asdf_snar

Just replying here in case it's more visible, but:

- what if you're on a no-fly list? wanted criminals?

- underage?

Just replying here in case it's more visible, but:

- what if you're on a no-fly list? wanted criminals?

- underage?

I'm not stating that they should be. I first want to make sure this is not just a question of the "Real ID". I can think of a couple of reasons that would throw a wrench in the works:

- passengers on no-fly lists or criminals

- anyone who is underage -- do we let 10 year-olds fly alone? how do you assess age without ID? what if the child gets lost while traveling, and you can't even determine whether the child boarded their flight or not? (if you attach ID to the ticket, then that just seems like ID with extra steps? I could be missing something)

- baggage claim: if there is no link between ticket and person, what's to stop me from claiming anyone's luggage as my own?

I'm not firmly attached to any of these objections, actually -- and perhaps they're not even issues, because I'm missing something fundamental about the assumption. I admit my personal bias is that "taking a plane = passport" even when traveling domestically (I'm not a US citizen), so I have not thoroughly considered the possibility that "taking a plane = taking a bus".

I think this is where my confusion lies. It seems like many people are saying no ID of any kind -- passport, "real ID", driver's license, ... -- should be provided, period. So ostensibly a 10 year-old could show up at the airport and decide to travel on their own (and if we only ID "young-looking people" then we get into a similar discussion as to why one should always ask for proof of age when buying alcohol).

To be clear, I'm refraining from judgment on this (despite what the downvotes seem to suggest), I just want to make sure I'm understanding the distinction is not plain driver's license vs. Real ID. I don't like it very much that I have to show my ID (such as passport or European ID card) when I'm on a train in Switzerland. It seems like the majority perspective is that we shouldn't _at all_ be controlling the ID of people who get on a plane, and that's just interesting to me (it would force me to articulate what the difference is between a plane and a train ride).

I think I must be confused, but after reading many of the replies, I can't figure this out. Is the standard American perspective that one shouldn't have to show any form of identification to go through security, get on a plane, and travel anywhere within the United States? How does anyone associate your ticket to your identity?

Seconded. This looks like a fun toy, but it solves a problem that I don't have (and I believe I am the target audience). Modern typesetters are very good (e.g., TexMacs). There is also a limited set of characters by design, and I would have to remove my hand from my keyboard only for those.

https://archive.md/sCcyl

I throw these quotes by Y. Oono into the mix because they provide viewpoints which are in some tension with those who take -\sum_x p(x) log p(x) definition of entropy as fundamental.

Boltzmann’s argument summarized in Exercise of 2.4.11 just derives Shannon’s formula and uses it. A major lesson is that before we use the Shannon formula important physics is over.

There are folklores in statistical mechanics. For example, in many textbooks ergodic theory and the mechanical foundation of statistical mechanics are discussed even though detailed mathematical explanations may be missing. We must clearly recognize such topics are almost irrelevant to statistical mechanics. We are also brainwashed that statistical mechanics furnishes the foundation of thermodynamics, but we must clearly recognize that without thermodynamics statistical mechanics cannot be formulated. It is a naive idea that microscopic theories are always more fundamental than macroscopic phenomenology.

sources: http://www.yoono.org/download/inst.pdf http://www.yoono.org/download/smhypers12.pdf

Hi Peter. As always, thanks for doing this.

I am a Canadian currently on an H1B visa, valid until November 2026. I can probably recapture time until early 2027. I just got an EB2-NIW approved, but my priority date is in August 2024, and currently we are serving people in Apr. 2023. It will take at least until next year until I can file my I-485 and get my GC.

I am wondering what my options are in case I need to find a new job. My understanding is that the EB2 doesn't help me much unless I can truly demonstrate that the new job continues to advance the national interest in the same way, and that any deviation from what I wrote in my application is grounds to deny the I-485.

In case I can't find a new job that fits the exact description I have on my EB2-NIW, and I have to move out of the US, can I still file my I-485 once my priority date becomes current (and therefore get a GC)?

