dibstern

I couldn’t disagree more.

(1) Learning Java before you learn a procedural language, to me, makes no sense, and turns a programmer’s formative foundation of programming into an object-only one.

(2) The difficulty in getting over the ‘hump’ (usually about 5-6 weeks in to learning one’s first language) is what turned me off programming when I was 13, but given a great intro course I was able to get over it and I’ve developed a deep passion for it and I couldn’t imagine life without it. So to put the bar at 3 languages, to me, is insane.

(3) Many (most?) people don’t start off saying ‘Programming is or will be my career’. Instead, you try it out and see if you can do it and if you enjoy it. To me, this is a fundamental misunderstanding in how people view programming when they are learning their first language.

Dude wtf, we need this data to help treat patients and save lives.

Hahaha my god dude. First, he said it seems to indicate, not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, you think it’s more likely that they filter every single request specifically for Zuckerberg, but do all of the other filtering later on in the pipeline? It’s much more likely that all the filtering happens at the one time, especially at a place like Facebook where most engineers seem to focus on optimising something for performance gains.

Occam’s Razor - it’s knocking on your door, asking to not be quoted when you’re not actually using it.

I hear that MongoDB is just deleting complete databases automatically, so you don’t even have to press a button!

I couldn’t agree more - I’ve made most progress in MOOCs whenever there is a set of relatively small but valuable, achievable goals. And I’m pretty sure the MOOCs I ran out of time for required big chunks of work.

I am highly skeptical of the research that shows low attendance causes poor grades. I attended 2/24 lectures for one subject, and I got the highest grade for the year, out of both semesters. And I have friends who don’t attend lectures often and do similar.

We focus on assignments - programming & software engineering assignments eat far too much time to get top marks and still attend classes. When I finish assignments, I binge watch lectures and write notes like a madman.

But yeah, I really doubt the attendance studies.

I don’t understand people on here complaining about the Senate demanding that the leaders of a business answer for its actions. Sending your lawyer or an underling is (1) a show of disrespect, (2) it shows you’re not taking responsibility for your company, and (3) when the person answering the questions isn’t really in charge, they can’t answer properly and they can’t commit their companies to behaving differently.

People just seem propagandistically pro-Google on here. You’re mostly pretty darn smart people. I don’t get it.

Not showing up here was the opposite of keeping a low profile though.

Completely disagree. I don’t know how you could say that. Business leaders have to answer for their companies actions, and senate hearings is one way we have of them doing that. And as wybiral said, it was a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

Maybe I’m jaded, but your response reminds me of those from Theranos employees on this very forum when it was criticised.

Great article! Loved it. Not sure if the author is posting this, but if you are, one small thing - it’s burying the ‘lede’, not ‘lead’. Thought you’d want to know :)

The problem is total exclusion, not targeting for sub-groups by campaign. If they wanted to target sub-groups by campaign, they could offer a service to advertise differently to different subgroups. But that’s not at all what’s happening - this is an exclusion of some subgroups, where the only feasible reason for their exclusion is their demographic, rather than the good/service being sold or the type of advertisement.

The issue is not focusing on demographics, it’s excluding demographics. The law states you cannot exclude certain demographics. Facebook is allowing that.

Nothing is preventing an atheist from reading a Christian magazine, or some non-expected audience member from reading an ad targeted at a general audience. The problem is when you control the viewers on an individual level, as Facebook does.

I think they mean they found, in the bone marrow, an abundance of the missing T-cells (missing from the brain?)

It’s called dysgraphia, brother. Join the club!

You’re just arguing from Kant’s authority here. In my view (and in the views of many others, including many renowned philosophers and many important legal systems) Kant’s views are deeply flawed (anyone can argue from some authority). But this is my view because there are many situations in which otherwise ‘bad’ actions may be easily justified. Sure, ethics is currently a matter of opinion, but I think the fact that some opinions on ethics are more easily lambasted than others suggests that their quality differs. And yours is certainly a minority opinion, a good thing in my view.

I don’t think throwing more computational power at the problem is the right answer to all ML problems.

While I appreciate the sentiment, I thi k the fact that we can learn from fewer examples demonstrates that the learning process isn’t as efficient as ours, therefore it isn’t yet optimal. It seems like a goal should be for learning to be as efficient or more efficient for computers than for humans.

People were defending Theranos on HN... surely must have been an investor or an insider. Surely no one else would be so daft.

Spark is notoriously bad for privacy. This is a really poor recommendation given the article.

Forced membership of a union!? Seriously!? How awful. I’d rather quit than have it forced on me. If I was at the New Yorker I’d almost certainly join, but only if I could do so willingly. Ugh.

Totals are interesting. It tells you about things like the US’s power in international trade, reminds is how big the US market is, why people focus on it, etc.

It doesn’t mean GDP per capita isn’t interesting either, but they’re different lenses used to view different things.

I disagree. You can realise your ignorance without having to immediately correct every instance of it. And you can enjoy the slow uncovering of new information and points of view, building each into your worldview bit by bit. This is part of the joy of life, for me, the journey to deeper and deeper levels of understanding of the world.

And a decision to stick to one side is, in my opinion, a little lazy. No insult meant, it’s just that you seem unwilling to do the work and exert the extra mental effort, which is the dictionary definition. It seems like you have deemed dealing with complexity impossible so as to give yourself an excuse to remain biased. It’s not so difficult to enjoy being skeptical of both sides, and to prevent yourself from blindly accepting the narrative of one coin. And I feel like the world would be a great deal better if we all stopped preferring one side of the coin and appreciating both.

The article could easily make the false presumption that wi-fi isn’t used to transmit the data. You seem awfully keen to dismiss this.

US numbers only :(

Can you give indicators of how good you are? Just to help people understand what ‘good’ and sill getting 1M+ actually means

Bias is certainly possible, but you need proof of racism before you proclaim it

If the multiple sub populations exist, that’ll be reflected in the data, as long as your dataset is good enough.

The solution for identity is easy. Just don’t rely on unverified name association data for names. I don’t get why it’s so hard to avoid that. Just don’t do it. There are plenty of ways to train models without using that kind of data, both in the training phase and in active use.

I’m pretty sure by ‘math-impaired’ he meant that he didn’t do the math, not that he tried and failed. His use of the word ‘rhetoric’ implies the author knew he was pulling them from his arse and was using those numbers to make an argument.

All of h3h3's videos are silly. That's his style of comedy.

You can't see that a video shaped entirely by left-wing identity politics that blames all men for the crimes of a few, that ignores practical realities contributing to the issue, has a left-wing bias? Are you serious?