dschiptsov

Why, cosplay is much more easier and pleasant than the actual thing, especially in the age of social media and role governed behavior - the age of cosplay.

You wouldn't believe how many idiots are cosplaying scientists, leave alone all these hipsters cosplaying intelligence..

In general, it boils down to the social advantage of displaying "success" and "competence" - socially constructed markers.

But there is a beautiful principle in biology - the "signals" must be honest and costly, impossible to cheat - one cannot cosplay parasite resistance, superior foraging ability, or good genes in general. One cannot cosplay youth and health. All these celebrities are ridiculous.

Hipsterism is cheap cosplay of intelligence. Founders cosplay special talents and abilities they does not possess. Nothing to see here.

What, no systemd?

I think everything boils down to finding an actual demand for your skill set. As long as some organization or an investor has a real problem to solve and you could convince them that you really have the ability and necessary training and experience, then it doesn't really matter how do you work and from where. You could always frame a contract not for hourly basis but on completion of the prototype, milestones, whatever you like.

Basically, you should imagine yourself as a specialized company doing sub-contracting in ML.

Finding a real demand and securing a contract is much harder than doing actual coding and modeling. There are literally thousands of guys who are smart enough to apply ML, especially now, when it became mainstream.

PhD is, of course, a huge advantage in the world of pointy haired bosses, HR and paper pushers. With it you, probably, are looking for a very high hourly rate instead of subcontracts. In this you probably would fail, because people who are willing to pay high hourly wages needed certain rituals to be performed publicly in return.

Mythical, of course. Thank you.)

Not at all. Erlang's approach to concurrency has been well-researched and validated (Akka).

Async, await and friends are mere standardized kludges - popular syntactic sugar without clear semantics and real world connection (explicit message passing mimics how biological systems do self-regulation).

So called enterprise languages, especially C++ are full of similar stuff (kludges).

Advertising explained.

This is what happens when coders are rushing to code without real understanding what they are doing and why. What is worse - they borrow "features" without understanding from amateur JavaScript projects or C#.

What a bloated mess. This is clearly the second system syndrome, described in the Mystical Man-month.

In good old times futures were macros on top of delay and force special forms, and explicit message passing a-la Erlang would do the job.

Now, please, try to think about to what degree (how many orders of magnitude) the Whatsapp ecosystem, which has been build on top of OTP, are more efficient in terms of data throughput, resource usage (both memory and CPU cycles wasted on thread scheduling and looking and busy waiting) and reliability (think of Facebook Messanger too), how many times less lines of code it has, to what degree the code is less verbose, less repetitive and hence more readable and maintainable.

I could give you a hint: the whole standard library of Erlang is (including optional type declarations for each function)

   schiptsov@Ideapad:~/Compile/otp/lib/stdlib/src$ du -sh .
   2.6M	.

I do not have Java sources.

Processed junk food is absolutely dominant form of human nutrition in the world. Does this fact makes junk food better than evolved (carefully selected) traditional dishes of rural communities, adapted to the local food sources and seasons?

Competition in general. War is just one form of it.

So-called Cold War and Arm-racing is the most recent examples.

Continuous competition for everything, not just survival and reproduction, is what makes evolution (biological or social) possible.

I hope they will look at Erlang/OTP instead of Java EE for inspiration.

MIT Scheme, Common Lisp, SML, Haskell, Erlang.

Scheme - it's so concise, clean, Wow!

CL - LOOPing macros, SETF, OOP is just a bunch of slots and macros. Wow!

SML, Haskell - static typing done right. Wow!

Erlang - Wow!

Scala - concepts from SML + design choices from Erlang.

Java, JavaScript - Packers, packers everywhere...

> and she only really has one philosophical point to make

Oh, rly?

OK, I will try, given that I am mere a poor asshole.

The classic literature (and Atlas without any doubt belongs to so called modern classic) much like classical music, is a complex and highly artificial phenomena. The word for referring to a piece of art is artifact.

In the case of classical music there is absolutely no objective criteria to judge symphonies. It is possible to compare the pieces of music, and lots of pseudo-intellectual assholes do it for living, but it will be nothing but a joggling with a metaphorical jargon. Nevertheless, one almost always could distinguish some fragments from this or that piece of classical music which he likes for some not very articulable reasons. Bach, arguably, composed most of such sources of a beautiful fragments, Mozart is the second, etc.

These notions could be applied to literature. Like a symphony, a big novel, even a small poem, cannot be judged by a single criteria, but some parts of it we might find delightful and beautiful. The question, as it is in the case of classic music, is who is the reader (or listener).

In case of Atlas Shrugged, there are too many to count arguably beautiful parts (majoring in physics and philosophy is one of them), fragments or even passages, which appeals to the mind of modestly educated reader. The best personages she created were, ironically, not the central, heroic and positive, but all the crooks and weaklings, mediocrities and minor idiots. This, perhaps, is why Rand is hated so much.

As a student of philosophy, Rand got most of the philosophic and economic aspects right. Indeed, her Hegelian professor is a true masterpiece, her bureaucrats are convincing, James Taggard is remarkable. Her main characters are overloaded with virtues.)

Certain naivety of the plot - the miraculous alloy and especially the perpetuum mobile, for which the book has been criticized so often by idiots, actually are mere nuances. The real story is about focus and persistence, accepting the challenges, adapting and evolving and never giving up - all the postulates of a sound moral philosophy, which goes back to ancient Greeks. No one takes the plot of Atlas seriously.

