HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

le0n

33 karma · joined October 26, 2014

submissionscomments
le0n··on Rust as a gateway drug to Haskell
Haskell/GHC will soon have an extension for linear types, which will bring the languages much closer: http://blog.tweag.io/posts/2017-03-13-linear-types.html
le0n··on What programming languages are used most on weekends?
A confidence interval won't adjust the points (point estimates) but will give those points with a lower sample size wide confidence intervals (often covering zero).

Using an (empirical) Bayesian multilevel model can both attach uncertainty intervals to the point estimates and appropriately "shrink" the estimates towards zero at the low-sample-size end.

The latter is more directly interpretable, at the cost of slightly more complex modelling (/assumptions).

le0n··on Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions
I wonder whether this is the same sense in which the brain also uses logic to reason about stuff, and physics to interact with the world.
le0n··on Scientific Regress
It seems to me more bent on buttressing a pro-scientific religious viewpoint.
le0n··on OpenBazaar is Open for Business
Panama papers -- <anger> OpenBazaar -- cool!
le0n··on Causal Inference in Statistics: A Primer
Just so people know, there is a competing/complementary approach to causality in statistics, called the potential outcomes or (Neyman-)Rubin causal model, which as I understand it is currently more popular than Pearl's graphical/do-calculus approach.
le0n··on Correlation, Causation, and Confusion
I don't think machine learning vs Bayes vs sampling theory has much to do with the content of the article, which is more about causality than interpretations of probability.

> it's far more likely that coffee causes cancer if it can accurately predict it, even when you control for all other variables

I don't know about this: prediction is not equivalent to explanation in general. The "all the other variables" bit is also a bit of a kicker (what counts as "all"?) -- hence randomization, and, well, pretty much everything else the article discusses.

le0n··on Feyerabend on empiricism and sola scriptura
Possibly related simultaneous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10328699
le0n··on Correlation, Causation, and Confusion
+1. A fantastic article. Definitely one of the best popular-level stats pieces I've read.
le0n··on MIRI's Approach – Machine Intelligence Research Institute
Is anyone really an AGI expert?
le0n··on Bayes’ Theorem – What is it and what is it good for?
“Seeing the world through the lens of Bayes’ Theorem is like seeing The Matrix. Nothing is the same after you have seen Bayes.”

I'm pretty sure this is an instance of cognitive bias.

le0n··on Why Minds Are Not Like Computers (2009)
A great article on similar issues is "Turing Test: 50 Years Later":

http://crl.ucsd.edu/~saygin/papers/MMTT.pdf

It touches on the "physics is computable therefore the mind is computable", and similar such arguments, in a fascinating and IMO balanced way.

le0n··on How it feels to join an all-Haskell startup
I prefer comprehensions over either mapping or explicit recursion. Mapping is a win for abstraction but a loss for clarity.
le0n··on The Sound of TED: A Case for Distaste
I cried.
le0n··on On the Pedagogical Motive for Esoteric Writing (2007)
Also a review at NDPR, which makes some points similar to mine above: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/53333-philosophy-between-the-lines-t...
le0n··on On the Pedagogical Motive for Esoteric Writing (2007)
There are some distinct ideas that this article at times seems to conflate:

- Obscurity, speaking in fables, non-clarity, indirectness. Multiple layers to one's teaching. This possibly for the sake of pedagogy.

- Teachings for the public versus teachings for the initiates/elite/true disciples. Two contradictory or opposed layers to one's teaching.

The former and the latter are quite different, and I wonder whether the latter might be far less common than the former.

It seems clear that some thinkers, particularly in ancient Greece and Rome, had opposed esoteric and exoteric aspects to their work, and that we should acknowledge and try to discern this where it exists.

But I'd question whether esotericism is "of the greatest importance for our understanding of the whole course of Western philosophy". The author seems to think of it almost as a kind of skeleton key, as though maybe there is a significant stream of thought that people have radically misunderstood. The idea of a hidden thread of elite, secret knowledge has an alluring, conspiratorial feel to it that the author doesn't mention -- a vibe that is not so foreign to our modern sensibilities (Scientology, Kabbalah, New Age, ...).

Melzer writes that "with pedagogical esotericism, the writer actually embraces concealment and obscurity (of the right kind) as a positive good and as something essential to the primary purpose of his act of writing: philosophical education". How does this not describe art of all kinds -- e.g. fiction writing -- where the creator has a didactic purpose, but artfully weaves this into their work? ("Ars est celare artem.") Again, there is no distinction made between nonclarity and the demand for active, engaged, creative reading and thinking on the one hand, and on the other, radically opposed esoteric and exoteric meanings.