physPop

9 ms·

1. 151.▲
   by physPop 12y ago

   Fair concerns, thank you for clarifying the notation, you are correct in my misuse of model/chain. Was typing fast :) After some further reading , I also agree re: martingales. To be honest I have only ever encountered them in the com
2. 152.▲
   by physPop 12y ago

   Aren't we also encouraged to embrace "disruptive" ideas that change the status quo? No focus groups, full of average people who are content with the default is going to give that much meaningful feedback for game changing fea
3. 153.▲
   by physPop 12y ago

   Hi. As other posters have mentioned there is a closed form solution that comes straight from an easy differntial equation. I'd like to make a point to help the author out, since this post is in the spirit of simple explanations: a goo
4. 154.▲
   by physPop 12y ago

   There is no > fallacy of calories in/out and it has everything to do with thermodynamics. This is exemplified in your very own example: fidgeting more means a higher expenditure of energy. Chemical energy doesn't magically disa
5. 155.▲
   by physPop 12y ago

   Yes, this kind of momentum is certainly a factor. Another issue is that "best paper" competitions tend to attract younger scientists who don't have the same "star power" to generate citations. Star power in science
6. 156.▲
   by physPop 12y ago

   "Organic"
7. 157.▲
   by physPop 12y ago

   This is really interesting! I'm tempted to borrow this and use it as a lecture for my intro CS students.
8. 158.▲
   by physPop 12y ago

   The website was right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-circuit_evaluation
9. 159.▲
   by physPop 12y ago

   Is it really appropriate to expect a slew of candidates to drop everything and do "sample work" so you can assess them?
10. 160.▲
    by physPop 12y ago

    No source code commenting? No problem.
11. 161.▲
    by physPop 12y ago

    % format is deprecated in the python spec.
12. 162.▲
    by physPop 12y ago

    This is a wonderful explanation, thank you!
13. 163.▲
    by physPop 12y ago

    I am critical of your arguments for many reasons. They are not well reasoned, poorly communicated, and predicated on an "anti-fetish" as you so eloquently put it. 1) False. Go look it up. 2) The site doesn't include a year of
14. 164.▲
    by physPop 12y ago

    Did you even read the review article?
15. 165.▲
    by physPop 12y ago

    > In my experience That is exactly the problem. Your experience is biased and by definition not transferable to hiring in general. This is why thousands of academic articles exist about research practices and good indicators for future p
16. 166.▲
    by physPop 12y ago

    He means you're not selling directly to clients in a typical SE role.
17. 167.▲
    by physPop 12y ago

    I am confused. As marketers, surely you are familiar with the old adage "you get what you pay for." I feel this applies directly in outsourcing -- skilled labour does not come cheap. How can you be confident in results for such l
18. 168.▲
    by physPop 12y ago

    Good fun here, and a neat exercise! However, a few comments for people looking to do the same: - Ignoring the 3D nature of antenna placement, you need to model the concrete walls properly to get an answer that is semi reliable. All material