Yes. Do stuff that other people have been successful doing. Monkey see, monkey do - it's not a tech people thing, it's a human thing.
Tech just happens to be most on display at the moment - because tech people are building the tools and the parameters and the infrastructure handling all our interactions.
Wow those interview responses are just… utterly inane. “I drink it because i drink it, it’s good for you because it’s healthy, i started drinking it because my dad said it was good for me, it helps me by being healthy and by being good for me” - like it’s all a completely pointless circular recitation of beliefs, no reasoning at all.
I feel like Apple said the quiet part out loud: they intend to replace creativity and all that surrounds it with a consumer-ready wafer-like device, sort of a Soylent Green replacement for human ingenuity.
"...the biggest bottleneck of KANs lies in its slow training. KANs are usually 10x slower than MLPs, given the same number of parameters. We should be honest that we did not try hard to optimize KANs’ efficiency though, so we deem KANs’ slow training more as an engineering problem to be improved in the future rather than a fundamental limitation. If one wants to train a model fast, one should use MLPs. In other cases, however, KANs should be comparable or better than MLPs, which makes them worth trying. The decision tree in Figure 6.1 can help decide when to use a KAN. In short, if you care about interpretability and/or accuracy, and slow training is not a major concern, we suggest trying KANs."
That reminds me of what Ricardo Semler did at Semco: distribution of authority, employee participation in decision making, flattening of organization, rotating leadership roles, ...
"Researchers have long associated collectivistic culture with harmony and cooperation. However, the bulk of the evidence suggests that collectivistic cultures compete more, and more intensely, than individualistic cultures.
Collectivists are more likely to see competition as zero-sum, engage in social comparison, and base their self-worth on common standards rather than self-defined goals. This raises a paradox: where does the popular conception of harmony in collectivism come from?
In reviewing prior studies, we find that people in collectivistic cultures tend to use indirect, hidden methods to compete against others. This allows for an outward harmony, without negating competition.
We ask whether competition in collectivistic cultures is only stronger when competing with outsiders. Studies reject this speculation.
Rather, people in collectivistic cultures compete more with in-group members and are more vigilant toward classmates and co-workers.
Next, we explore how people from different cultures decide to enter into competition. We find that collectivists’ tendency to enter into prestigious competitive environments might end up harming them.
Finally, we discuss whether there can be versions of collectivistic groups without competition or whether this is a utopian dream."
Rubin Causal Model
Propensity Score Matching
Contributions to
Bayesian Inference
Missing data mechanisms
Survey sampling
Causal inference in observations
Multiple comparisons and hypothesis testing
reply