She is also right that the motivations which drive us should be simple and pure (the Greeks, again), should be grounded in our human nature (shaped by evolution, constrained by biology) not in some abstract nonsense, dogmas, fleeting fashions, or even social norms. Rigid social norms are always reflect the ugliness of urban societies. While her main characters are rather angular and clumsy, the driving forces behind them are clearly recognizable and proper. Let's not blame Rand for this angularity.

I could do it for hours, but I think you got the idea. Good literature requires a "good" reader to be able to appreciate what is behind the words in a sentence.

Any argumentation?

Time to re-read Atlas Shrugged? Remember the complains about Colorado?)

They will always say such things.

Cosplay (role-playing) of intelligence (acute hipsterism) at its best.

In the 21th century educated techies should understand that Trump is not a mere candidate, but a product of a set of image makers, speech writers, psychologists and whole bunch of deceptive and manipulative techniques applied.

Basically, it is a well crafted frontman (same as in a rock band) to appeal to less educated majority. This explains all the sexism and masculinity, bravado and jokes - all this reflects what the majority of any given population would appreciate, but not necessarily publicly approve.

In a society which is famous for its well crafted, researched in psychology departments, deceptive advertising techniques, all what Trump does should be familiar and transparent - the same primitive manipulations everyone is using to sell the crap to each other.

Trump is a product of applied psychology, designed to obtain majority of votes. Do not even try to fancy that hipsters, vegans, etc. leave alone the ivvy league students, constitutes the majority of US population.

So, some people take their chances, betting on that this primitive but sound strategy could win. Consider this as just a form of a risky investment.

Someone got financing for a crowdsourcing of data mining of commercial data set. Very clever.

It seems that only very few nerds are taking the theoretical impossibility of predicting the future seriously and we are missing the opportunity to get funding for some crappy models from the greater fools.

My point was in my first comment.

OK, tell me, please, what it is that you can predict? That some John Doe, having the first class ticket in a cabin next to the exit would survive the collision of the next Titanic with a new iceberg? That being a woman gives you better chances to secure a seat in a lifeboat? What is the meaning of the word "predict" here?

> All models are wrong, but some are useful.

Exactly.

All predictions are wrong and make no sense for partially observable, multiple causation, mostly stochastic phenomena. It will never be the same.

This is only one of many aspects of that event. The data reflects that the efforts of organized evacuation in the beginning were efficient.

But any attempt to frame it as a "prediction", an accurate model of the event or adequate description of reality is just nonsense.

To call things by its proper names (precise use of the language) is the foundation of the scientific method. This is mere oversimplified, non-descriptive toy model of one aspect of historical event, made from of statistics of partially observable environment. A few inferred correlations reflects that there was not a total chaos, but some systematic activity. No doubt about it. But this is absolutely unscientific to say anything else about the toy model, let alone claim that any predictions based on it have any connection to reality.

Why not. I remember a paper which compares the behavior of foraging ants (they send more or less ants according to the rate of returned with food) to adjustment of the window size based on the data rate in TCP.

Simulations are not experiments. It is an animation of a formalized imagination, if you wish.

> You can show with cross-validation and test set performance that your model using these variables generalizes (around 0.80 ROC AUC).

It shows only that given set of variables (observable and inferred) could be used to build a model. The given data set is not descriptive, because it does not contain more relevant hidden variables, so any predictions or inferences based on this data set are nothing but a story, a myth made from statistics and data.

There is a very important notion from The Sciences of the Artificial book by Herbert A. Simon, that the visible (to an external observer) behavior of an ant (its tracks, if you wish) is not due to its supposed intelligence, but mostly due to the obstacles in the environment.

Most of the models mimic and simulate (very naively) that observable behavior, not its origin.

When people cite "the map is not the territory" they mean this. Simulation is not even an experiment. It is mere an animation of a model - a cartoon.

Correlations does not imply causation. There were many more relevant but "invisible" variables, which, probably, related to some genetic factors, like ability to sustain exposure to the cold water, ability to calm oneself down to avoid panic and self-control in general, strong survival instinct to literally fight the others, etc. The variables you have described, except the age of a passenger, are visible but irrelevant. And pure luck must have a way bigger weight and it is, obviously, related to the genetic favorable factors, age, health and fitness.

Because otherwise it should be called machine hallucinations?

The process of learning could be defined as a task of extraction of relevant information (knowledge) about reality (shared environment) not mere accumulation of a fancy nonsense or false beliefs.

Lol. Predicting the survival of passengers on the Titanic is meaningless and misleading - there is literally no connection to reality, despite the framing of the task which suggests a certain connection. There is absolutely nothing that could be predicted. It is just a simulation of oversimplified model which describes nothing, but an oversimplified view of a historical event. It is as meaningless as the ant simulator written by Rich Hickey to demonstrate features of Clojure - it has that much connection to real ants.

The classic Andrew Ng's course on Coursera. Then ML courses on Udacity.

Ridiculous. No single trader could affect the whole market - it does not work that way.

This is another example of how wrong the current models based on traditional assumptions and academic theories are.

If a market could be nearly destroyed by one single trader, there is no market at all, but a fraud, smoke and mirrors.

That's the point of the US immigration system - to attract top 5% of the bell curve.