_xhok

Some people argue that this is a good thing to do, but if you do this you can't complain about the phrase "virtue signaling," as someone prioritizing virtue over accuracy.

There is a valid argument in this case to be made about how the reason women are better than men at chess is partly biological, and that chess diversity programs should be cognizant of this. How would you propose this be brought up in today's climate without offending people?

I don't know if you haven't read the manifesto, or are happy making simplifications for the sake of making conclusive moral statements, but it is wildly dishonest to claim the manifesto argued that "women are genetically inferior." It argued that on average, looking at various traits and preferences, men and women are better at and care about different things, some of which make them better suited -- again, on average-- to some professions than others.

You can disagree and that can be a fun internet argument, but judging by the reaction to this manifesto, the sheer outrage while misrepresenting the manifesto's content, sort of demonstrates the author's meta-point about ideological homogeneity.

Also, you've commented in this thread about six times now with snarky remarks, unsubstantiated vitriol, and essentially "Martin Shkreli is a monster." Whether or not there's good reason to dislike him, I think you've successfully made your point.

I don't really see a paradox/conflict here. All the scenarios are basically, the company isn't doing well, but saying so shows weakness. But in that case the bigger possible truth is that maybe the company is doomed and should be shut down. So it seems less a matter of telling the truth to others, and more of admitting it to yourself. If the company isn't doomed, if despite doing badly it has a path out, then that path is part of the truth you should tell employees, and if your assessment is correct they'll stay.

That said, clearly standardization is coming to the world of APIs, and code reuse/generation along with it. Have you looked at Django REST framework? They have a pretty good approach. http://www.django-rest-framework.org/

First impressions are everything. Please see in "The Psychology of Human Misjudgment" the excellent description of humans' "Influence-from-Mere-Association Tendency." The technical merits of a product will not matter if people can't get past their initial feelings. This is highly inconsiderate.

Until the name is swapped out for a more sensible one, I will not be downloading this software.

* http://cs231n.stanford.edu/ (the course notes are excellent)

* http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/

* http://www.deeplearningbook.org/

Use Tensorflow to train a few small neural nets. Move on to CNNs and RNNs. Make sure you actually do this. By this point you'll have read a lot, and retain none of it if you don't put it to use. Look at reinforcement learning. Use the book by Sutton and Barto, the new edition: https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~sutton/book/the-book-2nd.htm... Read the first 4-5 chapters, then go online and read about Deep Q learning, policy gradients, DDPG, etc. Then try to solve some problems on OpenAI Gym.

Once you have an idea of the kinds of problems you can solve, and have a couple you're interested in, go back and learn the foundational math, and start reading research papers.

In general, start with modern books that mention deep learning. With older books or high-level-overview books, you'll get frustrated when you see something cool on /r/machinelearning and can't find any mention of it in the book.

What a shame that most of the top comments here are boring, stand-up-for-the-vulnerable types agreed with by the majority— "women face difficulties in tech, and we should help them whenever we can"—while the downvoted posts are the ones trying (not necessarily successfully) to arrive at politically incorrect truths.

For anyone convinced they hate JS, I encourage looking through Crockford's JavaScript: The Good Parts, in which he talks about the idea mentioned above, before swearing off JS forever.

Uber wants to be the world's transportation infrastructure-- the default way for people to get from A to B. Their thesis is that the way to do this is to write software to hook up drivers with riders. Essentially, a taxi replacement. But this marketplace is an artifact of the fact that cars need human drivers. Without that need, the marketplace disappears.

In the next year or two, Tesla will come out with gorgeous, highly efficient, self-driving cars, with fabulous software, all talking to each other on a network that Tesla totally controls. That will put them in a much more powerful position than the company that owns the software to route random cars around. When that happens, Uber will be screwed. Maybe they could build their own self-driving electric cars, but so far they're not doing too well. They're learning, like everyone else, that it's not a problem you can just throw money at.

The Model 3 will cost $35,000, and allow drivers to make automated, passive income by having their car drive people around while they're at work or something. Why buy an ordinary car and drive it yourself when you can buy a slightly more expensive car and essentially collect rent?

Uber riders care about two things, the experience and the price. Tesla wins on both fronts. Teslas are gorgeous, and feel like spaceships. (Take one for a test ride). And the thing about price is that with self-driving cars, with each ride you're basically paying for electricity plus a fee to the owner of the car for its depreciation. The cost becomes less about server maintenance, and more about who is better at building cars and writing car software. And by the way, you can't just have self-driving cars. If you want to win the unit-costs game, your cars have to be electric.

The fact that Uber thinks of itself as a taxi replacement is a sign of their oldness. The end game for transportation can't be a taxi replacement, because it'll be unheard of for people to drive each other around.

Tesla will have production limits, of course. But they demonstrate that building the future of transportation consists of (1) building cars and (2) getting them in front of people who want them, and that part 1 is by far the harder and more valuable.

I've been dumping my savings into Tesla stock, and look forward to being rich in ten years.

If anything, I find it sort of funny that Travis got mad. He handled it pretty well at first; they were just having an honest disagreement. Then it was like he just decided, "fuck it, I've had a bad day, and I don't need to take this guy's shit." He might meditate on the fact that this guy spends his evenings being the reason that Uber's business model works.