dr0l3

> [soul, soul, soul]... From dirt to tube to chip to rack. With S. G. D. with recurrence with compute, At last we woke up with a soul... [more soul]

Loving the lyrics :D

Fair point :)

The remaining piece of the puzzle is that Lihaoyi's libraries and general approach is exactly what a joe average coder would want. There is minimal use of advanced features, it is all quite straightforward and simple.

There are other productive contributors in Scala, but among them I would rate Lihaoyi to be among the least "magical". The fact that he is both practical and productive is what makes him unique. I guess my point was that there is a lot to be learned from that. For some nice examples of what it looks like in practice see his series of blogposts titled "how to work with x in scala".

Some context for people who have limited knowledge of Scala.

Lihaoyi is one of the most prolific coder's, not just in Scala, but in any language. He looks like he is much to humble and modest to claim so himself, so I will do it for him.

Here is a by no means exhaustive list of projects

- A buildtool

- A bash replacement that speaks Scala

- A test framework

- A parsing library

- Ports of several python libraries in Scala

- Several libraries in the scala.js ecosystem

For the full list see https://github.com/lihaoyi?tab=repositories

Discussions on Scala on HN tends to contain a somewhat large volume of comments that explicitly or implicitly tries to communicate that Scala is a language that is much to complicated to really be productive in. Lihaoyi is a rather clear example of why this is not true. If this random internet citizens endorsement doesn't convince you maybe the book will :)

SQL is designed for rows of flat data. GraphQL is designed for nested data. It's two very different use cases. Trying to say one is better than the other completely misses the point.

Magnificent piece of technology! Except it gets defeated by a 2$ skimask. This kind of fearmongering isn't really useful as a way of creating political change. If you want people to participate in a reasonable and constructive dialog then convince them to do so with reasonble and constructive arguments.

I don't have anything valid to back up my claims here, so take what i have with a grain of salt unless you find external validation for it. That being said i will venture a guess:

Yes and no. Neural networks have a lot of nice properties like being easier to grasp, easier to parrallelize(?) and have better tools which i guess is because neural networks are applicable to more problems than SVM's because they are extensible.( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_neural_network for example).

Either way SVM's still do what they do very nicely and in the field of "Human Activity Recognition" where i did my thesis neural networks are practically never used but SVM's pop up from time to time.

No you may not. Sexual assualt is a despicable crime and offenders ought to be castrated, but it does in no way neccesitate nor does it excuse false accusations. Furthermore if your argument should have any validity it should count for other crimes as well. In that case what is the comfortable amount of false accusations of murder? theft? or any other horrible crime you could possibly come up with. To top it off lets engage in a thought experiment, lets assume that the false accusation rate was 50%. Lets imagine that a person is sexually assaulted, how serious is that report going to be taken? Now imagine the same scenario where the false accusation rate is 0.0%, how seriously is the report then taken?