Sure. I do algorithm development at a biotech company, it is 100% computational work. I am not a software developer by training, my background is in mathematics.

but having to switch between IDE and Jupyter for code formatting seems like unnecessary overhead.

You're right about this. I don't love my setup (and have not put enough effort into optimizing it -- hence my reticence at learning Yet Another Tool), but the main reason I use notebooks is for objects that persist in memory. I can load up some huge dataset, keep it open, and jump back to it whenever I want over the next day/week/month without having to "reload" it (fetch data from some server and do processing).

I'd love a robust Jupyter-in-Sublime experience, where I have all the editing/hotkeys of Sublime along with this persistence of objects.

Quarto looks cool, might check that out. If there's any specific part of it you think is awesome, please do point it out. Thanks.

Thanks for your thoughtful answer.

- Re: continuously running a notebook server, how about an alias in your ~/.*rc file that just launches a new JLab? Personally I don't find the startup time so high, so it doesn't seem to me 'startup time' is the strongest lead to sell the product. (Of course, if most people find that the startup of a notebook is indeed a large cost then it's a fine point to make. )

- Re: command palette, gotcha. As you say, classic notebooks are going away (and I haven't touched one in a while).

- Re: formatting, I take it back. You're right, there's been plenty of times I've wanted to have nicer formatting in a notebook/lab, that's nice.

I use Jupyter Lab every day on OSX in scientific/academic work, so I feel I am your target audience. In case it helps you gauge my impression, I spent about two minutes reading the post and scrolling through the website.

I feel I did not understand the main advantages of this notebook aside from the AI integration. I don't understand how "start-up" time is a cost; I have a Jupyter server running at all times and use it as a scratch-pad throughout the day, so it is always available.

I don't understand the "modern command palette". As far as I can tell all the commands are available to regular Jupyter Labs, and either way I always use hotkeys for them.

The code formatting using black isn't bad, but notebooks are for scratchy ideas, not real code. If I'm at the point of formatting code, it's going in an actual IDE. I'd even argue providing formatting inside of a notebook encourages bad habits for scientists, who prefer to stay entirely within a notebook, but are then sometimes unable to reproduce their results.

I don't see the advantage of the copy-paste; I can copy paste directly from Labs to Slack/online editing pages, and certain Latex typesetters.

Pros: it looks pretty, the site has nice demo videos (in terms of quality; I didn't understand the content).

I want to like this but I don't see any benefits for a power user except for the AI integration; if AI is the only selling point then I prefer to get it differently.

Just noting that your link to docs.scipy is broken. I'm also in a similar boat to you and would be interested in an answer to this question.

I like your formulation of this as a "distributed measurement problem", but I'm not sure I follow. Could you elaborate? Specifically, I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with the post you are replying to. Thanks in advance.

Could you demonstrate with an example how Ascii math is easier to read and takes less time and effort to type? The example on the main page,

sum_(i=1)^n i^3=((n(n+1))/2)^2

looks to me no less complicated than

\sum_{i=1}^n i^3=((n(n+1))/2)^2

so if the goal is it quickly communicate mathematics in plain text (without rendering), I see no difference. If the advantage is that the outer parentheses are automatically resized, why not write a renderer that uses Latex and puts \left, \right everywhere? Better yet, why not go straight to TeXmacs?

I'd love to see an example of a mathematical expression where Ascii math is visibly simpler than Latex and is not just about parenthesis resizing.

I think the statement that "You'll enjoy the music a lot more by adding the physical movement to it" is unlikely to apply to everyone, and may not even apply to a majority of people. Not because humans don't have a natural inclination to "move to the beat" (they might), but because a dance club may be much more intimidating for many people than, say, a music circle.

Thanks for your reply above.

I don't think the comment was sarcastic or rude. They are pointing out the following inconsistency: you've basically attached "dx" to every integration sign, making the "dx" essentially irrelevant.

