condwanaland

Could not agree less. Ive always found SQL an unreadable mess but tools like polars and dplyr are such elegant ways to manipulate data.

Pandas is a mess though.

Hello ClosedRouter!

Disappointed to see how many of the comments here are fairly negative. Especially for a site that so values true open source.

While this isn't the ereader for me (I need a larger screen and buttons), I absolutely love the idea and passion behind this project. I will look into supporting, if finances allow, as its something I could easily gift to younger members of the family.

Huge congrats getting it to this point!

Your comment is just another flavour of various fallacies christrians trot out i.e., whats stopping you raping and murdering without the bibles moral framework

And your also trying to twist my words in the opposite direction. I'm here claiming that someone's body belongs to only them. And your response is to say, if its only yours, why don't you go cheat??? Come on, this is straw manning at its finest.

Your view comes from entitlement. You have a right to your partners body because a book says so. I say different. I have a responsibility to my partner because we are in love and build our beliefs together.

Your view teaches subservience. You can add all the context you want, but at the end of the day, there is a line that says "your body belongs to your partner". And that line is used to subjugate.

Whereas a healthy couple would start from the respect that they don't own each other, and then build the boundaries that they are comfortable with.

Also, from your comment

> "marry and enjoy sex" is what Paul is trying to say

This is your interpretation and shows your own bias. I read it as "you must have consent from your partner to withhold your body from them". Which is revolting and coercive.

Funny how my view that 'your body belongs to yourself and no one else' doesn't require study and cross-referencing and other passages to understand.

Describing my interpretation of a passage that quite literally says "your body belongs to someone else" as a 'worst possible reading' would be comically hilarious if not for the rather sinister undertones.

Your interpretation of this passage is reading far more into things and doing far more justifying than mine is

I do notice the symmetry. It is saying that each of them can use the others body as they like, without regard for the other. But that's fine, because they can do it right back.

A progressive system is not built off "I'll do what I want to you but I also will let you do it back". That conveniently ignores that there is still an entirely non-consenting party in this.

Your body belongs to you. Your partners body belongs to them. And religious institutions teaching the opposite of this is what has lead to decades of marital rape and entitlement. I call that very very far from a progressive system

Searched for "sexual exploration". One of the results i got returned was from corinthians and read:

The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise also the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

I'm so glad this religion of peace sees consent as profoundly unimportant

Have not read this series (yet), but Watt's Blindsight is an absolute masterclass in literary sci-fi

In my experience, business people are chomping at the bit to build and manage the ops for their apps, but it's always an "IT Operating Model" that is thrown back at them

SE is an amazing and wonderful resource

This is something that Palantir Foundry supports extremely well. Its data layer is built around the idea that anytime you're making a change, you make a branch, build on branch, only data you modified is copied to the branch, and then you can test it end to end on the branch.

Can't imagine doing it any other way

Couldn't agree more. R and dplyrs ability to pass column names as unquoted objects actually reduces cognitive load for new people so much (pure anecdata, nothing to back this up except lots of teaching people).

And that's on top of the vastly simpler syntax compared to what's being shown here

Let's say that you want to know who your largest customer is, both by order value and volume. I could either: 1. Prompt my agent and deal with writing the prompt, waiting for the agent to sift through all the data (which would be massive), and pay the token costs, all of which has to be repeated everytime I want to answer this question, OR

2. I check my ontology for the answer, probably in a dashboard, and it takes 5 seconds. I have a link I can freely share around my enterprise and I haven't spent token costs.

Whats more, when I have sent my agent out to some tasks (go find out what revenue we're leaving on the table by not selling spot contracts to our biggest customers) my ontology gives me a few bits of data to validate the agents work against. For humans and AI to work together, they need the same context layer

I enjoyed reading this but felt like it missed a few of the points on why a lot of companies are indexing heavily on the context layer.

1. While AI is capable of driving massive value, chatbots are very rarely the solution

2. You need much more than this sort of text data to represent an enterprise. Timeseries, SAP (and other ERPs), and general relational data is part of building a knowledge graph, ontology, etc

3. Storing it the way this article presents makes it usable for agents, but not humans. Whereas the point of knowledge graph, ontology, etc is to create the same layer for both humans and AI to interact with

Say I have a dataframe called 'penguins'

I can write code like: penguin_sizes <- select(penguins, weight, height)

Here, weight and height are columns inside the dataframe. But I can refer to them as if they were objects in the environment (I., e without quotes) because the select function looks for them inside the penguins dataframe (it's first argument)

This is a very simple example but it's used extensively in some R paradigms

Cannot recommend this book enough. Absolutely fascinating read

The mistake here is having an architect who is not shipping product. Architects who's job it is to define 'rules' and 'patterns' without actually impending anything are almost always a bad idea. Just focus on shipping. Have at least one experienced engineer who can guide the development but don't give those decisions over to some 'architect' who is not even going to write 10 lines of code in your codebase

I love R and am always excited about tools for R but I immediately get suspicious when I see things like:

> RMCP has been tested with real-world scenarios achieving 100% success rate:

Possibly. I think R is actually easier to learn for people who have never studied or done programming before.

1. It's easier to get up and running as RStudio is much more 'batteries included' than other popular IDEs, it's harder to get into the case of multiple different python versions, and you install packages through the R interpreter rather than via pip at the command line

2. I would say R data analysis packages are easier to learn than the python equivalents. Because the dataframe is a native structure in R there has been a lot more packages that have tried alternative syntax approaches to try and find the 'optimal' one. Python has really only had pandas, polars, and pyspark (all of which have implemented their own data structures and therefore have focused more on performance than syntax)

3. This doesn't hold if you're studying a language to be a general purpose programmer. Then python is much better. Anything to avoid the hell of the R standard lib. But if you need to do a bit of coding to analyse data and you've never done any before, my vote would be for R.

However, these are thoughts from my own personal anecdotes rather than any pedagogical theory

I strongly think that R has outgrown just having statistics as its killer feature. The killer feature of R is data analysis

I have yet to see any software that rivals dplyr, data.table, and ggplot2 in the balance of power and ease of use. It also has all the auxiliary packages you need to fetch your data (DBI, httr, rvest), model it if necessary (parsnip, caret) and visualise it (ggplot2, plotly, shiny)

I know python is more popular here but I would choose R in a heartbeat 19 times out of 20

Very cool! Are you planning for there to be a corresponding R package that exposes the high level commands? The popularity of the usethis package really showed the power of keeping people within the R interpreter rather than going back and forth with the terminal. This is so important for a language like R that has so many users without much CS training

A huge number of people. They're a very well selling car

Always thrilled to see another nethack player in the wild!

Been playing on and off for 20 years and have only managed a single ascension in that time!

Drugs or not, your comment was rude and condescending. And trying to brush it off as people being 'sensitive' doesn't change it being rude and condescending

Totally agree. PySpark, dplyr, or polars any day

How are you measuring 'nice'? How are you measuring 'performant'?

My assumption would be that if you haven't seen anything, even from the creator, then you just have different expectations to the people who do get value from React

I was a Masters student when Brit was finishing off her PhD. Awesome scientist and very cool person. So glad to see her continuing in this space!

NIWA is also just a very cool place in general. Have really liked everyone I've met from there.

Cool idea! Looking forward to exploring it this weekend