throwawaymath

20 ms·

421.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
I believe you. But there is also significant title inflation at that specific company. There is no reasonable definition for "senior software engineer" which has qualifications that can be met from scratch in nine months. What are
422.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
I have to be honest, it sounds absolutely absurd. What kind of definition must a company be using for "senior" if they're willing to hire someone into that title with no prior professional experience? It's almost certa
423.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
> Take e.g. tensorflow by google. The software itself, is per se worthless, so they can release it as OSS as some kind of calling card or recruiting tool. The crown jewels they are guarding closely and are never letting any outsider acc
424.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
What is the legal definition of a monopoly? As a followup, should that definition remain the legal definition of a monopoly? Do we need a modern appraisal of that definition?
425.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
That might be the case if you're in the front office at trading firms or hedge funds, but it's not generally the case with banks. FAANG pretty much roundly beats any bank these days.
426.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
As a counterpoint, thanks to an Echo in most rooms of my house and Hue lights everywhere I almost never touch a light switch. Likewise I generally use the Echo timers instead of oven timers for cooking, and I like using them as Spotify spea
427.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Fair enough, that seems like a good answer. There will still probably be concerns about whether or not the cap can be changed in the future, however. But I don't know enough about nonprofit laws to comment on that.
428.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Leaving aside the absolutely monumental if that's in that sentence, how does this square with the original OpenAI charter[1]: > We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit o
429.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Yeah the submitter didn't link to wyhash, they linked to their own project...without the title there'd be no context here. SMHasher is well known (at least the original Google project is, maybe not this fork), but why not just sub
430.
What are some noteworthy mic-drop moments in math?(mathoverflow.net)
4 points by throwawaymath 8y ago|0 comments
431.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Regardless of whether or not it's useful, it's substantially plagiarized from another source. You don't have an inline citation or visual indication that many of the figures are copied from another article on the topic. The s
432.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Your exposition is very good. If I could make one pedagogical recommendation, it would be that you give a gentle introduction to linear dependence and independence. You don't need this to treat the subject in the geometric fashion yo
433.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
> The author gives a visual example, for example, of why basic vectors 1,0 -1,0 are bad. The article shows they cannot span the whole space. I'm assuming you didn't mean the word "basic" this way, but on the off cha
434.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Bingo. Case in point, this is my "main" account :)
435.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Out of curiosity, do you also have experience trading equities/derivatives? I largely agree with you (especially the words of caution and about buying other peoples' trading infra), though I'd push back a bit on your assessme
436.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
My point can be generalized, sure. But you haven't substantiated the idea that most people who try both Java and Haskell/Lisp will prefer Haskell/Lisp. That's precisely why my very general point is applicable - your cl
437.
SaferCPlusPlus(duneroadrunner.github.io)
3 points by throwawaymath 8y ago|0 comments
438.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
I don't see how you could possibly state that conclusively. What leads you to believe most Java programmers would prefer Haskell or some flavor of Lisp? You're saying that people who spend time in both will prefer the latter, but
439.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Yes you're correct. I neglected to account for the bijection between even naturals and odd naturals, and was only considering finite strings. Since we're talking about infinite (or potentially infinite) strings here, the reduction
440.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Yeah someone else pointed out a similar point about the bijection of evens and odds, good point. My initial claim is incorrect, so I'll concede that. I was operating from the idea that there is no bijection between the naturals and a p
441.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
That's an interesting point I hadn't really thought about. The set of all even naturals is isomorphic to the set of all odd naturals, so technically speaking you'd be right. If every number appears with equal likelihood in a
442.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
No, it's not known that Pi is normal. This is a very, very open question. We don't even have a way of tackling that question at the moment. You're correct that if Pi is normal, it's normal in all bases. But that's
443.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
The simple reason is because a pseudorandom number generator is a complexity theoretic thing, but an information theoretic thing. In order for it to be robust, it must be indistinguishable from true random for any polynomial time algorithm.
444.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Because the sets of decimal and binary digits are: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} {0,1} respectively. Any subsequence of digits of Pi, such as {1,1,3,9,3,5}, is equal to the subsequence {7,9,3,5,3,3} under the proposed function. They ha
445.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Well, the device I'm typing this on was sold by a massive, vertically integrated technology company. So I guess that's one helpful usecase.
446.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
How does antitrust work?
447.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
If you convert Pi to base 2 you won't be penalized for those long sequences of odd numbers. Mapping the decimal digits of Pi to a parity function collapses a lot of the entropy.
448.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Technically you should convert Pi to base 2 before doing that, because using each decimal digit's parity collapses a lot of information in a lossy way. If your function is: f: π(k) --> δ(k) where π( k ) is the k th digit o
449.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Wow thank you, I think you nailed it. I see all of this now.
450.
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Okay, I think I understand what you're getting at. But if you've taken a set of points from a continuous set (like an interval on the reals) and you can put those in bijection with a discrete set, then by definition your subset of

More ›