it depends of the mood of the engineer, if he is trying to solve a difficult problem then you could share his interest in case you are in the same roof for the problem, but he may be tired or thinking there are barrier that he will never be able to jump over and you could exacerbate that sensation if you don't know about the problem.
Perhaps that person has a blog and you can understand what he is doing and what are his goals, that should be interesting. The impression you give depends of what the other person expect from you, are you ready for the work you are supposed to do?
I think you should have a fixed position (perhaps you are eclectic) and try to convince someone, then try to change the position and think otherwise. To convince someone is to know about what they expect, some psychology required.
The best thing is to have something interesting to say. Why do you want people to read you? Do you have something interesting to say? Are you going to write a book?
I should like to learn to use AWS without risking being overcharged (a guy went from 200$ to 50000$ next month). You could make a web like try AWS anonymously without risk.
Long time ago I read a post by Mathew Flatt about LLVM and gcc and how mini optimization and selling points were important not able to find the post, but it was a interesting read.
I think a mini browser with only the capabilities required to make a secure transaction should be used when sensitive information is to be transmitted. A full browser with add-ons is a very heavy piece of work to be secure or to be tested. Banks and other actors should use that piece for secure transactions and a full browser for ads and animations.
Unfortunately the word free is a little ambiguous since it can be free (as in beer) but suddenly you are charged because you make something stupid (or someone hacked your account and created a zillion services)
My idea of a secular community. Every member put 100 dollars on the table, then people decide what to do with that money, REPL. That force people concentrate on actions and look for directions or goals.
Just reading your comment I was thinking about the closed world assumption in logic (prolog), perhaps there are some middle concept between the Proof by Contradiction and the closed world assumption. In the real world we learn concepts (think about relativity or a non planar world) and then the old question is no longer a two value alternative.
Perhaps something like: In this field a new conception could appear that would invalidate what we consider today to be only two alternatives. Is not about many worlds reality or quantum computation, (3 minutes thinking time out).
Just suppose the adult say to the robot: I will give you this big check, with that money you can save the life of many thousand people that are starving from malnutrition, would the robot accept the check?
Perhaps they should get less tanks and use the better their money? Greek has more tanks than Germany and France together. A huge army for a little country.
What happens when you use game theory in a rough political situation? We will see it soon. We are entering in an uncharted territory, the risk has increased. This kind of negotiation is going to settle a new battle field in politics and as in any battle there can be huge losses.
I would be disappointed to think like a billionaire and then realize that I don't have enough money to buy basic things, sad. So better to think about the things you can pay for and enjoy with.
Perhaps an easy an interesting thing to do is to solve an equation looking for a fixed point. For example to solve x=x^2 if you iterate x_(n+1)=x_n^2 then you obtain the solution 0 (in case your initial x is between -1 and 1), then you thing about looking for x = sqrt(x) and discover that it converges to 1 if you choose x1 > 1. This is simple and make you thing a little the power of iterating for solving certain types of problems like equations.
Perhaps instead of putting the focus in the language you should put a lot of effort and focus on which product or service you are going to develop. Many lispers like people in rethinkdb or the author of the favorite book for CL use other languages (C++ for rethinkdb, Ruby for the author of the book), so first is the product or service, the computer language and tools are a secondary tool. Premature choosing the language perhaps indicate you need to think again what you are going to do in your startup.
I am pretty sure that the best way to prove that deep thinking exists is giving to an enterprise the plan to execute their process, product or idea in a way that it beats the competence and produces a lot of money and value. Some people need to touch to believe.
What I am asking for is like consulting without having to deal with the business aspect of consulting: looking for clients, how to get assured you are paid, paying taxes, taking care of legal essues, ...
You are right, but artificial intelligence, deep learning and machine learning all use words related to human activities and the roots of machine learning perceptron, neural networks, feedback and other terms are also imitations or analogies of terms for human activities, in the end the goal of deep learning is learning patterns that are not available for neural networks with few layers. The insight is that the human mind and perceptive organs feed the mind with structures that are similar to layers. Your retina see patterns that are hard coded and are th result of evolution. Perhaps I am not selling snake oil.
People find more likely what they they recall more easily and vividly, so this is like adjusting a linear model only considering the outliers (top or under stellar), so the fitted model don't represent the general population of founders whose life is more mundane and less interesting that a film star.
The post is about using numpy or pypy to get better speed in python since in python for is slow. That is well known, is like the well known fact that you should use vectorized operations in R to get better performance. Anyway there is something interesting: The problem of given a point P0 as input, find the the nearest point to P0 among a fixed billion points (all of them on a sphere) can be solved easily and quickly. You should be surprised the code a mathematician could devise to solve this.
I think that the "quick" adjective in the title is purposeful misleading. You are supposed to learn quickly the most general rule, but that is not so easy because there are many possible rules that could fit such a pattern. It seems that you should be rewarded for solving the puzzle quickly and then you fall in the trap.
I propose to change the title to "A puzzle to test your Generalization Abilities", and state clearly that you should try to find the most general rule that satisfies all patterns you can think of. In that case, I would expect the conclusion and results of the experiment to be completely different. So to summarize: the so "quick" adjective in the title has a very strong anchor effect.
Edit: changed for grammar and to express more clearly what I think.