Moreover, "dx" does not mean "a small change in x". "dx" is a differential form; it is in particular the "d" operator applied to the function f : x --> x.

As I revisit your comment, I think the point Rota is making about physics notation -- which I _do_ agree with -- is that one should use density functions instead of measures, in general. So, for instance, using the Dirac "density"

\int f(x) \delta(x) dx

instead of

\int f(x) \mu(dx)

where \mu is a point mass at 0. This happens again in the context of stochastic differential equations, where mathematicians shirk away from writing dB_t = xi(t) dt, where xi(t) is "white noise". One can make sense of this in the sense of distributions, and then everything happens in a nice inner product space. Indeed, the physicists are much more competent at actual calculations, and the density representation of things (e.g., in terms of "xi") is very useful for those.

I think I am one of these mathematicians that doesn't understand the logic. How can I write μ(x)dx instead of μ(dx) without risking the confusion that dx is Lebesgue measure? You may have explained this in your other reply, but I don't quite follow.

P.S. Beautiful integral signs.

I think I may share confusion with the other poster. I don't understand the following step:

Then white would win (and in particular not lose) by skipping the very first move and then playing blacks strategy

I understand the other comment, that there do exist setups in which colors can be effectively switched by e.g. 1. e3 e5 2. e4, but that requires cooperation on black's part. How does white "skip" the first move? Thanks in advance.

Edit: it may be that the statement "without Zugzwang" implicitly (or perhaps by definition) means you are allowed to skip moves? If so, that clarifies my confusion.

I didn't even notice the mistake at first -- my name is not misspelled, so I figured if I didn't say anything I would be able to get away with it. I knew my EAD card would have to be photocopied or scanned at some point when I first arrived at the office, so I crafted some inane plan to tell an engaging story while the HR person was taking care of my documents, in the hopes they wouldn't see. In the end no one ever noticed, I ended up getting H1B a few months later. But I don't think my worrying was unfounded; I'd heard stories of a single character being wrong (or, missing an accent, and therefore not matching their passport) and someone's entire life changing (they had to go back to their home country).

I should also note that the guidelines for filling out CPT and OPT are also completely nebulous. I forget what the specific issue was, but I remember the administrator at my university being unsure of how to answer some question, them having no recourse, and me having nobody to ask.

I'm on my 4th year of H1B and I need to figure out how to apply for a GC. The time investment in putting together all the documents is significant. Not to mention exiting the country to go see loved ones is always a pain.

I can only say this sounds extremely accurate based on my own experience of F-1, OPT, H1B. The anxiety resonates as well. I remember getting my work authorization card and noticing that my first name and last name were switched. I remember sitting down at a train station and nearly breaking down into tears, because I was certain this mistake wouldn't be tolerated, that I'd lose my job, and have to leave the country.

I don't wholly disagree with the title of the post, but I don't understand the reasoning at all.

"1. Python Is Not Fast"

I'm not a software engineer and I don't have a background in computer science, but in my experience the question of "speed" is always a subtle one. Are you doing scientific computing? If so, there are plenty of Python wrappers that make it easy to run vectorized operations (instead of, say, running for loops). I don't buy the argument that "every millisecond counts" in every scenario. I can't distinguish between 1ms and 10ms when I'm throwing a basic script together.

"2. Python's Syntax Is Too Rigid"

Someone will have to explain this to me. I've never heard Python's syntax being called "too rigid". Python is not a good language to churn out code quickly? I've only heard the opposite ("it's too easy to churn out junk code quickly"). The only qualm I might understand is tabs vs. spaces.

"3. Python Provides a Limited Programming Experience"

you could argue that Python is creating a generation of programmers who don't necessarily know "complete" programming. They just know how to write interpreted code.

I don't necessarily disagree -- although navigating the web of Python environment hell (obligatory https://xkcd.com/1987/) does force you to learn a thing or two -- but I don't see why Python being a popular programming language necessarily means everyone who uses Python is a programmer.

