295 karma · joined July 8, 2014
p-hacking isn't a mathematical error. It cannot be "caught" because it is not presented to referees--you slightly modify your hypotheses after you experiment based on results, or you throw out "outliers" that blow up your theory. These are things that don't even show up in a paper, they happen during the compilation of the paper.
How you could conclude that p-hacking is rare based on a completely unrelated experience is beyond me.
OSX and its tooling are just ridiculous. I have no idea to this day how macs became the premier development environment.
As always xkcd has a comic for it: https://xkcd.com/1987/
You still think it's better to have "limited access"?
The "chat" window in WoW is more like a shell interface/CLI than a pure chat window and it's been that way since the inception of WoW. The mod system is loosely dropped on top of it: basically add-ons in WoW amount to bash scripts.
It's a pretty hacky system that seems like it was made to add modding capability as quickly as possible during development. The fact that such an integral system has never been rewritten isn't hard to believe.
Similarly, Python basically keeps track of "proper" names for proper functions, but can't/won't do so for lambdas.
On the contrary, I found it really precise. JIT processes in manufacturing are about providing the correct inputs at the time they're needed. If your desire is mastery over the material, a teacher who can predict or extemporize tutorials on the subject as you need them is invaluable.
You aren't making art because art does require effort. You have to put some thought into the product you want and then work towards it and make the thing that feels right to you.
If you never have an emotional connection to your work, it's no wonder you don't feel like you haven't made art, because you haven't.
This isn't to be mean. You could easily begin to make art, by creating your works with an eye towards purpose or feeling and demanding that what you make satisfies you. Then you'll be making art. But pointless generative stuff is just doodling, as you think. It'd be the same with a pen and paper as it is with code.
Do you have any evidence to back up this thought, or are you postulating that the world should be this way?
If you're looking for evidence to the contrary, the article on which you commented has some anecdotes about how it is no longer possible to circumvent these services.
This is so stupid--do VCs ever ask this question in the first place? No. By the time your board is asking this question, they've already decided you don't deserve more money. Any random justifications they make up about "deserving" is a complete distraction from the fact that these choices never have a logical basis.
Your imagination needs work. Being on HN, I'd assume that you have at least one hobby that necessitates a significant amount of electronics (gaming console + TV, monitor + PC, laptop). Any one of these (if you actually care about the hobby) will run you thousands of dollars.
You'll probably dodge at this moment and say how necessary or important or utilitarian all those things are, but that's just because you like your hobbies and don't like other people's.
You should read the articles on this website please.
I'd like to observe that when you wanted to claim that wines were indistinguishable, you picked two wines that were quite similar. When you wanted to claim beers were distinguishable, you picked chocolate stout vs hefeweizen, which is clearly not the same sort of example.
Whenever I find myself in this line of thought, I always remember: I am not that special. The impact that anyone has on a workplace is small and mostly inconsequential--more important is group momentum and culture. The likelihood that you'd do bad in a bad workplace is much higher than that you'd be able to stand fast and do good--the world just does not work that way.
I think this is a dangerously stupid way to think about linguistics.
Just to be clear, I don't find these things reassuring, it just makes me think you don't care about communicating very much. Please accept that some people find machine-generated communication to be gross and don't want to be subjected to it, whether or not you understand.
I think your experiences are typical, thanks for sharing.
I'm curious what theory-of-the-gap you've found that you like more than the ones you've seen? You were (intentionally or not) a little cagey about your ultimate position. :)
For my part, I usually see that young girls are the ones who are pressured the most to stay out of STEM. I'm sure that by the time they got to 10, the little girls in your class already "knew" that afterschool computer games weren't really "for girls". Kids are very impressionable to even off-handed comments, and they will self-censor if they think they don't belong.
Anyways, it's all to say that I think there's no secret--if you actually make little girls believe they can do math or code, they'll do it. It's just that as a society we spend a lot of time telling them they can't.