Indeed, the Fibonacci sequence is in the original benchmark and Fib(15) is not benchmarking big integer performance. It should have the same characteristics as the always-zero function.
I think gp's point is that bif[n_] == 0 for all n_. A 'smart' optimser would recognise this and so the time to compute would be (a) constant irrespective of the value of n_, and (b) instantaneous because the function call can be re-rewritten as the constant value 0.
Understood, and my point is that user Someone suggested "bif" as a way to avoid testing bigint performance; but fib[15] does not test bigint performance.
So using bif is unnecessary and potentially harmful if it's optimized to zero.
Unfortunately, he is unable to join the discussion. Deploying a ghost as an argument in and of itself is hardly useful.
Personally I tend to disagree with "I hope it isn't useful" or whatever the GHH quote is about maths being practicably applicable to the world/universe n that.
Why not tell us what you think? Mr Hardy's well documented positions on many things are well known but yours are not.
I don’t think his point and mine are incompatible, the language can have beauty in its own right and still be a model. Legos can be built into something which resemble a house, or something which resembles nothing real; their usage is a separate thing from the joy that comes from playing with them. Math is driven by utility and elaborated by enthusiasts.
I agree with you. What you say has even more support in the fact that the one of the most notable achievement of GH Hardy is in field of biological statistics (population genetics), and according to him, his discovery of Ramanujan.
I sign of apnea is if you wake up from sleep with your heart racing for no apparent reason. It's become common to equate snoring to apnea but with the latter you start choking till your body is forced to wake you up, increasing stress, preventing restorative deep sleep and subsequently creating tiredness.
I think the real takeaway is that collaborating/bouncing ideas off other people is the most important part of research. Few people can work isolated on their own without idea exchange.
If you can't understand it yourself, you will have to find someone whose expertise you trust to answer the questions for you. But you don't have to understand the software down to bits and bytes, just enough for you to make good decisions. Having pragmatic underlings bring up problems and propose solutions is what you want. Watch for idealists for whom everything is broken and needs to be rewritten. Incremental improvement is the way.
/me raises hand. idealist here, and I do want everything rewritten. Please ensure you provide your idealists with all business goals and limitations rather than shield/protect them. You’ll find that then their suggestions take those things into account
Thanks to both replies. There's certainly a time and place for refactoring, as there is a time and place for getting an MVP out the door. I guess striking a solid balance is the art of it all.
I am very transparent with business goals and the threats we face, and I do think that spurs the most engagement. It could be my rose colored glasses, but it does seem like everyone truly feels a sense of ownership and pride in the product. As someone who is very hands-on though, it's very scary not having full awareness of what's going on under the hood. However, I'm sure I can overcome that mental hurdle.
The "inverted-online-lecture-followed-by-guided-work-in-class" is the method that Salman Khan of Khan Academy fame pioneered. This was the first time technology was truly leveraged to make a leap in instruction efficiency. Salman Khan has several talks on this topic.
Sal Khan, who started Khan Academy in 2006, was a relative latecomer: "Flipping the classroom" was pioneered in part in the 1990s by Harvard physics professor Eric Mazur — and Dr. Mazur has said that it's a variation of law-school Socratic method that's been around (with pre-class reading instead of video) since the 19th century.