"4. Nothing Really Big Has Been Written in Python"

I'm not qualified to judge, so I'll just go back to studying C++. Big things have been written in C++ and everyone loves C++ !

Math formulae are not trivial to check formally using a computer. Mathematical software is in its infancy relative to the sophistication of mathematical objects defined in the literature.

It's interesting to complement the last point, "Only geniuses (or cranks) head straight for the grandest and most fundamental problems", with two of Hamming's [0] points:

When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems. This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn't the way things go.

but also

If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work.

[0] https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.pdf

Before I continue, I think it's also important to note different people metabolize alcohol differently and feel its effects differently. Many Russians can take care of 0,5L of vodka in one sitting and still function. (Russian men aged roughly 20-45 also die from alcohol at absurdly high rates.) So as with all things, our discussion is purely a subjective one -- I find it useful, though, as it helps me analyze my own drinking habits.

Your claim that moderate alcohol consumption makes things more fun is part of the point of my post. Is this actually true, or just a rationalization of people who already drink?

Right. It's a good question, and I don't know the answer, and I've tried hard to introspect and distinguish between rationalizing and it being true.

As someone pointed out above, the fire starter analogy is better than one might think -- if you are enlightened enough, you don't need alcohol to start a fire. In my experience, though, few things open up a conversation with a stranger as quickly as a little alcohol. I'm not saying I've never had an intimate conversation with a stranger in which we both showed vulnerability without alcohol. But the psychoactive aspect of intoxication makes those conversations with alcohol more memorable, stranger or closest friend. I've tried hard to determine whether I'm just fooling myself, or if alcohol is actually making something "funner". My conclusion is that if I am fooling myself, the trick is good enough that I'll probably never figure it out.

Then at some point people, as adults, feel like they have to drink to enjoy themselves? I wonder what happened.

It feels like this question is disingenuous. You don't need fire starter to start a fire either, but wouldn't it be silly to conclude fire starter doesn't make starting a fire easier? Moderate alcohol consumption in an intimate environment is a lot of fun.

Put differently, if alcohol didn't present such serious health risks, I wouldn't be making an effort to cut it out of my social circles. As it stands, though, my friends, family and I have started referring to it as "poison", just to be totally transparent about what we're doing when we meet for drinks.

My friend and family groups have been making a consistent effort to stop romanticizing alcohol and have gatherings without it. There's no denying alcohol is a social lubricant that can be very enjoyable.

I've rejected about three quarters because even the algorithm's description was enough to inform a reader that it would not work The remaining quarter I've implemented in code and run, and of those runs I can count on a single hand how many algorithms even came close to doing what they promised.

I'm curious what you mean by "not work" here. Presumably such papers use examples to illustrate their algorithm. Were results not even reproducible on the authors' own (cherry-picked) examples? Or perhaps do you mean you threw a harder problem at the algorithm that cleanly fell within the set of problems the authors purported to address?

I think the distinction is important, because the first case means the paper is just flat-out wrong. The second case is what causes all the trouble, because it's hard to convey to an academic that their algorithm, though in principle "correct", does not address the often-vaguely-stated problem in the introduction ("this algorithm has applications in X, Y, Z and related fields..."). They can just say "I'm advancing the field" or "it provides insight that could one day be more useful".

Thank you for this reply. My experience aligns with yours, and I find your conclusion (the question is not interesting) insightful. You're probably right.

I am an ex-academic that wrote useless algorithms. The implementations were mathematically correct and the algorithms did what we said they did, but the premise of the algorithm itself was flawed. To the extent that the algorithms were correct, the target problems were useless, and to the extent that the target problem was a "real-world" problem, there were a million things unrelated to the mathematics that made the contribution inconsequential.

The reason I wondered about such a study is that I know many academics who wouldn't believe the situation as dire as you describe it (though I very much agree it is <0.01% -- I just wanted to be conservative).