37 karma · joined August 20, 2010
I have spent a lot of time on Khan Academy to learn the calculus. In my experience you can get by with a surprisingly small amount of calculus, but it happens to be a small amount from a high level.
For example, backpropagation is just repeated application of the chain rule. Did take a while to get a handle on the derivatives, but it's worth it.
Stuffed at the bottom, of course. Averages lie!
Yakov Smirnoff is a structural joke. You would need to parse sentences, pattern match, transform it, and then do some kind of regression on the phrase to get its humor quotient.
The Stanford Parser for structural parsing, then some custom pattern matching and transforming code, might get you somewhere.
How are you generating features? Stanford parser? Are you using logistic regression or something more advanced?
I love the idea. I am interested in applying some of these concepts myself. Do you have any ideas that you are not able to pursue yourself, that I might take a crack at?
This reminds me of Yahoo Pipes, but with webhooks instead of pubsub. Although, it seems they are using polling instead of webhooks.
They are coming, though. That's what I hear, at least.
1. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.88.9...
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2011-July...
I got bit by the Libc part, and I bet a lot of homebrew users will be as well. FWIW, on macports svn at least, these issues are resolved.
I don't necessarily agree with Myhrvold, but I don't think this guy is giving him enough credit.
The problem Myhrvold gives is real: large companies with lots of resources can, if they choose to, steal your idea and try to compete. This problem comes up on HN periodically, and I think the canon is to simply have the better product. I would call this playing field more level than the one where entrepreneurial teams can't compete at all.
What I've found is that the problem seems to get a lot more reasonable if you know how many clusters there are.
K-Means requires this information, but afaict agglomerative techniques don't. I wonder why this tool's agglomerative clustering method requires the number of clusters as an argument.
In Flex, this is managed by a 2-part view consisting of the collection view (List) and the item view (ItemRenderer). When creating the List you pass it its data provider (oft. ArrayCollection) and its ItemRenderer.
Perhaps this example could benefit from a similar separation.
I have used binding mechanisms in the Flex framework, which act in a similar way. The model object dispatches events which the view listens to and updates its own representation. In Flex the model object is often an "ArrayCollection," in this example, "Donuts." In Flex the view would often be some kind of "List" object, in this example, "DonutCollectionView."
The Donut aspect of this example is the contrived bit. It's just a generic list. Donut could just be any Object that maps to some kind of HTML representation. DonutCollectionView could just be a CollectionView, that passes along that representation to a HTML list.
The plumbing in this example is something I don't really want to write if I am using a framework. If I had to write it, I wouldn't write it like this. Am I misunderstanding something?
Composition can work for a lot of these problems too. It depends on the scale of the modification, I guess.