Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | nbouscal's comments login

It does start really basic, with a single logistic classifier. I think you'd have to be pretty motivated to learn how neural networks work from this course, but it seems possible. If you don't know any machine learning at all, then you probably wouldn't be able to.

-----


Given that it's so common to present RNNs as feed-forward nets with a layer for each time step, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to group them in with deep learning.

-----


The Fed's mandate is inflation and unemployment, so judging whether they should act based on stock prices reflects a misunderstanding of their goals.

-----


The experiment referenced about disfluency has repeatedly failed to replicate. Meta-analysis here: https://www.academia.edu/11918605/Disfluent_Fonts_Don_t_Help...

-----


Even if MRP goes through, it'll almost certainly still be `return` for most people for a very long time. It just won't be part of the typeclass :)

-----


I don't know who the Haskellers you refer to are, or who they're regarded highly by, but all of the core members of the Haskell community that I know do care about category theory, and do know some amount of it. It's too useful to ignore.

You absolutely do not need to know category theory to use Haskell effectively and productively. Once you've been using it for a while, though, you pretty much inevitably start learning (and caring about) the mathematics that underlies it.

-----


I'm pretty sure most of the following would say they don't know much (or any) category theory:

Simon PJ, Simon Marlow, BoS, Lennart Augustsson, Don Stewart, Duncan Coutts, Neil Mitchell, Roman Leshchinsky

That hasn't stopped them producing masses of great Haskell.

I would welcome correction or clarification by any of the above luminaries!

-----


> Don Stewart

he wrote my window manager!

going out on a limb, i guess these people would say that they don't know much category theory because they understand that category theory contains results, not just definitions. moreover, it bleeds into algebra, geometry, k-theory, etc. pretty fast. even some /very/ respectable mathematicians (e.g. matsumura) are hesitant to say they know much about all of these things.

i think it's really cool that haskell makes programmers interested in math. i'm still pretty sure that everything about it that has anything to do with category theory is contained in the Prelude or on hackage, tho. in other words, all the category theory stuff that's "built-in" to haskell is itself expressed in haskell. at the risk of raising some hairs: at one point Crockford mentioned that making monads is possible in javascript, too.

-----


> > Don Stewart

> he wrote my window manager!

Mine too!

To be clear, I would guess (and I'm by no means sure) that these very highly regarded Haskellers barely know how to define "category" and "functor" (the mathematical versions, not the Haskell versions) and certainly don't know how to define "natural transformation". I admit the following as evidence: https://twitter.com/bos31337/status/656319244263518208

I think it's very important that we, as the Haskell community, reaffirm at every possible opportunity that you do not need to know category theory, or even much mathematics, to succeed at Haskell.

-----


> Only across riders who can afford the surge price. It's the utility-minimizing choice for the rest.

It's really not. Without surge pricing, the people who can't afford surge pricing experience significantly worse outcomes as well. Specifically, they end up with very high wait times and cancellation rates, which ends up being a lot worse than the counterfactual world in which they saw the surge pricing and decided to take the subway instead. We have solid evidence for this: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/chris.nosko/research/effects...

-----


"There is an ongoing surge. Rides are randomly attributed during the duration of the surge. Unfortunately, your number was not selected this time. Please find an alternative mean of transportation."

There is nothing unavoidable about that.

-----


That's just really not true. Vim has a massive middle ground. It has a plethora of features that you don't need to know about, but that make your life marginally easier when you do learn them. Getting up to parity with another editor takes a little bit more time than with a yet-another-WYSIWYG, but you can certainly use vim effectively after a day or two. Everything after that point is just bonus productivity.

-----


Spoken like someone who has only learned languages from a single paradigm. “Programming languages are built on a common conceptual foundation.” This simply isn't true. The conceptual foundation of Java is quite distant from the conceptual foundation of APL, which is itself distant from that of Haskell, which is itself distant from that of Prolog. If you know one, you don't automatically know the others.

If you're only talking about mainstream OO languages, the point holds, but those are really more like accents than they are languages. Speaking in a British accent won't let you communicate in a fundamentally different way, but speaking in Mandarin actually will.

In short: It's not about the syntax, but it is about the semantics.

