doesnotexist

> What has been most frustrating or has prevented you from using clojurescript more than you do now? The top answer here was "Using JavaЅcript libs with ClojureScript / Google Closure", which was a new choice we added this year.

Which the clojurescript compiler devs have addressed in recently released alpha features including extern inference: https://clojurescript.org/guides/externs

Is there a well maintained and high quality repository of third party externs, as there is in the form of DefinitelyTyped for typescript type definitions? Would such a thing subsume https://cljsjs.github.io/ ?

Which is visualized nicely in these 20 second videos.

Non-linear transform of a random variable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQjk4ClpuUk

Linear transform of a random variable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKo6-DnIxCg

This was more interesting than I expected. Who knew that many architectures have a flag that indicates that a float values is inexact, but that no language exposes that to programmers. Or that IEEE 754 isn't really a standard as much as it is a set of guidelines.

He makes a compelling argument for why his proposal of the ubit/posit represents mathematical truthful statements, while floating point lies to you. The tradeoffs make a lot of sense. No more overflow/underflow. Better closure under arithmetical operations.

“Floating point numbers are like piles of sand; every time you move them around, you lose a little sand and pick up a little dirt.” -- Brian Kernighan

They mention that they "manually injected into open source C source (spell, unhtml, spell++, bc, gzip). I also ran Inferbo on some internal Facebook code and Inferbo generated alarms in the third-party C source(e.g. open-ssl)."

They then go onto demonstrate how it did in those injected bug cases (really well), but they don't really get into what they found for those "out in the wild" alarms in the third-party C source. The latter seem to be more interesting than the injected bugs.

I'm not sure if this is intentional or not but the "official" solution to today's challenge appears to have a bug.

https://github.com/opentable/ot-daily-algorithm/commit/e811a...

It will return true even when the tree is not a valid BST. Consider the case where a leaf in the left subtree contains a value higher than the root of the tree.

I'm impressed with the direction they've laid out. It is great to see a deliberate effort is being made to make the language easier to learn and to strengthen the community's ability to leverage shared code.

Andrew Ng posted a comment about this on facebook: "I'm thrilled about Libratus' Poker triumph--this is a huge step for AI. Othello/Checkers/Chess/Go were theoretically solvable with minimax tree search and sheer computation; but poker, which requires bluffing, needs sophisticated modeling of your opponents and new algorithmic principles. CMU's Tuomas Sandholm has also (in a private email) promised to publish their algorithms, which I look forward to. Congrats CMU!!!" https://www.facebook.com/andrew.ng.96/posts/1260889373966967

Thought experiment: do you think some part of your job will be automated before or after hospitals automate away 50% of their medical staff?

Not so sure we are going to see an automation completely replace doctors. Just look at all the problems both technical as well as social in the self-driving cars arena. There lot more people are qualified to be drivers than to practice medicine.

Instead, I think we'll see more powerful diagnostic tools at the disposal for physicians to use. Doctors will still play an important role in treating their patients and will be more effective because they'll have powerful tools assisting them.

But to your point, will technology help patients feel more empowered in their medical encounters? Or to get more value out of their interactions with their doctors? https://www.remedymedical.com/ seems to think their platform will do just that for primary care / telemedicine visits.

Eric Topol puts this up there as the most impressive AI/medicine publication to date. https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/824318469873111040

The paper ends with "deep learning is agnostic to the type of image data used and could be adapted to other specialties, including ophthalmology, otolaryngology, radiology and pathology."

Will we eventually see resistance to the bacteria the way that bacteria evolve to be resistant to antibiotics?

Are you sure about that? I would think that the patent wouldn't apply to non-commercial investigations or research. That is you would be free to synthesize or extract this chemical in a laboratory environment. However, if you wished to manufacture the drug for commercial purposes then you would need to license the patent.

You might be interested in reading about the Curry Howard Correspondence. From wikipedia: "In other words, the Curry–Howard correspondence is the observation that two families of formalisms that had seemed unrelated—namely, the proof systems on one hand, and the models of computation on the other—were, in the two examples considered by Curry and Howard, in fact structurally the same kind of objects." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...

Isn't that just a fancy way of asking "does there exist a more concise proof for this theorem?" That is to say wouldn't we rather assign a kolmogorov complexity to a theorem instead of a specific proof for that theorem.

I'm not even sure what we would mean by assigning a complexity to a specific proof. The proof is the proof. Would it basically mean "is this specific proof compressible?" But then I think thats essentially the same as asking "is there a shorter proof?" As the new shorter proof is the compressed representation + the decompression program. But what we're really interested in, is what is the shortest representation that proves the theorem as thats what we're ultimately interested in, right?

This specific proof is a large case-analysis, though much smaller than brute force of all possible cases. There may however be a simpler more beautiful and shorter proof. If so, then that demonstrates that the theorem has a lower kolmogorov complexity than the current best known proof suggests.

At first I thought there was a bug in experiment 2b he writes that the sample space should be:

{'BB/?b', 'BB/b?', 'BG/b?', 'GB/?b'}

Because he describes the event as "He is observed at a time when he is accompanied by one of his children, chosen at random."

I thought he also needed to include two more cases:

{'BB/?b', 'BB/b?', 'BG/b?', 'GB/?b', 'GB/g?', 'BG/?g'}

Which again gives us 1/3 probability of both being boys.

but I guess the part that comes after the '/' indicates the observation event.

Does this guy actually think he's funny? He really fails at humor straight out of the gate. It's hard to even focus on what he's trying to convey because his "humor" is so cringe worthy.

This how-to is pretty great, hilarious half truth (toasters do have USB microcontrollers) / half smoke-and-mirrors. Isn't that game of doom on autopilot there at the end?