rbkillea

The paragraph was a chronological account of when techniques were introduced with accompanying citations. The 1998 paper in the preceding sentence would lead the reader to believe that low discrepancy sampling came after the robust sampling methods (and potentially even that low discrepancy sampling was a new technique). Both have had further work that continues to this day, and both are much more complex and well-understood today.

desperate to be dismissive

How is clarifying what I was commenting on "desperate"? I feel like you're trying to escalate here.

I'm sorry you took such offence to my comment. I guess I should have quoted the statement that I was replying to within the overview section: "Recently, the use of low discrepancy sampling [Jarosz et al. 2019] and tillable blue noise [Benyoub 2019] has been used by Unity Technologies, Marmoset Toolbag and NVIDIA in real time ray tracers."

Shirley published a paper in 1991 showing that low discrepancy samplers worked well in a ray-tracing context. So I wouldn't say that's particularly new.

Now subtract 3 (or 6) percent to account for what money does under inflation (or market growth). If you don't geometric average a growth that outpaces at least 3%, you are working for less than you were when you started. If it's between 3% and 6%, you are being outpaced by institutional investors because your capacity for savings are extremely limited in comparison.

http://causality.cs.ucla.edu/blog/index.php/2016/02/01/works...

Is this sufficiently applied for you? Pearl may not apply his work on causality often, but there are a lot of people who are on the applied side who do.

By Ctrl+F'ing, I find 5 mentions of the word "master", none of which are the master theorem. I prefer this to CLRS as, while it's a neat trick, it tends to result in a bunch of people memorising the cases (and taking a "because the book told me to" level of understanding away from that part of the course).

I agree as well. Maybe it serves to alert the reader to when they are missing a piece of prerequisite knowledge, but there are ways to do this that don't create as much friction.

This has always bugged me: what reasons outside of convention do we have for preferring O(V + E) to O(E) on algorithms that only make sense in the context of a single connected component? I know this is slightly OT, but tangentially related.

I think that the distinction that dustingetz was trying to make is related to the fact that trees are graphs. Many applications naively nest data in tree structures with links from nodes to other nodes that are implied by the data. Maps are powerful enough to represent arbitrary graphs, so if you don't take advantage of this you end up with a lot of duplicated data in tree format. Then you need to do a bunch of tree traversals to link the data to itself at query time.

That happened in 2012.

They are in the units "greenhouse gas emissions" which corrects for the extra potency. The sad thing is that people often double-correct for such things.

Could someone explain what differentiates the Google Knowledge Graph from a Markov Logic Network implementation? Is that what it is?

For reference: https://sites.google.com/site/slgworkshop2013/accepted_paper...

I'm pretty sure that Quadratic Voting is a way to assign prices to votes, whereas this theorem is about the features of a system in which the results are determined by vote. So the results of quadratic voting will meet this criteria because after the votes are bought they can be thought of as emanating from discrete voters who align their preferences with those of the buyer.

That is to say that the issues solved by Quadratic Voting and those presented in Arrow's theorem are orthogonal.

You never answered the question.

There video could stand to be a little less unsettling.

1. Axiomatic Set Theory by Suppes 2. Solar Lottery by Philip K. Dick

I may be the only one who learned it this way, but here goes:

Square Brace (BPEMDAS with a silent B)

Parenthesis

Exponent

Multiply & Divide

Addition & Subtraction

When I learned PEMDAS (a long time ago) this was hammered into my head so well that I know the nuances to this day. In fact from what I recall there was 1 PEMDAS unit per year for a couple years in a row. Also, I hate sensationalism.

Oh god why? I thought this was going to be something cool like something to filter nude image submissions with ML or something along those lines. But No. It had to be this.

I don't want to come down on you because I too dream big, but having a goal without knowing at least vaguely how to accomplish it is stupid. It's this kind of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality that fails a lot of otherwise talented and bright people out there. I would really like to hear more from you, as I like your mentality when you're not shouting it at me from across the interwebz, I just want to read works of substance.

Are you (dare I say it) trolling? :)

As a user, I can say that I do not like social login. Also, page views is meaningless as is number of mins spent on your site.

I'm of the opinion that MtG (magic the gathering) disproves the basic premise of this post.

Not sure if sarcastic or way over my head...

tl; dr Email that abstracts away device distinctions between mobile and desktop, letting them share what email's open so that when you sit down the email you were looking at on your phone is on your desktop

Critique: weighing of -> weighting of

It's called a roguelike. Rouge is something akin to mascara.

The website is a little bit of an eyesore for me. First you've got the low-res white noise background. Then the looming semi-translucent navigation bar that goes behind embedded youtube videos. Then the egregious usage of drop shadows. And to top it all off, there is very little distinguishing headings from subheadings and the subheadings are smaller than the text.

Oh, you can take my ideas with a grain of salt by the way - I'm a cs guy, not a designer.

Not if the life advice is any good. It's like your maternal figure always told you, "If your friends were jumping off a bridge, would YOU?" (paraphrased)

I have to stop reading these medium.com articles. They are making me deeply saddened, are sapping away my time and energy in minute quantities, and are probably decreasing my peak intelligence/output.

I found this honestly repulsive. It's one thing to shun those who would steer someone away from what feels natural, and it's another to offer life advice based on what one perceives to be the norm. Just because you got hitched early doesn't mean I want/have to.

I find writelatex.com to be immensely useful.