gone35 11y ago
So if you have 784 completely different ways of analyzing the image[...] Interesting intuitions; but if by "ways of analyzing the image" you mean functions, there are an awful lot more than 784...
858.
by gone35 11y ago
But what does Knowing Why The Network Works mean exactly? I would say it means: Why do these algorithms seem to be doing "well" despite their well-known theoretical intractability? Is it something about the instances? Or is it
859.
by gone35 11y ago
This is still a long way away from truly understanding the representational power of deep nets, but it's the first general progress that has been made since the early 90's. Exactly. Someone should tell Yann LeCun this --see e.g
860.
by gone35 11y ago
I'd argue the "phonetically broken" nature of English has more to do with his learning it as a second language than anything intrinsically wrong with English. Nope, there is something intrinsically 'wrong' with
861.
by gone35 11y ago
Read up on it more, if you care: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3158/why-is-quant... http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126622/quantum-en...
862.
by gone35 11y ago
Maybe is it because some of us might experience social in justice (almost) every. fucking. where.? (And no, I'm not talking about 21st century first-world problems like "getting offended on Twitter" or PC-bullshit or what no
863.
by gone35 11y ago
Very nice write-up, Jeremy! Too bad you won't be able to make it to the second talk. Also nice disclaimer at the end: At the time of this writing, Babai’s work has not been peer reviewed, and my understanding of his lectures has large
864.
by gone35 11y ago
Sorry not my field! But I would first give NAUTY[1] a try before trying more exotic, structure-exploiting stuff. [1] http://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~algorith/implement/nauty/impl...
865.
by gone35 11y ago
What. A. Bombshell. Sorry for the low-content post; but it is no exaggeration to say that this " might be the theoretical computer science result of the decade". I'm dying to see how Babai managed to pull it off.
866.
by gone35 11y ago
[...] a Silicon Valley company actually making a difference in the people's health. Except, in many ways, it isn't: 'disrupting' lab blood testing[1] is far from a public health priority --just because the founder is s
867.
by gone35 11y ago
Actual paper here: http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/454/4/3480.abstract
868.
by gone35 11y ago
[I]n 20 years of obsessive playing with computers, I have never met a woman who I thought was as good as I am at computer bullshit. I have asked other people who I consider very good at computer bullshit whether they had met any really ski
869.
by gone35 11y ago
So not true. The Peronista councilpeople were saying "José Luis Borges" (as opposed to " Jorge Luis Borges") to mockingly express their opposition to the measure of honoring him. From the article you cite: "[...] a
870.
by gone35 11y ago
Again I'm being a bit self-serving, but I think Neil deGrasse Tyson put it better [1, from 1:35-2:30]: [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0SUpwIAjQs&t=1m35s

More ›