willis77

The fine folks at <checks notes> FOPEAS would never tarnish their good name by stooping to such a stunt. I mean, we might expect such shenanigans from the likes of SMURGBLOZ, KINSURGE, or GSIROOZ, but not FOPEAS, fine purveyors of `FOPEAS an AI Language Model I do not Have Access to The Context of The SFD You are referring to. Can You Please Provide me with More Information so That I can Assist You Better`

The year is 1900. College-bound nephew says "what's the point of a physics major anymore?" I asked "what do you mean?" and he goes "Newton's Laws".

Each year Kaggle creates a for-fun, Santa-themed optimization problem. This year's is about controlling a robotic arm to efficiently print cards.

The digits of pi contain every pdf that ever could and ever will exist.

Any dog ever would gladly trade a few zaps for a wide open place to explore outside. Cruelty is depriving dogs of exercise and outdoor time and stimulation and the chance to run, not invisible fences.

Same issues here. I dread having to unplug or shutdown my MBP connected to 2 external monitors because it means I'll have to reconfigure the displays.

As of 2015, there were 9 car models without recorded deaths - https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/record-9-models-have-...

I'm not sure how statistically significant the numbers are, but it's something!

Yeah, my above comment was not using a text search, hence no "relevant" option (i.e. if you just drilled down the department hierarchy to, say, the TVs department).

> the core need, is that you want control over the model that Amazon is using to sort what you see and to have some input on what that looks like

Indeed, but I'm not even looking to have that much granular control over it. I just want "sort by rating, but toss out all the obscure crap that has 1 or 2 ratings, because that rating is meaningless."

Amazon has the default "Featured" sort (I'm not sure what is behind this, but it intuitively seems like some combination of popularity + availability + rating). If this default doesn't fit your needs, your only option is to change to sort by "Avg. Customer Review", which gets you a list that is sorted by average rating regardless of the number of reviews. Evan called out nearly 10 years ago in the post that OP's article mentioned - http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating..... The root problem is that one random obscure product with a single 5-star rating out-ranks something with 499 5-star ratings and 1 4-star rating.

I'm often looking for what is the best/highest-quality item in a category, meaning I want not just a high average, but a high average that is statistically meaningful. I'm just surprised Amazon hasn't offered a way to do that (and have read umpteen threads on HN in the past years expressing the same frustration).

Anyone here have thoughts on why, all these years later, Amazon still doesn't have a sort option along the lines of these proposals? It seems like such an easy win and an easy technical change. Do they have some business reason not to change their default sort?

Nothing warms our icy, cold, statistical hearts quite like hearing that a randomly chosen person is near the median. <3

I don't know who this James Mickens fellow is, but I like the cut of his jib.

Sort by rating you say? Sure, here's 3 pages of sketchy, out of production, third-party seller items with one 5-star review, followed by the 4.97 star item with 3,880 reviews that you actually should buy. Enjoy!

> Our results suggest that automated systems for monitoring demographic trends may effectively complement labor-intensive approaches

But who has access to writeStatus.txt? Classic rookie mistake. You needed a writeStatusWriteStatus.txt.

I agree, and suspect many people (outside of the statisticians who have had the time and space to digest the philosophical underpinnings) who claim to love Bayesian methods do so because they have been told it's the right thing to love. There are a lot of hand-wavy explanations out there that tell you what each side believes, but I have yet to see something that truly ELI5s it.

Can confirm. I've been running this bot for 8 minutes and currently have a $7.8 million short position against the fake NYT. SEE YOU IN COURT, @maxbbraun!

Hey, wait, aren't you that guy that does the funny nerd keyboard thing? Type me a sentence. Dance monkey, dance!

> Sorry, but, this required a new study?

Yes, it requires study, unless all of this is obvious to you:

"The twin cohort displayed distinctive pathway enrichment based on sleep duration differences. Habitual short sleep was associated with up-regulation of genes involved in transcription, ribosome, translation, and oxidative phosphorylation. Unexpectedly, genes down-regulated in short sleep twins were highly enriched in immuno-inflammatory pathways such as interleukin signaling and leukocyte activation, as well as developmental programs, coagulation cascade, and cell adhesion."

I always said the hallmark of a great tool is something that can do 50 things in a shitty way. "ALEXA. ALEXA. SIRI! OKAY GOOGLE? Come here self-driving roomba. Play NPR podcasts and brew me a tepid cup of brown Keurig water while engaging me in a rousing game of Go"

Having worked in the field, the model that works well is decision support = augmenting an expert with a computer-aided diagnosis. This can work in a couple of ways, but the two classic ones are:

* Following behind the expert to give a second opinion

* Going ahead of experts to screen cases that should be read by an expert

Humans are imperfect and have their sources of unwanted variability. Algorithms may be less variable and reach near-human performance in controlled settings, but are often not flexible enough, not good at incorporating multi-modal patient history, and sometimes fail in spectacularly bad ways.

> Given a list of time-dependent coordinates of obstacles

A tree falls in an intersection because some carpenter ants chewed through trunk. Cars swerve to miss the tree and collide in an inelastic ball of nonlinearity, showering debris everywhere. You approach this at 65 mph and have 23 ft to decide what to do. Fear not, you have a list, a perfect list with coordinates, velocities, and material properties of every solid body in the area. Furthermore, without great intellectual effort, you can solve the millions of coupled differential equations that govern the dynamics of the entire system in near real time. Oh, and your list also has a measure of importance of each bit of mass, whether it is human, animal, or inert. And your list also accounts for the degrees of freedom introduced by every other car approaching the intersection, also using their own respective lists and perfect knowledge of the world to miss each other?

"Shelf Overflow"?

> A machine learning researcher, a crypto-currency expert, and an Erlang programmer walk into a bar. Facebook buys the bar for $27 billion.

https://twitter.com/ml_hipster/status/438418306769244160

There was a time when Reddit did not have subreddits (or even the ability to comment). During this time, Reddit's community was very much like HN is currently. It was mostly techy people who found Digg was getting a little too "low brow". It may not have been explicitly tech focused, but it may as well have been.

> that physics thing from that Swiss patent clerk guy

I think you're thinking of Carl deGrasse Feynman.

49 books/tutorials/MOOCs in, I was lost. Would I ever learn SQL? Why is learning so easy but finding "top 100" awesome-lists on a topic so hard?! Then, finally, praise Knuth, I found this list with 50 SQL resources. I can finally get started learning the way everyone wants to get started, namely, inundated with an overwhelming number of halfheartedly scraped resources.

It feels like you are pinning a problem on RStudio that isn't RStudio's fault? A hammer is not a bad tool because it allows you to drive a nail into your own foot.

I tried an Ansel Adams photo - "This landscape is good, but it could be great. Let's give it a 7.5/10"

People have studied this. While you have to take these theoretical "what if" studies with a grain of salt, some believe that eradicating mosquitos would not affect ecology in a major way:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html