-----


Spoken like someone who only knows one natural language. As the article stated all languages are about communication. Each language has its own syntax (ie words and word order) but the concept of a rose or money is the same, the concept of an action is the same as is the concept of a pronoun otherwise people would not be able to translate between languages. The semantics of a language are often tied up in the culture of the language.

When it comes to computer languages similar principles are at play. The concept of a list or array or matrix of values is common across a wide variety of language types for OO to Functional to Declarative. As is the concept of IO. The need to communicate with something outside of the program. The fact that some languages point out the and IO operation is about to occur does not mean that the paradigm does not use or need them.

In short: Speak English when you are in Britain, yorkshire when in Yorkshire, cockney when in London, and Mandarin when in China. Use the appropriate language for the task at hand or get an interpreter.

-----


I speak four natural languages. I don't love the analogy, because I think differences between computer languages are more significant than differences between natural languages. That said, there are still more differences than just who you can speak with. Example off the top of my head: if you think in Mandarin, the future is behind you and the past is in front. You mention actions being the same, but the way you think about actions will be very different if you think in a language with few tenses (Mandarin) compared to one with many (Romance languages).

Obviously both computer languages and natural languages have some things in common, but they also have significant differences.

-----


How about an older white male, from a business background, who was openly trying to institute censorship and monetization and was unabashedly ignorant of Reddit culture? I'm fairly confident that a CEO like that would have been significantly more hated by Redditors. The issue wasn't race or gender, it was culture.

-----


The hate for Ellen Pao on Reddit seemed to start with her gender discrimination lawsuit. Also what monetization?

-----


I'm not claiming the hatred for my hypothetical white male CEO would follow the same narrative pathways. I'm claiming that it's easy to imagine reddit hating a white male CEO as much or more than Ellen Pao.

I won't disagree that race and gender were used as part of that hatred, that's obviously the case. I think, though, that it's easy to mix up whether things are tools that people use to attack someone they already hate vs. reasons for hating them in the first place. I don't honestly know which it was in this case, but it's not hard for me to imagine that it was the former.

-----


I agree that the Reddit "hivemind" does not hate a woman just for being a woman, and they can definitely hate a white man. I still think they are more likely to hate a woman. The hate against Ellen Pao started with her lawsuit which is related to her gender.

To take a hypotetical, let's say Reddit's CEO was a gay man who had sued a previous employer for something related to discrimination based on sexual orientation. I think Redditors would have been less negative about that, as Reddit is very pro gay rights. Then, when Victoria was fired I think the anger would have been less directed at the CEO personally and more towards the admin team as a whole, or at Reddit's owners.

We could also compare the recent banning of /r/fatpeoplehate with /r/jailbait earlier. People were upset about that too, but I cannot remember outright hate directed at the CEO personally.

I do agree with you about the racist posts. That seems like it's just a tool used to attack her.

-----


The hate against Ellen Pao started with her lawsuit which is related to her gender.

My understanding is that her lawsuit was more related to her ethics, or lack thereof, than to her gender. Is that an unreasonable way to put it?

-----


If the trial based on sexual orientation was still as obviously fraudulent as pao's trial was then the result would be largely the same I think.

After reading up on the trial to me it seemed rather obvious that the suit was fraudulent and had no basis in reality. The jury quickly reached a unanimous agreement on almost all of the counts as well with little room for debate on most of the issues at hand. As far as I recall they just spent a bit of time on the details regarding one specific thingamabob.

FPH ban had some hate against pao but not on this level as far as I recall (wasn't really in the drama then). The jailbait shebangle is before my time so dunno there.

This combined with the various ethical misadventures of her and her homosexual husband (which would actually help them considerably from an ethical viewpoint considerably if the CEO was actually a gay male as then it wouldn't be an obvious sham marriage).

-----


>I still think they are more likely to hate a woman.

Well sure. If 3% of people are virulently sexist (against women) and none or fewer are sexist against men, the overall sentiment leans towards sexism – especially when they're loud about it. But the opinions of the fringe should not indict the actions of the rest of the people on their side. I do not believe that most or even a substantial portion of the 200,000 people who signed the petition to remove Pao were motivated primarily by misogyny or racism.

-----

More

Applications are open for YC Summer 2016

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

Search: