patrick5415

Please. I’ve read plenty of biologically motivated drawbacks of the male sex, both here and other more “enlightened” corners of the interwebs Supposedly, they are bunch of pre-verbal, emotionally out-of-touch nitwits so focused on competition they can’t figure out how to cooperate.

For me and my coworkers, the leakiness is mostly around networking. If you start the wrong vpn, docker doesn’t work. If your ip tables aren’t set up just so, docker doesn’t work. Yet the documentation would lead you to believe that how docker does networking should be considered an implementation detail.

This is only necessary because docker is steaming pile of hot garbage. It’s the leakiest of leaky abstractions, and a hoarder to boot.

Man, I 100% agree. This PC crap is the worst thing to happen to humanity in the last 500 years.

Don’t do this. You’re pretending to know what the op is thinking, aside from what they actually said.

Personally, I find linear regression makes more sense from an orthogonality of sub-spaces perspective. That the same solution can be derived as the optimum of some cost function is neat though.

As a 30 something, single developer in boulder, if I knew my current job was going to be remote for the long haul, I would leave this place in heartbeat for some tiny town in Wyoming. Boulder and the rest of colorado have become entirely too crowded.

My experience was nearly the opposite. I tried to teach myself c 15 years ago and found pointers completely bewildering. I didn’t really know how to program any other language then. After a 10 year, non-technical interlude, I went to grad school and spent 5 years writing matlab. In the last year, I decided to learn c again. This time, pointers seemed completely straightforward. The most difficult part for me this round was keeping the syntax straight.

It starts to become gummy and clogs up fuel injectors and carb jets. If you are really driving that little, do yourself a favor and put some fuel stablizer in the tank.

This has been the case from day with essentially every story I have read. A month ago, when my company started working from, I was caught rather by surprise because I don’t really follow the news.

I wanted a frame of reference, how bad is this thing, really? I googled “Coronavirus vs swine flu vs sars vs mers vs West Nile virus.” Every single hit was a conspiracy theory like website. Which tells you that no “serious” journalist could be bothered to ask that obvious question. Nope. All they can be bothered to do is write fear mongering drivel this.

Pretty good description of all the gripes people have.

Hiring software devs is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t proposition—somebody is always gonna bitch.

Even in a shop with just Linux and mac, I think docker (especially deployed via fargate) causes way more problems than it solve. We have a single instance of a single app that used to run just fine in a Ubuntu vm. Now it runs in fargate. We waste huge time futzing with the image size due to fargate insane 8gb limit. We wast huge time working around not being able to get a shell when something goes wrong.

Local development also sucks. The docker engine is essentially unusable on my colleagues Mac, consuming 100%+ of all available cpu while sitting idle. On my Linux box, either docker breaks my networking, or IT firewall rules break dockers networking. It’s even worse with wfh, because our vpn is incomparable with docker. Local dev just happens in an anaconda env instead. So what’s the point?

VMs have none of these problems. Docker is the leakiest abstraction I’ve yet to come across.

Your whole argument is based around “if you have good model...”. This where most all control theory falls on its face. Getting a good is hard. For lqr that model better be mostly linear.

Oh, you system model isn’t first order? Now you need an estimator/Kalman filter. Or more sensors. That’s just more complexity for questionable benifit, which is why lqr is beloved by academics [0]. For anything that would be adaquetly controlled with pid, stick with that. After about 2 hours fiddling with the knobs, it’ll be close enough.

This whole idea of optimality is based on bad intuition. Which states do you care about? Why? Is that more valuable than control effort? Why? Who is doing the economic analysis to determine what ultimately costs us more money? In the end, this thing are tuned just like pid: you stop when the step response looks nice. Besides all that, for a lot of systems, and in particular flexible structures with a lot of states, “penalizing state excursions” isn’t really useful intuition to begin with for almost all state space represtations. You are better off with a pid and notch filter.

[0] I decided to complete my PhD in controls so could make statements like that with at least marginal credibility.

I did my PhD in controls too, and I’d pretty much agree with all of that. There is a ton of really heavy math flying around with little to show for it. If your system is anything beyond weakly nonlinear, you are basically screwd. The best and effectively only tool we have otherwise was invented over a 100 years ago by lyapunov. And using it requires, I’m not joking, nearly divine inspiration.

You can get the same advice from a crossfit website. Doctors aren’t the ones fortifying food and nurses seem perfectly capable of administering a vaccine.

I know exactly what I’m talking about. I’ve been an academic. You can call it victim blaming all you like, but you’re just removing personal responsibility from the picture. Nobody forced these people into their profession, nobody is forcing them to publish with any given journal, and nobody is forcing them to remain academics.

We always have choice.

Passing the buck and saying “I believe what I’m doing is wrong, but until there’s a policy that prevents everybody else from doing it too, I won’t change” is just lazy.

At a high level, I agree. My take is that for things like broken bones, and other accute trauma, doctors are great. For everything else, especially anything chronic, and they are completely worthless.

It could just as well be argued that the researchers who choose to publish there ought to be publicly shamed. Elsevier is nothing without an army willing accomplices.

I’ve used one on other people’s macbooks. I think my objection is mostly aesthetic. It just seems so gaudy and excessive or something along those lines.

I’m glad they haven’t. That ginormous trackpad is a huge turnoff to me.

Another possibility I didn’t see below: a higher than average number of HN readers appear to have gone to grad school. My (admittedly jaded) view says that grad school produces one of two outcomes: people disgusted by academia, and people with Stockholm syndrome.

I don’t think science would suffer too much if we just abandoned peer review and committed to the arXiv route. Peer review does little to ensure research is actually rigorous. Rather, it mostly ensures the authors know how to play game: use the right language, cite the right people, and don’t stray too far from the current fad while simultaneously selling what they’ve done like it’s the hottest thing since relativity.

Once you’ve read enough papers, you don’t even have to invoke the replication crisis to see that most papers should be taken with a grain of salt.

I think this must depend on your field. In mine, it’s generally free to publish, unless you want color figures or go over the page limit.

Glad to know I’m not the only one surprised by the content of this story...

I’m a grad student. I work in an empty lab. I’m lucky if somebody else is there 4 hours a week. I go home to an empty house. Once a week, I have beers with a friend. Count that up. I’m alone (168-8)/168 hours a week. Cry me a fucking river.

He/she is not making this up. This is pretty much exactly how I think. When somebody says, “don’t want to be arrested by a bot? Just carry you papers!”, that sounds like absolutely evil tyranny to me.

I’m not the op. But I see you doubling down on your own claim, still without providing any data. What makes the op’s claim any more wild than your own? Why is the onus them, rather than you?

You have presented no data to back up you claim that greater than 50% of people (popular consensus) believe Hollywood produces less original content than at some time in the past. Even if you did, the fact that most people believe something is distinct from that thing actually being true.

For what it’s worth, my intuition says you’re right. But intuition is not data. Confirmation bias is real...

A craftsman doesn’t blame his tools.

If the rust people took your attitude a few years ago, where would they be today?

I agree. The way way the categories are worded essentially excludes the possibility that maybe we shouldn’t be training these models at all. We have banned potentially insightful experiments in both medicine and psychology because they are unethical. I see no reason ML should get a pass.