pseut

23 ms·

271.
by pseut 13y ago
Either formulae and formulas are pretty common (and my Firefox spellcheck is flagging the first and not the second FWIW).
272.
by pseut 13y ago
Your post said, "draft," so I think you're covered for that sort of error. :)
273.
by pseut 13y ago
Very intro (like, Stats 101 intro): Purves, Pisani, and Freedman's is the best book I've seen. I'd combine that with something like Tufte's or Wainer's statistical graphics books to try to get some sophistication (for lack of a better word
274.
by pseut 13y ago
The first example, "unbiased standard deviation" is mislabeled. The estimator of the variance is unbiased but the square root of an unbiased estimator is not itself unbiased. So it's not as nit-picky as it looks; it's either a brain fart
275.
by pseut 13y ago
Yeah, but not about whether you're at a version < 1.
276.
by pseut 13y ago
That's a better example, thanks for sharing it.
277.
by pseut 13y ago
More valuable than stock ex ante, obviously not always ex post. Since the price of a publicly traded stock reflects expectations about future valuations, but also has some additional risk, the cash is usually going to be valued more. "in
278.
by pseut 13y ago
I'd love it if you blogged the book as you write it. I'm always looking for new ways to engage my 4yo daughter with this stuff as she grows up.
279.
by pseut 13y ago
For a random $30mil acquisition (hypothetically), there's a lot of gray area where it's hard to judge whether the overall benefit to the parent company is net positive or net negative. For a $1 bil acquisition, it's a lot easier to judge a
280.
by pseut 13y ago
So is Tumblr. So we're left with poor comparisons.
281.
by pseut 13y ago
Often if you go back later, you'll see that the downvote has been "corrected" by another reader. I'll sometimes upvote a reasonable comment only because it has negative karma. And I've... uh... in the name of science, made some relatively
282.
by pseut 13y ago
There are other forums for flamewars, HN doesn't need to be another. Most of these problems aren't a big deal on a case by case basis because, really, what's the harm of one more google vs microsoft flamewar in the scheme of things. But th
283.
by pseut 13y ago
You can set "showdead" in your profile to see hellbanned users. But you still can't reply to them (that's kind of the point).
284.
by pseut 13y ago
I understand why you're against having "advanced" features and flair, but being able to collapse the thread that follows those comments would help enormously. It's almost the same as sending the thread to the bottom of the page. Once I've
285.
by pseut 13y ago
"Unintentionally offensive" might not be the best way to put it. "Predictably" or "foreseeably" offensive may be better. In general, if we know that certain behavior will be offensive, it's polite to try to avoid it. If you're saying that
286.
by pseut 13y ago
Yeah, that's a good point. Maybe Glass will be like prescription sunglasses, and people will have a separate pair? Maybe there will be a way to overtly disable the computer part or remove it entirely? I think it's really unlikely that, as
287.
by pseut 13y ago
This is exactly what bothers me about the constant nudges to share more information online. It's like no one's ever been stalked by an ex, been abused, etc...
288.
by pseut 13y ago
recording video is an immediate workaround (I'm assuming that the phone doesn't continuously make shutter noises when it records video; if it does then nevermind).
289.
by pseut 13y ago
Or just take it off. Remember when people kept their bluetooth earpiece in their ear all the time ?
290.
by pseut 13y ago
I don't have any first hand experience with your issue, so take what I say with that in mind. Looking ahead, you don't like your plan or your partners. I don't know how much of the IP is yours legally, but you can try to find a new partner
291.
by pseut 13y ago
> And there's conflicting information -- the guy refused to stop flying, but the police wouldn't come because he left? That kinda sounds like he stopped flying. I read that as, "the guy refused to leave when asked but left after he wa
292.
by pseut 13y ago
There's up and down voting for that, and probably HN's spam filtering matters too. Making comments expressly meant to derail the conversation isn't necessary or useful.
293.
by pseut 13y ago
The New York Review of Books is excellent too.
294.
by pseut 13y ago
I think you're misreading. "I don't have access to information anybody would be interested in" doesn't mean "I have nothing to hide." It means "I have nothing to leak." I agree with the general statement, though.
295.
by pseut 13y ago
Right, that's why other people are trying to verify the proof and aren't just taking it on faith. They're almost certainly going to find errors, the question is whether or not those errors are easily fixed, difficult to fix, or fundamental
296.
by pseut 13y ago
From TFA: "Even an incorrect proof is better than no proof, because if the ideas are novel, they may still be useful for other problems, or inspire another mathematician to figure out the right answer." edit: I can see taking issue with the
297.
by pseut 13y ago
The counterpoint is that the guy has a serious track record before now (according the the article). If he didn't, no one would pay any attention to these claims. Since he does, you have to think that he might have proven it.
298.
by pseut 13y ago
It's a shame that you've disregarded all of the replies to your original comment. tl;dr there are degrees of bugs and many are easily fixed. edit: more constructively, Imagine that you're working on the NYT crossword and I come along and p
299.
by pseut 13y ago
The statement's a little hyperbolic, but I think you're misunderstanding the author's point. The point is that math is aimed at trying to build understanding in contrast to producing logically airtight proofs. The proofs are important to
300.
by pseut 13y ago
Some more advice: http://producingoss.com

More ›