mmierz

B) they think they might want to look at the intermediate results, or compute additional statistics

It looks like they intentionally included right and left-biased partisan news sites as well as right and left-biased hoax sites

I think this is important because any model you train should be able to distinguish between overt bias and actual fakery

cat

>cat got your tongue

>cat nap

>curiosity killed the cat

>fight like cat and dog

>grin like a cheshire cat

>let the cat out of the bag

>no room to swing a cat

>not enough room to swing a cat

>not have a cat in hell’s chance

>play cat and mouse

But these jobs are subject to the same pressures as driving, cleaning and apple-picking. They're being increasingly automated and the technicians replaced by one person to operate the fluid-handling robots.

Edit: maybe I misinterpreted and you're saying that people don't need above-average intelligence to be an actual research scientist, perhaps on the non-tenure track level. Maybe that's true. But, it requires a strong interest and years of training, hence the long apprenticeship of the Ph.D / postdoc.

The last time I wrote a bunch of decorators, I was writing python bindings to a set of C++ classes that each had an internal error state that had to be checked after each time a method was called to see if the method failed. If the error state was set, then subsequent method calls for the same object would fail silently, so it was crucial that the error state be checked. There were dozens of methods per class.

I ended up writing a class decorator that would decorate each method with the appropriate method decorator. The method decorator would call the GetErrorCode method, check if nonzero, reset the error state of the object, and then raise an appropriate python exception if necessary.

Major surgery to change the error handling in the called C++ code was not an option.

Can you suggest a better approach?

At least in life sciences (can't comment on other fields), it's not that scientists don't repeat each other's results. After all, if you're going to invest a significant fraction of your tiny lab budget on a research project, you need to make sure that the basic premise is sound, so it's not uncommon that the first step is to confirm the previous published result before continuing. And if the replication fails, it's obviously not a wise idea to proceed with a project that relies on the prior result. But that work never makes it into a paper.

If the replication succeeds, great! Proceed with the project. But it's time-consuming and expensive to make the reproduction publication worthy, so it will probably get buried in a data supplement if it's published at all.

If the replication fails, it's even more time-consuming and expensive to convincingly demonstrate the negative result. Moreover, the work is being done by an ambitious student or postdoc who is staring down a horrible job market and needs novel results and interesting publications in order to have a future in science. Why would someone like that spend a year attacking the work of an established scientist over an uninteresting and possibly wrong negative result, and getting a crappy paper and an enemy out of it in the end, instead of planning for their own future?

If enough people fail to replicate a result, it becomes "common knowledge" in the field that the result is wrong, and it kind of fades away. But it's not really in anyone's interest to write an explicit rebuttal, so it never happens.

More plausible situation: people who were kinky-but-didn't-know-it or kinky-but-too-ashamed-to-tell-anyone are becoming plain kinky thanks to exposure to their kinks on the internet.

  fizzbuzz' :: Bool -> Bool -> Int -> String
  fizzbuzz' big doLiz n = (fizz . test 5 "buzz" . lizz) id (show n)
    where
     test d s x | n `mod` d == 0 = const (s ++ x "")
                | otherwise = x
     fizz = if big then (test 1023 "fizz") else (test 3 "fizz")
     lizz = if doLiz then (test 13 "Lizard") else id

  fizzbuzz :: Bool -> Bool -> [String]
  fizzbuzz big doLiz = map (fizzbuzz' big doLiz) [1..]

The matlab-like syntax for getting slices of arrays is the only really non-pythonic thing I can think of.