hmwhy

13 ms·

31.
by hmwhy 6y ago
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I would like to see the world in a better light, and I do try most of the time; but it's pretty difficult for me when it comes to academic misconduct. > It doesn't even have t
32.
by hmwhy 6y ago
> Science is supposed to be self-correcting. I admire the author's belief, not least because I used to be like that, but I personally think that couldn't be further form the truth for contemporary scientific research, and it&#x
33.
by hmwhy 6y ago
This story really stuck with me when I came across it here[0] last year because of the way it's written. As a few have pointed out, the Twitter messages are just "paraphrasing" the article if you put it nicely. Putting a few
34.
by hmwhy 6y ago
I can't comment too much on the zero-G washing part (but I tend to agree), and I think the comment about solvent is actually very interesting. It's likely that weight is probably not the biggest concern if such a washing system we
35.
by hmwhy 6y ago
The article resonates with me a lot, and reminded of the couple of years of personal experience of applied machine learning in another field of science; because the points made are exactly what I encountered then and made me quit my job. Th
36.
by hmwhy 6y ago
Every time a thread like this comes up, I feel that I would like to read some comments that are not assertions on why JavaScript (or Python for that matter) is a bad idea to put on "everything". If nothing else, it seems like a go
37.
by hmwhy 6y ago
Ah! So that's what it is. :( I did the same thing in as you did and I'm now getting much fast times. I feel a bit silly now for not having looked into it further before posting those obviously suspicious times. Edit: and thank you
38.
by hmwhy 6y ago
Hello! Many apologies for having taken a while to reply, I finally found some time to sit down and do some tests because > 200 ms vs. < 10 ms is too big of a difference, and also because of what london_explore said: > and if that p
39.
by hmwhy 6y ago
Thank you for taking the time to explain things! > The margin of error is huge for 1, and 1 and 3 are within margins of error for the V8s, so my guess is that you ran them in the same order every time and the difference is just an artefa
40.
by hmwhy 6y ago
I was a bit surprised by this. It could be because of a lack of understanding of JavaScript, but the biggest reason that surprised is because I was under the impression that the time it takes to access any element in a JavaScript Array is c
41.
by hmwhy 6y ago
I personally think there is a lot of value in these things, particularly in cases where it's just impractical to go back to school/university or that tuition is unaffordable. Quite a few years ago I learnt software engineering and
42.
by hmwhy 6y ago
Not trying to prove you wrong, but I really don't think anyone has enough facts to claim either way confidently. I don't necessarily agree with all of the data presented, but I think your response to it is emotional and unwarrante
43.
by hmwhy 6y ago
I highly recommend working through YDKJS[1] if you have an interest in and/or a reason to "master" JavaScript. I think you may find that some of those "bad design decisions" are actually not so bad, or at least mana
44.
by hmwhy 6y ago
I personally think it's only as overwhelming and confusing as one's predisposition to FOMO. I stopped worrying when I found out at meetups and interviews that it really doesn't work like that in most parts of the real world.
45.
by hmwhy 6y ago
Glad to see that I'm not the only one triggered by the irony. :p
46.
by hmwhy 6y ago
On a personal level, I tend to agree with you because of some traumatic experiences with collaborators in the past. But I think there is at least one valid reason for using imprecise terms in scientific journalism: it makes the content more
47.
by hmwhy 6y ago
To be fair, that doesn't appear to be a quote and the last few words of the sentence you quoted is important: > ... offering a comparable energy capacity and cycling ability to some lithium-ion batteries already on the market . H
48.
by hmwhy 6y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, but for every person who pays attention to the difference between HTTP and HTTPS, and understands what it means, whenever visiting a website, there are probably many more who don't.
49.
by hmwhy 6y ago
Upon reading again I think it is clear what you meant, and I should apologise for jumping in to comment a bit too quickly!
50.
by hmwhy 6y ago
I did a bit of research a couple of months ago when I wanted to set up Sidecar for illustration (but couldn't because my Macbook is slightly too old); it seems that, whether with Sidecar or other paid Apps, the iPad as a drawing tablet
51.
by hmwhy 6y ago
I second this. I have some experience in both web development and scientific computing in various fields (not bioinformatics). Things felt just as hard at the beginning in all cases—I don't recall things being any better in scientific
52.
by hmwhy 6y ago
I just want to echo what everyone has already said that this is indeed very cool in many aspects. The API documentation is what really jumps out to me: it's an absolute joy to read, and makes me feel that the developer actually respect
53.
by hmwhy 6y ago
Agreed. I care about privacy very much, and I do as much as I can to protect it with what little technical knowledge I have—I think most people I know would consider me an alarmist when it comes to protecting myself from "bad" thi
54.
by hmwhy 6y ago
I was in a casual virtual meeting with a group of highly educated audience last week, and the question of whether or not we will install the app came up. As far as I know none of them has a background in computer science or anything related
55.
by hmwhy 7y ago
I think the OP is pretty chill and doesn't mean that having a PhD is equivalent to being technically superior (see the following quote). > ... Meaning, it is entirely possible to get expert levels on a topic without getting the PhD
56.
by hmwhy 7y ago
> On that same note, The Economist article is a commentary on the study and not written by the authors of the actual study. You are right, I completely missed that point when I commented and that is now an embarrassing mistake that I can
57.
by hmwhy 7y ago
Highlights and comments: > These results are not comprehensive, however. Nor are they representative. EF’s index is based on the results of a free online test taken by 2.3m volunteers in 100 countries. Only people with an internet connec
58.
by hmwhy 7y ago
I don't think that's a fair judgement. The Wikipedia page that you linked to lists 192 very specific types of cognitive bias; even if the information of the article were directly derived from the Wikipedia page, the author still
59.
by hmwhy 7y ago
Came across your work by accident not too long ago and am a huge fan of it (no, not just StyleGAN). I'm too shy to send an e-mail or a Tweet, so given that here is the opportunity: thank you.
60.
by hmwhy 7y ago
I'm not sure why this comment is downvoted (at the time I started writing this) without any comments at all. To me it presents an alternative view and interpretation on the article. Even if I don't necessarily agree with some of t

More ›