4,048 karma · joined August 6, 2013
But … you must have come across it before. What made you not pursue it? ie why was it a blind spot?
This is an article of where blind spots might be but not about how to find them.
One of the suggestions is to find a coach — for instance online videos (not exactly a live coach) — but if you don’t know the mini games you should want to improve , how do you know which coach/video to invest in?
I think the second approach is right even if the request were “innocuous”.
This is just argument by assertion. You would still hope someone would demonstrate the existence of 10x programmers. A lot of these one-off anecdotes in the comments are closer to 1.3x to be honest.
I doubt it exists but subservience — or near slavery — is everywhere.
I see Mexicans working in very subservient conditions with all kinds of legal constraints.
I don’t think we treat our undocumented immigrants better than the Saudis — or anyone else.
Consider this:
LeCun, 2022: Today's AI approaches will never lead to true intelligence (reported in the headline, not a verbatim quote); Marcus, 2018: “deep learning must be supplemented by other techniques if we are to reach artificial general intelligence.”
How can that be something that LeCun did not give Marcus credit for? It is borderline self evident, and people have been saying similar things since neural networks were invented. This would only be news if LeCun had said that "neural nets are all you need" (literally, not as a reference to the title of the transformers paper).
And furthermore, if LeCun had said that, there are literally dozens of people who have also said that you need to combine the approaches.
He cites a single line:'LeCun spent part of his career bashing symbols; his collaborator Geoff Hinton even more so, Their jointly written 2015 review of deep learning ends by saying that they “new paradigms are needed to replace rule-based manipulation of symbolic expressions.”'
Well, sure because symbol processing alone is not the answer either. We need to replace it with some hybrid. How is this a contradiction?
To summarize: people have been looking for a productive way to combine symbolic and statistical systems -- there are in fact many such systems proposed with varying degrees of success. LeCun agrees with this approach (no one has anything to lose by endorsing adding things to any model), but Marcus insists he came up with it and he should be cited.
Ugh.
(Steve Jobs on how ideas change when you actually do it)
However, open-props never mentions tailwind. That simple mis-title has hijacked the convo.
Propublica plotted a "cancer map" of elevated cancer risks, and you can see how it drops off as you go away from certain points.
-- Practice code
-- Read code
-- Read ideas about what makes good code
-- Write about what makes code good, try to practice the principles
-- Try different languages, especially ones that are different from the ones you first learn (i.e. functional if you learned procedural, object oriented, and of course Prolog)
What is wrong with these suggestions? Do you believe they will make you a great programmer?
Well, yes, these are great suggestions but the problem is:
1. They are self evident
2. They take a lot of time
What is missing is the tradeoff. If you just tell people all the ways to practice, then you aren't really giving them information. Its not false, and I don't have to be a great programmer to render this simple advice.
For a mere $1595, you got a 16k computer with microsoft basic but the best part is that it comes with 2 Z80 chips. Not sure how much a Z80 chip cost but surely the user would prefer an extra 8k or whatever. Best part is that you get to learn how the computer works by building it.
You can see why user testing is so important.
I did think about going to Woodstock to get it destroyed, but thought it might be too corporate for said innocence destruction.
Turned out, I was wrong.
Changed credentials and cancelled all the running instances only to find that I’d missed some.
It was resolved by the afternoon.
In South Asia - especially India — the moghuls are a loaded topic at the moment. There is an extreme right wing government that is focused on a Hindu resurgence (fine) at the expense of non Hindus (not fine), and the central justification is look how badly we were treated in the past. All the moghuls have gone through a lot of revisionism and reassessment (also fine) but it’s all politically motivated to interpret current events (sad).
However, when you are talking about the same government, when they agree with you, will upvote you?
This, right here, is a broken system. People should only be able to upvote or downvote another person, but not both, whenever they are talking about the same government!