Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | dxbydt's comments login

xyz will be a lucrative profession if and only if 1. xyz is gated 2. xyz is intrinsically hard 3. fewer people attempt to get into xyz over time 4. xyz yields higher wages per hour relative to other professions.

I don't see programming fitting any of these axes, let alone all of them.

I don't think the presented axes are correct (#3 I'd argue isn't necessary, though there may be a different supply factor that is, and #4 itself is equivalent to being a currently lucrative profession, it isn't a separate consideration that is necessary), and programming certainly currently meets 4, and arguably meets 2, at least for some significant subfields of programming.

Marin Software, San Francisco, Onsite/Full time

Looking for skilled Scala+Spark developers.

Also looking for talented Data Scientists with proven expertise in math/statistics/machine learning, willing to work with Scala/Spark mllib and deeplearning4j

Reach out to me directly at dxbydt@jasq.org

Just wondering...does that tell us more about office managers, or about Biomedical Engineering ?


Neither? It tells us about Steven Pham.


Great answer. It's just a data point. There is no evidence that P(office manager, biomedical engineering) != P(office manager) * P(biomedical engineering).


I was a Production Manager at a Medical Device company here in the Bay area previously for almost 3 years. Wanted a change of scenery so I started helping Garry out.

From there, I started helping out with events and tech/ops at YC and joined the team to help out internally, officially (Tara and co have been doing so much already)! All I've got to say is I came for the experience, and stayed for the community.


I don't know about the rest of their stack, but their Machine Learning team is pretty good. They were using PMML the last time I spoke to them. And a little bit of Scalding as well. Preventing fraud at scale is quite a challenging exercise.


Actually approachable math - senior undergrad math major or first year grad can easily understand what's going on. ADMM is actually very old primal dual setup solved via Lagrangian, goes back to 1980s I think. Good reference - https://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/papers/pdf/admm_slides.pdf

The article itself refers to Boyd's Convex Optimization textbook, which is sort of a rite of passage for anybody doing anything math-related at Stanford these days - even their MS in Management course requires a semester of convex optimization.


Stupid nature paywall honestly makes me furious. Why doesn't altman or some other yc partner throw some money at nature & get all their articles up on the web for free ? /endrant


> Stupid nature paywall honestly makes me furious. Why doesn't altman or some other yc partner throw some money at nature & get all their articles up on the web for free ? /endrant

That's not ycombinator's job, that's Bill's job.


Bill's too busy fucking up education.


> awful lot of bullshit

> endless series of aspirational stories

One of the strange things about the software business is that software is an iterative process where the rate of iteration can go from linear to polynomial to exponential very fast. Another strange thing is that if you are a software guy, the whole world is your customer. The third strange thing is the constant reinvention of old wisdom, repackaged in new frameworks, languages, platforms. These three strange things then combine in weird ways to take on a life of their own.

Had BCC been written in a prior era, it would have been some MFC code that ran only on windows 95 boxes, shipped on a dozen floppies, and purchased by atmost a few dozen people who bought a printed copy of Dr.Dobbs and looked at an ad for BCC and said, Hey, I need to make my own bingo cards.

But because he had a web app and priced it right and iterated upon feedback, the whole world came knocking on his door.


To be fair, when he first started writing about BCC it wasn't a web app. The web app came as part of the iterative process (not that this detracts from your argument).


>the whole world came knocking on his door

That's... a bit of a stretch. How big do you think the market for bingo card generators is?


the part about ubiquitous insider trading is accurate. that's all I can say, after spending a big chunk of my life in finance.


Luckily, I was at mlconf last week where Dr.Anandkumar spoke - they called her the "tensor lady" :) She's using tensors in machine learning for a bunch of things -

Latent Variable Models: Training LVM's using local search methods like EM, gradient descent, variational bayes etc. have a bunch of problems - they get stuck on local minima, the algorithms are hard to parallelize with poor convergence. In these cases, tensors yield guaranteed learning using embarassingly parallel algorithms, so faster convergence & can be run on Spark.

Also saw a demo on training 2-layer nets for GMM using tensors, and they learnt the weights rather fast. So using tensors in deep learning shows promise, though the techniques are in their infancy.

One of the challenges the professor mentioned was the availability of open source libraries to do tensor decomposition, which the above methods require.

It was a very successful talk - https://twitter.com/cdubhland/status/594220061025435649

Tensor slides: http://www.slideshare.net/SessionsEvents/animashree-anandkum...


This isn't quite right. Moment methods (that rely on tensor decompositions) have a few problems:

(i) they have convergence bounds, but in practice need more data than we have available

(ii) they don't do as well as EM usually, but using them to initialize parameters for EM sometimes does better than EM with random initialization schemes

(iii) it turns out variational methods can also be embarrassingly parallelized without losing much accuracy in practice

(iv) right now moment methods don't work for arbitrary graphical models


I believe while you are right in general, she is looking at a class of problems for which tensors handily triumph other methods. You might be interested in these papers -




>I'm confused why the price per gallon for water isn't skyrocketing in California.

It doesn't quite work like that. For eg. Fresno pays one-third of what San Francisco pays, even though both of them are in California.


There was a very long article in yesterday's Seattle Times on this very topic -




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact