irremediable

15 ms·

91.
by irremediable 11y ago
What's the best way to run a debugger through Julia code? I value an interactive debugger much more for this kind of nitty gritty numerical programming than I do for lots of other tasks.
92.
by irremediable 11y ago
Yeah, this is kind of what I was going for when I mentioned HN readers being outliers. FB doesn't do much for me, but evidently it does a lot for most consumers, because it's damned popular.
93.
by irremediable 11y ago
Hmm. I partly agree, but "a sociopath"? That seems a bit much...
94.
by irremediable 11y ago
Anyone else find that they love FB engineering and FB research, but don't like the product much? FB does so much awesome technical stuff, and often shares/open-sources it. But the actual FB site -- for me, at least -- is lacklustr
95.
by irremediable 11y ago
Nope! It's "the probability of chance* leading to something at least as extreme as your results". They're related, but they're not the same. * Ok, a chosen null hypothesis, often chosen to be something like "ch
96.
by irremediable 11y ago
Agreed that it's a bit ambiguous, but in modern British English this usage of "random" is really common. I didn't even think about the headline until people started discussing it.
97.
by irremediable 11y ago
Maybe they should let users pay to recover their deleted writing?
98.
by irremediable 11y ago
Thanks for the insight on this, by the way; I'm more of an applied math person, so I have no firsthand experience of things like computer-verified proofs, Coq, etc. What do you think are the specific ways in which a proof compiler woul
99.
by irremediable 11y ago
Great effort. I'm not American, but the story of Ebeling (and others at Morton-Thiokol) is taught in engineering schools throughout the world. I saw there was a great public reaction to the recent NPR article, with an outpouring of sym
100.
by irremediable 11y ago
I really need to get around to trying Godot. I've had it installed since 1.0, but I've been too busy/lazy to try any (amateur!) gamedev lately.
101.
by irremediable 11y ago
> I now sometimes think of a very strict compiler for mathematics that catches errors from the math lingua. Is that what Coq ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq ) is?
102.
by irremediable 11y ago
Maybe it tops out early, but I'm given to understand junior salaries are also very competitive. (Maybe this is less true by comparison in the States -- it's fairly true here in the UK.)
103.
by irremediable 11y ago
Is it cheap college labour? They pay pretty well.
104.
by irremediable 11y ago
Afraid not. He was talking to a load of machine learning researchers who want to use the chips for CUDA stuff, for whom power consumption isn't an issue.
105.
by irremediable 11y ago
I'll confess I've never done any CUDA stuff, so I don't know firsthand. Surely things are likely to get better, though?
106.
by irremediable 11y ago
I went to an interesting talk lately from an Nvidia research guy who believes GPUs are the "next" Moore's law. He's upbeat about this; he thinks it'll give a lot of jobs to lower-level programmers for the next decad
107.
by irremediable 11y ago
Surely people using vim/emacs for serious C++ work are going to at least have ctags, and probably something like YouCompleteMe?
108.
by irremediable 11y ago
Unsure of the explicit typing one. Don't the Core Guidelines say to use it in that case? The IDE's going to tell you the return type anyway.
109.
by irremediable 11y ago
Ah damnit, what?! Due to my intense procrastination, when people say "something that most people don't know" [1] I've usually at least heard of it. But somehow this has completely slipped under my radar. Makes me rethink
110.
by irremediable 11y ago
Tricky. I think there's seldom, if ever, such a thing as a purely "technical issue". This is often the downfall of technocratic arguments: sure, we should have experts doing the things that are objectively "the best&quot
111.
by irremediable 11y ago
AFAIK that doesn't seem at all feasible yet. Currently you need an enormous facility, which struggles to detect anything but the most powerful gravitational waves.
112.
by irremediable 11y ago
Of course they are. But if there is significant discrimination against women, maybe women either get really good or leave OSS/programming altogether. Leading to the remaining women (the sample) being "more competent".
113.
by irremediable 11y ago
IMO that's a knee-jerk reaction to which you shouldn't succumb. The study isn't saying that "one gender is better at programming"; it's saying there's weak evidence that GitHub users of one gender might
114.
by irremediable 11y ago
It's a striking reminder that, although the systems we use day-to-day may be intimidatingly complex, they are hackable. Moreover, even someone with a comparatively basic understanding of reverse engineering (e.g. me) can see how it w
115.
by irremediable 11y ago
Awesome post(s). Looking forward to part three.
116.
by irremediable 11y ago
IMO it'd be better to just alert the user, and give them the option to carry on at their peril. I do see your point, though.
117.
by irremediable 11y ago
I've visited friends at their London office a bit. Fun place, a lot like the Google campus -- e.g. free food, Star Wars statues, Segways, etc. But high-ish security; any visitor gets a printed name badge that expires and changes colour
118.
by irremediable 11y ago
The study itself: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... Interesting stuff. Not read it properly yet, but I'm a bit sceptical. That said, the abstract makes it sound very thorough.
119.
by irremediable 11y ago
I can speak a bit for the "no" camp. I work in medical imaging, so not neuroscience per se, but I know quite a few neuroscientists. Most of them are now working in Python, MATLAB and/or C++. IMO the (impassable?) barrier to u
120.
by irremediable 11y ago
Yeah... I'm more inclined towards your view. It's hard to know for certain, but I think people would redevelop things -- after all, they already developed them once, from a significantly weaker position. There's the possibili

More ›