terranstyler

I somehow hoped the blog article would say that the submission was rejected because it was not novel because someone just published a similar article a few weeks before.

Now that would have been a refutation of time travel...

So it seems when writing in English for a French audience that using more often "an" would lend "an helping hand" to understanding (by supporting the internal voice)

I don't know what network effects you mean.

But I agree with the imbalance of power, at least in the common case. However, the more specific and difficult your job is, the more the power leans towards the employee.

Still, I believe any kind of power inequality will manifest itself somewhere whether you fix working hours or not.

It is not the duty of the lawmaker but of the contracting parties (= employer and employee) to define the amount of work hours per day.

There are many variables in the process:

- Demand for money of the employee (poor father of five vs. rich single)

- Demand for work of the employer (company needs a helping hand vs company needs to recruit a new team)

- Scale effect of product (does one additional hour or man lead to one additional unit produced?, compare laying bricks vs programming)

These variables are unknown to the lawmaker for each specific instance, so any a-priori determination of the amount of work hours per week cannot be optimal.

Me too.

However, shouldn't there be a much more flexible approach where you just send your functions to an execution server (just like an agent)? You might want to define some keywords to refer to previously used functions or data.

Then again, such an agent would be pretty much a REPL, so you might just want to ssh to a REPL that does load balancing and has sub-repls (on other machines) that fail over.

Thoughts on that?

Re Optional<T>:

If I get this right, the source code of the signature of many (many!) methods will now be twice the size of before, unless the names of your types and variables were already considerably bigger than "Optional<...>" (10 chars).

I hope it's worth this cost.

As a political side note: I think the amount of personal responsibility of getting PTSD for a voluntarily subscribed soldier is way higher than for civilians finding themselves in a conflict.

I know this doesn't help - neither the soldiers nor the PTSDed civilians, yet, paradoxically, often the former are to some degree responsible for the PTSD of the latter.

I was asking about that in another thread. Do you have any references about you N/p rule of thumb? Thanks in advance!

There have been discussions in a few bigger companies about including heuristics in decision making processes, sadly the human board members were unable to properly aggregate the pros and cons of such a move and the idea was dismissed.

This is extremely interesting. In the forecast domains I work, (I use neural networks on standardized inputs) I typically use 50-100 epochs at most for a few thousand rows (with some approx 10 input neurons) and I don't see networks improving very much after that.

However, our industry peers often use a few thousand up to several ten thousands of epochs, yet our software is regularly best or second best when compared by clients.

I think this may be the same effect: Network weights should be "ok" after a few dozen epochs and any training beyond that maybe wins a percent of variance explained but already risks overfitting.

We use the spare time to train more networks (on slightly different input data) whose results we aggregate after that.

Something else: can someone explain the "I don't make no nevermind", I suppose it's funny but I don't get it.

I think we have a misunderstanding here.

I am not saying "every statistical problem can be solved efficiently, numerically stable, ... in clojure" (and I realize you may read my comment like that), but rather most of the critical stuff is provided by incanter and the rest you can do yourself in clojure.

As a side note: Incanter also has some fortran dependencies, sot he critical stuff is also not done in clojure.

I personally do very well with Clojure / Incanter

While I must admit I never worked with R (so I don't know what incanter is lacking), I do know that whatever problem needs solving, it won't be hard to solve in Clojure. Two specific advantages of Clojure / Incanter are the clojure-inherent concurrency stuff plus access to all Java libs.

You could improve the score by mitigating the effect of words that occur often, e.g., by dividing by the log(word frequency). This would cover both names and effects of movie-specific language (think Star Trek)

Very well written and informative once you distinguish "causal" from "casual".

I'm not sure whether it's too far a stretch but don't all your arguments also apply to standard currency? Just consider the costs of running a central bank.

IMO, every contribution to economy is a contribution to the future.

And (at least up to now) the market has the opinion that your "being wasteful in terms of resources" is still of some economic value, otherwise the price would be far lower (~ zero)

TLDR: People's brains become optimized for TLDR

There is a big fallacy in the article:

Namely, that the amount of work that can be done has an upper bound.

