davidktr

It will not matter what ChatGPT (et al.) will cost in the future. If you don't have it you're toast.

Let's see where this goes. I've been using ChatGP for a few weeks now, mostly for programming related questions. It does make pretty drastic mistakes and can be rather obtuse when asked about subtelties. Maybe GPT-4 will do better, but for real life there is not as much online training material as for Python modules.

It is though. I asked it today what, in Python, advantages/disadvantages of dataclasses vs. dictionaries vs. global variables are. Perfect answer right away, with actionable recommendations. Using a search engine would have cost me at least 15 min to figure out what works best in my use case.

Fellow German here. Funny thing about DeepL: It translates "pathetisch" as "pathetic". For example: "Das war eine pathetische Rede." -> "That was a pathetic speech."

I guess we have to get used to software redefining the meaning of words. It was kind of funny when that happened regarding Google Maps / neighborhood names, but with LLMs it's a different ballgame.

100% this. I've always struggled with creating packages, but now simply do poetry init and I am done. Magic.

The Brits tryed to hack the world order but failed miserably thanks to Brussel's strong firewall.

Of course we can automate trains. I'm working in a research project doing that right now on a rail track between the Netherlands and Germany. It's quite a bit of work but I don't see any fundamental issues.

First part yes, second part not quite. The US Supreme Court is the highest court for all legal matters, whereas the BVerfG only hears cases where constitutional matters are involved. In all other cases the branch courts like BGH for criminal and civil cases are the top courts.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberster_Gerichtshof_der_Verei...

I'll nominate R because the documentation is baked into the language. In Python I always need to lookup docs on the web whereas in R I've got everything I need right in front of me.

The article links to results from the General Social Survey (https://www.docdroid.net/Ow9GtjA/tables-sda3-pdf#page=2). The numbers for 2014 are remarkably different from the other years, showing for example 3% for "no sex at all" vs 20-25% in all other years. That can't be right. Does anyone know more?

Hint: Do not use the conda package. Just install R and IPRkernel (an R package) and you are good to go.

Absolutely. You can always export it as .ipynb. You have now the full power of an IDE (with Pylint, Pytest, Black etc.) at hand.

Google has something to loose now: their reputation. OpenAI can be maverick, any mistakes are "move fast and break things".

Same reason why Mercedes or Audi did not bring automated driving on the road, even though they were technologically more advanced than Tesla. History proved them right.

Is it just me or has HN's meme-fication exploded recently? Only seen stuff like this on Reddit before. I chuckled though.

Why? Because of the barely competent programmer, like myself. A DIY army.

Is XML better than JSON? For longterm stability sure. A quick config file? Nope. You see, to understand XML you kind of have to know how to work with trees. Bread-and-butter for compsci grads, a nuisance for all others.

Recently I needed to query a SOAP-based API. It took me 3 days because I had no idea how a namespace in XML worked, because I was not sure which lib in Python to use (lxml was the solution), and because their API had some quirks. I read forum posts from the late 00's, the documentation is really scarce.

I would love to learn the fundamentals, I don't like half-assing things. But a) I'm not going back to uni for it, b) I'm not bright enough to be excellent in two fields. Learning the fundamentals takes a very, very long time. Where to start even? A complete math program? Programming fundamentals as such? Theoretical compsci?

At the end of the day, things need to work. If they fall apart next year I can tell my boss "ooohhh big problem give money". Using XML instead of JSON has no payoff today.

> I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which group was the number one culprit of such vile acts

Let us have that open discussion and actually make it known, not just alluding to it. I don't know the answer. Which group is it?

Please make sure 1) to control for population ratios, 2) to control for additional factors potentially influencing the outcome where the groups differ, e.g., degree of urbanisation, 3) to include a procedure how the groups are classified.

You indicate to know the answer so I trust confounding factors have been excluded and it is transparent how the group labels were assigned. Thanks in advance!

Agreed 100%. People in the outside world somehow think academia is a place of pure hearts with nothing but good intentions.

Here is the truth: Look at the incentives and I tell you how people will behave. On an individual level, sharing data has great costs and zero (nothing, nada, zilch, null) benefits. All appeals to the common good change nothing if optimising for an academic career means ignoring these very appeals.

I would formalize it as "(corruption ∨ ¬guilty) <-> ¬jail".

- If the government is corrupted it does not matter if SBF is guilty, he will not go jail. - If the government is not corrupted and SBF is not guilty, he will not go to jail. - Only if the government is not corrupted and SBF is guilty, he will go to jail.

The problem is: There are more factors in life that just a corrupted government and guilt. There are jurys, capable lawyers, incapable DAs, loopholes, you name it.

So in truth we have "(corruption ∨ ¬guilty ∨ X) <-> ¬jail", with X being the unknown. Thus, if SBF does not go to jail, it could be true that the government is not corrupted, that SBF is guilty, but any of the other factors were at work.

I think this is what people are really arguing about: what will be causally relevant for the outcome. Mind you, even a conviction would not convict (ha!) people that the convernment is not corrupt. They'd rather say that somebody did not pay enough, other interests were at work, aliens, and so on.

The truth is that you cannot infer much based on a singular outcome if you do not have extremely good insight into the mechanics behind the outcome. Which is precisely why people rather update priors as a way to build up an evaluation based on statistics over a longer time frame. Quite ingenious, if you ask me.

X -> Y litteraly means ¬Y -> ¬X because of (¬X ∨ Y) = (Y ∨ ¬X).

Yes, but it cannot really have conversations it has not read about on the web. There is no real abstraction.

It excells at outputting symbols in the correct order, given we have an idea what the pattern should look like. Otherwise it's stuck in a loop.

Agreed, but Poetry works wonderfully if the features are sufficient for your use case.

Apple cut the production of the iPhone SE because of low demand. If it would be true that women would like to use small phones but cannot buy any, this is very hard to explain.

Today I learned about Apple News

thanks

What do I have to do after entering a song? Pressing Enter does nothing (Firefox, Safari, MacOS).

It's pretty clear what/who the product is here ...

I mean you can use R packages in Python, but ...

> This is the greatest German catastrophe in 80 years

Detected the West German. Ever considered what happened in the East in the 1990s? 25 percent unemployment? Try that for a crisis, than we can talk again.

The full quote in question: "Science, since time immemorial, has relied on the systemic replication of any presented result or finding."

This is wrong, plain and simple. It paints a picture of necessary and sufficient conditions for scientific progress which are incorrect.

- The vast majority of "results and findings" is not looked at anybody other than the researchers directly involved. If you have 5 people on a paper, be sure at at best 3 of them have seen actual data, or were even involved in the experiment.

- Where is the systemic replication, exactly? Replication rates vary considerably across fields. And, of course, only selected results are replicated.

- If there was a systemic replication of "any result and finding", how is it possible that there is a replication crisis at all? Should the bad apples not have been found long ago?

If science would, in fact, rely on such a system, doing replications would be a normal part of everyday scientific work. It is not, not by a long shot.

So you can conclude that either science is not happening at all (not sure when it did though), or that the quoted premise is incorrect.

see my edit