jpfed

Maybe this is a dumb thing to ask, but would these microdroplets also evolve H2 gas then?

Bringing together this and what Simon321 said here ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20686466 ), it may be that computers themselves have prolonged the current technological era by allowing us to wring out many more incremental improvements.

Other replies talk about how Promises can be implemented as monads. Aside from that, you can come up with your own, too.

One monad that I occasionally use is something I'll call "Tracked". For "return" (when we make a new instance of the monad) we store a pair (initialValue, initialValue). For "bind" (when we act on what's in the monad) we only ever touch the second value in the pair, returning (initialValue, transformedValue).

That way, you can know where this piece of data came from. I've gotten a lot of mileage out of Tracked<Result<T>>: when one of your Results is an exception, then you can check what piece of data ended up triggering that exception. Yes, you could do this without the Tracked monad, but doing it monadically means that most of your functions don't need to know or care about tracking the initial data; you can just Apply those simpler functions and the Tracked instance will do it for you.

Deception in various forms was incredibly common in U.S. studies when I was majoring in psych. Even if you didn't say anything like "We're studying weight loss" when actually you were studying anxiety, you might just not talk much about what the study is about while including tasks that lead people to naturally think the study is about X when really it's about Y.

This is not to contest your overall explanation, but I should note that teaching with phonics can be fun. When I would give baths to my kids, we used foam letters that stuck to the bath walls. They would randomly pick letters to build a nonsense word with, and we would take turns trying to pronounce it.

So they might randomly grab GSLKJUH and stick it on the wall and I would say "Guhslickjuh!" as I moved my finger across the letters in time with my pronunciation. It's super silly and fun.

To make the associations of letters and sounds more obvious, we built our "words" iteratively, one letter at a time.

> But even these aren't necessarily "the best" for getting lots of divisors for their size since, well, for example you multiple by 11 maybe you should multiply by a another 2 instead

The concept you may be reaching for here is Highly Composite Numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_number

>but a curated photoset of Sides of Appalachia You May Not Know is aimed at the level of The New Yorker, and not something relatable to everyday folk in the suburbs or the Midwest

FYI I'm a Midwesterner and problems relating to pictures isn't a regional trait that I'm aware of. A picture of X is in pretty direct correspondence to the visual experience of X itself, so it turns out pictures are pretty easy to digest! If you're a Midwesterner, you should definitely give pictures a try. If you're not a Midwesterner, it's possible that meeting a few more of them would change your idea of what they can relate to.

>But if you watch both, the biases of both become blatantly obvious.

I don't think this is true, though. You may be able to see differences between them, but without access to the "ground truth" (whatever that might be) you can't tell how each source differs from the ground truth.

Are you kidding? There's a huge contingent of libertarians in tech.

Sure, they reduced the heating bill. But the tradeoff is that they can't throw stones anymore.

If you implement your own type that includes the right functions with the right signatures, you can incorporate expressions with that type into LINQ expressions. Crucially, SelectMany (most notably, IEnumerable.SelectMany, but the compiler just needs a function of the right name and signature and does not care about the interface) is the monadic bind. I believe Eric Lippert expands on this in his blog series on monads: https://ericlippert.com/2013/02/21/monads-part-one/

But seriously, put in your damn semicolons.

Well, it looks like the programs this article is talking about are not so much "reforestation" as "delayed deforestation".

It is possible, though, to take a wrong idea- or even just a slightly incomplete impression- and use your intelligence to run very far with it.

Amusing example: my son refused, for a couple years, to learn single-digit addition facts. He already understood that there was no limit to the number of integers, but since he didn't know that single-digit addition facts could be composed to add arbitrarily large numbers, he silently reasoned that the infinitude of integers doomed any attempt to learn addition. Everyone talking about specific addition problems was a chump! He just went on for a couple grades thinking everyone was stupidly wasting their time before we had a conversation that unearthed his reasoning.

And that wasn't even starting with an incorrect belief- just some missing information. Imagine the sorts of explosions you could get yourself into starting with one of those and reasoning as far as you can with it!

They don't have to know, at least at first. There's a (super cute) built-in reflex that causes them to move their mouth towards whatever brushes their cheek.

They trained this model on Youtube videos. I'd be surprised if whatever fine differences goatees may induce didn't get crushed away by Youtube's lossy compression.

Deutsche Bank is somewhat notable from a political standpoint; Donald Trump got loans there after no other banks would work with him, and retired SCOTUS justice Anthony Kennedy's son worked there.

Um, guys, this is a little embarrassing but I was literally just making a lame pun about the dude's name.

awkward finger guns

>a former deputy FBI director >He's also a former TSA director.

That narrows it down a bit. With a name like that you'd hope he was more of a straight shooter.

They're called penal colonies, mate.

The way around that is to use particles that block/reflect EM radiation that is not useful to plants. For example, glass or silicon gel.

WSJ is not progressive.

In 2006 I worked on analyzing data that showed this. The principal investigator was plagued by health problems and I didn't know how to connect what I was doing with the previous literature, so we didn't end up publishing anything. I felt like the idea was inevitable, but I don't know to what extent others believed this.

My model, which was basically guessed from common-sense principles (what would a flip-flop's output look like if there were no clock and the "update" signal were not discrete?), used equations that were similar to what would eventually become the GRU update equations. And the fit with the data was gorgeous: it took one parameter (a time constant that scaled how quickly sensory information was integrated with the current prediction) and the R^2 was north of 90%.

I also play trains with my kid, and I might be thinking about the same stuff. When I build a track, I think "given a position and direction, could I reach every other (position,direction) pair from here?". There's a certain minimum complexity required for a track to have that property, but I haven't really broken it down in a principled way.

I think programmers care about names more than mathematicians.

Part of that might be the ages of their respective fields (if I wanted to rename "bubble sort" to "triangle sort", I would only be influencing something like 50 years of established work, whereas if you wanted to change the notation we use for derivatives, that's 400ish years).

Part of it might be the relative proportion of time we spend grappling with syntax versus the conceptual domain. While programming languages themselves don't require that much learning, we still need to learn others' APIs etc. Especially in the absence of documentation, good names are extremely valuable. But math is super documented, and most of the thinking can be done in relation to domain concepts without too much regard to syntax. I am guessing that makes good names comparatively unimportant to them.

Yes, Steele had good relationships with our intelligence community. I don't see how that bears on the beginning of the investigation.

I haven't seen anything actually credible that Mifsud was western intelligence.

>Please remember how this all started, with a dirty dossier

Nope, it began when some foreign diplomats gave us a heads up that George Papadopoulos was bragging abroad that the Russians were going to help Trump by releasing dirt on Clinton. That the investigation was predicated on the dossier is a common misconception. If you are getting news from sources that get this basic fact wrong, you may wish to downgrade those sources' credibility in your estimation.

I wonder if the Photosynth models of Notre Dame still exist, or if they could be of any help in rebuilding.

I don't know anything about reinforcement learning, but

>We can think of this as follows: the high-entropy parts of the sentence mark the starts of high-level actions, while the low-entropy parts represent the execution of those high-level actions.

seems like a wonderful insight.

Well, about 93% of it at least.