hc

11 ms·

61.
by hc 17y ago
this researcher seems to take it for granted that there is something fundamental/sacrosanct about the "scientific method", but there isn't; it is a learning algorithm whose role is being diminished by new, more powerful learning algorithms.
62.
Musical sorting algorithms(math.ucla.edu)
3 points by hc 17y ago|0 comments
63.
by hc 17y ago
what "prank" are you talking about? he wrote a silly, semi-offensive joke presentation about an impressive proof-of-concept he actually developed...
64.
by hc 17y ago
not quite. "foo"[2] is a char, ("foo"+2) is a string.
65.
by hc 17y ago
im glad i saw this. the linked paper [ http://www.csbmb.princeton.edu/ncc/PDFs/Neural%20Economics/M... ] is quite intriguing and seems relevant to a lot more than netflix
66.
by hc 17y ago
perhaps hackers are sometimes interested in algorithms
67.
by hc 17y ago
GP is argument ad verecundiam; double standard much?
68.
by hc 17y ago
uh, no.
69.
by hc 17y ago
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Compute...
70.
by hc 17y ago
Bah
71.
by hc 17y ago
i didn't get that at all from this. this talk seems like the least arrogant thing i've read that wolfram has written. of course he is going to talk about his own experiences with feynman, as opposed to the completely impersonal view; what w
72.
by hc 17y ago
it is amazing how many non sequiturs you have managed to cram into this tiny comment.
73.
by hc 17y ago
yes, when the choice is between "get over it" and "cry about it" the latter is clearly the superior option
74.
by hc 17y ago
i flagged this post without comment when it was younger, expecting many people to do the same. now i see it has been upvoted 100+ times and it is still here. i am curious why many people seem to hold it to be within the scope of this site.
75.
by hc 17y ago
"There's nothing scientific about this data, despite the fact that it's been dressed up with words like "correlate"" it hasn't.
76.
by hc 17y ago
this is fantastic trolling but there doesn't really seem to be much substance to it.
77.
by hc 17y ago
"evidence to suggest he was so ridiculously unpolished after all those years" see his testimony in US v Microsoft in 1998... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/micro...
78.
by hc 17y ago
rock, paper, scissors
79.
Stampi - Why We Nap(sleepwarrior.com)
1 points by hc 17y ago|0 comments
80.
by hc 17y ago
"[proofs] are pretty sloppy, and are really just a form of persuasion." yes... with one of these computer brute force proofs, you must take it on faith that the result of executing an algorithm is as someone has claimed, be it the paper aut
81.
by hc 17y ago
no, this is really begging the question. youve reduced "the proposition is true" to "the algorithm is correct, and the algorithm returns 'true'". once you prove the former you still have to do the hard part of actually _proving_ the latter.
82.
by hc 17y ago
also developed by the one and only microsoft.
83.
by hc 17y ago
this sounds like the "new math"... why not start young children with actual programming? programming is _easier_ and more intuitive than thinking abstractly about algorithms and compression
84.
by hc 17y ago
i agree that the entire decline couldn't have been in architects, but remain mystified as to how (someone would conclude) this implies the _majority_ wasn't in architects
85.
by hc 17y ago
no offense, but that makes no sense whatsoever
86.
by hc 17y ago
that is a link to the same pdf, mirrored on scribd. HN automatically mirrors submitted pdfs.
87.
by hc 17y ago
in case anyone hasn't seen this, john carmack (of id software)'s views on software patents are worth reading: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151312&cid=12701745
88.
by hc 17y ago
wow, this is just ridiculously over the top.
89.
by hc 17y ago
that would be RHM
90.
by hc 17y ago
if some sort of accident rendered you unable to use your eyes/ears/etc. for the sensory purposes you describe, would you then cease to be a human being? the whole body certainly plays a role in thinking, but the threshold between consciousn

More ›