mistersheik

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by mistersheik 10y ago

   Yes. Are you arguing that the world does not have causal relationships? Such a world doesn't even make sense to me.
2. 2.▲
   by mistersheik 10y ago

   > If you were to stop all of those things, you could surely stop the rain as well. By the way, this is not true in general. Suppose B…F are sampled from Boolean variables with bias 0.5. A Boolean circuit like A = (sum(B,C,D,E,F)>3)
3. 3.▲
   by mistersheik 10y ago

   We do have a great formalization of causality, which is Pearl's book.
4. 4.▲
   by mistersheik 10y ago

   Causal models are more powerful than associational models because they support interventions. That means that you can answer questions about what would happen if you were to "do(x)". This is different than asking the question
5. 5.▲
   by mistersheik 10y ago

   The example I use is the sprinkler. Then you don't need God to intervene :)
6. 6.▲
   by mistersheik 10y ago

   This is really well-written, so I looked up the author, and no surprise it's Judea Pearl.
7. 7.▲
   by mistersheik 11y ago

   Joshua, you're not just the PEP writer: You also helped a lot with the implementation! Anyway, it also makes me happy :) By the way, we really need someone to document our feature. http://bugs.python.org/issue24136
8. 8.▲
   by mistersheik 11y ago

   Hi, I implemented most of PEP448. We actually implemented [*range(i) for i in range(5)] and {**d for d in ds} but it was removed ultimately because people in dev-python found it confusing. If you're interested in seeing