physicsyogi

I learned French, (some) Arabic, and (some) Chinese with TPR and TPRS. It was a lot of fun, actually, and I had previously found language learning hard. I also took French in college, with the Rassias Method, so it was a second go round for me.

I learned from a French professor friend who trains all her second language acquisition grad students in TPR and TPRS. One of her students has had great success teaching elementary, middle, and high school students French using these methods.

I've seen a few non-teachers who have learned TPR/TPRS to teach their languages in the US; languages like Tamil.

Number two seems not right. For the path you’re talking about to be useful, shouldn’t it still work even if you’re the last person on left on Earth? Number two also assumes that the majority of people are also searching for truth (seems they aren’t, currently) or have already found it (which would require that they’d been already searching).

I had a positive experience with a Blue Apron, but had similar quality issue with Purple Carrot. Most of the produce would arrive in a partially rotten state and sometimes ingredients were missing or the bottle of some liquid hadn't been fully closed and leaked over everything. I switched to Sun Basket and so far, so good.

Yeah, that's not ideal. Apple at least keeps the Swift language guide current though: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Sw...

Hacking With Swift is pretty good for learning iOS and Swift. https://www.hackingwithswift.com/

Does this have Clojure's persistent data structures? The docs say it has immutable data structures, which isn't exactly the same thing. (Edit: added the second sentence)

Swift, on iOS (and maybe macOS). I love the expressiveness of the language.

Stanford NLP is currently state of the art for single document coreference resolution. https://github.com/clarkkev/deep-coref

Try the Europarl corpus (http://www.statmt.org/europarl/) or the TED corpus (https://github.com/ajinkyakulkarni14/TED-Multilingual-Parall...).

Apple uses it[0] and lets you opt out of sharing your data as well[1].

[0]: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/apples-differential-privacy-co... [1]: https://www.howtogeek.com/290298/what-is-differential-privac...

Jewels were added to movements because they lowered friction, which made movements last longer and improved accuracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_bearing

I had to put Child of God down for two years and come back to it. I was surprised to see how disturbed I was at Lester's depravity, especially since I enjoy stories that examine the darker side of human nature. I was glad to have gone back and finished it though.

I was always impressed with Blitzmail's speed. It was certainly faster than any of the email clients I use/try out these days, or at least it seems that way in my memory.

When I meditate, what my mind does or doesn’t do makes no difference. It really has nothing to do with me. I pay no attention to it. I basically sit as if I am dead, not responding to anything internal or external. If thoughts come, they come. If thoughts don’t come, they don’t come. Either way, I simply sit. It's oddly relaxing and energizing at the same time.

Direct replication can be very important, at least in math and the hard sciences.

In physics labs, students conduct experiments that once warranted a Nobel prize. And some of the problem sets that physics grad students work on repeats work that once won a Nobel prize.

When I was in physics grad school, a scandal erupted when Jan Hendrik Schön's "breakthroughs" results on semiconductor nanostructures couldn't be replicated. [1] He'd received a fair bit of acclaim, had one a couple of prizes, and I heard there was even Nobel buzz for him. His papers were in Science, Nature, and Phys. Rev. Letters. Several groups tried and failed over and over to confirm his breakthroughs. It turned out that he had falsified data. 28 of his journal articles were retracted by the publishers and others are still considered suspect.

When a theory or experiment comes along that generates the kind of excitement and interest that can lead to new technology or prestigious grants and awards, replication is important. Science stands on the shoulders of what has come before. We need to know that we're building on a solid foundation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schön_scandal

The same article is on Morningstar, without the paywall. http://news.morningstar.com/all/dow-jones/us-markets/2017022...

There's an error in the article about PyTorch:

"For instance, Caffe (C++) and Torch (Lua) have Python bindings for its codebase (with PyTorch being released in January 2017), but we would recommend that you are proficient with C++ or Lua respectively if you would like to use those technologies."

You don't need to know any Lua to use PyTorch. That's the point. Lua is for Torch.

Edit: The author may be confusing the PyTorch released by the Torch developers with the earlier pytorch project that did wrap Torch.

I'd also recommend Calculus for the Practical Man. It's what Feynman used and is quite good for learning how to calculate various things with calculus.

Incidentally, my college calculus class also used Stewart.

When I finished my physics Ph.D. in 2005, my advisor showed me his dissertation. It was literally five papers with a cover around it. He graduated in 1985.

They work with all three. https://www.wearethorn.org/blog/eliminating-child-sexual-abu...

https://www.wearethorn.org/blog/spotlight-tool-aids-in-recov...

I can't speak to the stats, but I was once part of the team that developed Thorn's Spotlight software. LEOs who use it say it's been a serious game-changer in their efforts to get the children and their traffickers off the streets.

I gave Joseph Brodsky's Watermark and Alan Watts' The Wisdom of Insecurity to two friends last year. And for Mothers Day last year I gave my wife a book of themed photos and prose, Two, by Melissa Ann Pinney.

> Uhmm, he’s working on quantum gravity too. Just a different approach. The same applies to loop quantum gravity.

String theory isn't a quantum theory of gravity in the same way that loop quantum gravity (LQG) is, LQG is background independent. String theory assumes there is a flat background spacetime already present and perturbatively builds off of that. LQG doesn't make this assumption and tries to create spacetime from scratch.

LQG did make some testable predictions, as has string theory in recent years. One was regarding the smallest units of area and volume that might have been seen in light scattering in cosmic ray or gamma-ray burst experiments[1]. Another suggesting evaporating black holes could be used to probe LQG [2]. String theory proposed supersymmetry, where each fundamental particle had a supersymmetric partner. Electron => selectron, quark => squark, etc. But none of these proposals have panned out as yet. Thus far supersymmetry has not been found and LQG has not been able to recover general relativity in a classical limit.

> The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is just that, an interpretation. It doesn’t make any measurable difference from any other interpretation.

In the last couple years, many-worlds researchers have come up with some potentially measurable consequences [3].

[1] https://www.edge.org/conversation/lee_smolin-loop-quantum-gr...

[2] http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.251301

[3] http://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.0410...

> Smolin's basic complaint is that there is no experimental evidence for string theory.

The issue wasn't that there was no evidence but that there weren't any predictions that would be testable in our lifetimes.

Superstring theory did make a testable prediction though: Supersymmetry. But the LHC didn't find any evidence. [1]

[1] http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/first-high-energy-lhc...

There's Powell's Books. http://www.powells.com

I remember reading The Society of Mind in high school and being amazed by the ideas after reading his novel The Turing Option. I haven't thought about either in years. Looking back, maybe it's no surprise that I work in machine learning now.

Regarding the research, I think the majority (if not the only) research on the scanners has been conducted by the manufacturers themselves.

Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) and Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT) are two theories of quantum gravity that describe spacetime as arising from a network of sorts. For LQG, spacetime emerges from a spin foam quite elegantly. And for CDT things are also quite elegant. I'm not aware of either violating Bell's Theorem, but quantum gravity isn't my specialty.

Also, physicists don't generally take Wolfram's claims about how cellular automata are related to quantum or classical gravity or anything else in fundamental physics very seriously. A New Kind of Science cites very few sources and makes it seem like everything in there is new, which isn't the case. There was loads of criticism about that when the book was released. Nonetheless, it's an interesting idea and if something useful came from the work it would be good.

I wonder what effect this has on brain development.

There are two others, Steven Barnes and (the late) Octavia Butler. Besides being great storytellers, Butler won the MacArthur Prize and Steve has written episodes for a variety of TV shows over the years. Each was (arguably) commercially more successful than Delany. If Butler were still living I'm sure she'd have been interviewed as well.