toponaut

3 ms·

1.
by toponaut 4y ago
"the discrimination makes factual sense." I can't figure out what you mean. Examples? You seem to be linking religion with "moral standards" and science with "facts". Neither of those are appropriate. Not
2.
by toponaut 4y ago
Not only is that possible but that tendency was the cause (and unexpected finding) of the most famous social psychology "experiment" of them all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
3.
by toponaut 4y ago
I was at Stanford for nearly 10 years. Not formally in CS or AI, granted, but SAIL doesn't ring a bell for me. Maybe it's just not that well known.
4.
by toponaut 5y ago
Was the final manuscript glued together then? If so, this whole article seems off-point. Why not just say "this old manuscript has images made up of several layers, it looks like collage"? I was assuming this college technique was
5.
by toponaut 5y ago
I agree. I didn't mean to imply this was a good explanation or example. I still think "abstraction/classes are good" was the intention/gist of the article.
6.
by toponaut 5y ago
The author's solution to the toy problem is --- die = Die(12) expected_values(die, n=10000) gaussian = Gaussian(mu=4.0, sigma=2.0) expected_value(gaussian, n=100000) coin = Coin(fairness=0.75) expected_value(coin, f=lambda x: np.where(
7.
by toponaut 5y ago
To a software engineer this will also read mad. This article is ultimately explaining why abstraction is good and why it's helpful to build classes in python. That is already obvious to SWEs, not at all specific to "scientific com