In fact, the amount of work that can be be done is infinite and with higher productivity other things are done (= can be done economically) than before, for example:

Cleaning the streets, painting your house white, keeping your nearby river clean, build tanks & guns, maintaining bureaucracy, helping people you don't know (welfare state).

These things are all non-essential (yeah yeah I know but still ...), yet are only done now because only recently we achieved the productivity / wealth of being able to do it.

If we stop doing these things we will feel wealthier because individually, we'll have more resources to fulfill our needs. We would maybe still help our neighbours or paint our house white or buy guns but we would (or not) do it because we decided it ourselves.

I suppose in the future there will be other things we'll do that now seem insane: maybe even the poorest might have a swimming pool, or we commute a few thousand kilometers to work, or we each carry a wearable computer around without needing it for work (can you imagine???).

But there will be work, it is as certain as death and taxes.

Wow, I'm impressed some of you guys share information about your personal weaknesses. AFAIK this is one of the big steps towards dealing with your problem, so congratulations already.

Also, FWIW, my wife is a behavioral therapist and already treated a number of addicted people. She says you learn this kind of "bad" behaviors if, given a problem, they are the "only" or "most successful" behaviors you know and you repeat them for a long time.

Treatment then is to identify

- why you think it's the only behavior you know or the most appropriate

- what your definition of a "successful behavior" is

- what are other appropriate behaviors

- how to deal with situations in which your "bad behavior" usually occurs and how to substitute the bad by one of the good ones.

Disclaimer: I have no psychological background whatsoever, this is just my view on the things.

Actually, it wasn't only sarcasm but kind of a TLDR.

The long version is: "This would make for a suitable precursor to a renewed attempt on cracking down on some of the liberties in the internet. I personally don't believe in gov't institutions being nice and I find it most sad that this being a farce is the first thing that comes to my mind.

Unfortunately, where I come from, child porn is the #1 official reason for any attempt of internet censorship."

It's time to shut down Tor once and for all. I hear Al-Qaeda is using it, too!

Plus it wasn't exactly hot on Hoth

Thanks for the downvote but see this for example:

http://www.wallstreetmanna.com/2009/11/warren-buffett-loves-...

or this:

http://truthingold.blogspot.com/2011/08/think-buffet-investm...

Buffet IMO gets way too much credit for what he achieved.

AFAIK his holdings in 2008 got bailed out, saving his financial empire from destruction.

Frankly, I don't care what Buffet or Soros say and I don't see how they could have earned the money if not with corruption, insider trading, you name it ...

Very unlike start-up founders where you exactly know why they got the money...

Alternatives: Post a pic with a pet, e.g., a dog saying "Such identity" or cat saying "I'm Satoshi. I can has your Coinz now?".

Help Satoshi by claiming that you are not Satoshi and don't tell anyone you read this here.

Unfortunately others listening in their language implies you speaking in their language.

To gain a benefit from this scenario, you would need to prove that "learning a language for X years" increases the chances of "listener response is more emotional".

This, however, is much more unlikely since accent and language proficiency come into play.

So no HN-style hack yourself goal can be derived (which I kinda hoped to find here)

I know, but historically compared there were times when the above 4 "non-democratic behaviors" didn't occur (or they occurred less frequently or at least we didn't know).

I see a tendency away from democracy which in my eyes destroys any credibility of the West to spearhead a democratic movement.

Last time I checked I didn't see any democracy in the Western sense of the word in the western world. Except for Switzerland maybe

Examples:

Tapping phones without warrant

Searching homes without without warrant

A policy of guilty until proven innocent

Torture

Velma didn't even say Jinkies yet :(

My take: If the money was stolen this year, it was theft by a third party and they were maybe incompetent, however, this is not punishable, see politics.

If it was stolen last year, they made all existing (and even worse: new) costumers since the time of the theft believe that they would get their money back. This is fraud.