Language implementation-wise, can anyone explain why/how Julia is able to get close to C-level performance? Is it doing some extra steps under the hood (JIT compilation?) that Python and R aren't doing?
> * Restrict shallow work to 2 hours (after 2 hours, say no to everything shallow)
Except when the initial classification of a task as “shallow” is incorrect, and it actually should’ve been “deep” (although, this shouldn’t happen too often, except when it does happen).
Sometimes I lay in bed at night thinking about the deficiency I haven't had time to address or that isn't a current priority, or the obscure bug I found a while ago that is laying in wait ... then I end up taking a melatonin capsule because my brain won't stop trying to plan/reorganize my next few tasks to squeeze in enough time to solve these issues.
I'm going to guess and say he was just borrowing a current, in-the-news hashtag and applying it to this situation. In other words, he was just joking around.
For me, it's when I open my .emacs file and start working on my personal TODO items. The last time I ended up writing some elisp functions to make adding code comments/documentation easier and to auto-generate project layouts and source code skeleton files.
Regarding the "smearing" concept, how does that square with the formation of neutron stars and white dwarfs? Those objects are incredibly dense because they're composed mostly (?) of nuceei or neutrons, respectively.
Why would previous versions of Python3 (e.g., 3.5, 3.6) not perform as well as 2.7? What about Python3 makes it slower? Is it a language design issue?
We’re in the process of migrating several keras/TensorFlow-based projects to 3.6, and I’m struggling to get my emacs environment setup to handle Python 2 and 3 code simultaneously.
I really don't understand the hate for Musk. Shit, a lot of these projects are really experiments that he's funding. They're really cool experiments, at that, and experiments aren't supposed to be successful all the time, anyway.
It's like the people who bash NASA for having failures. This has never been done before!
Besides being much newer (and lighter components are now available), the electronics for a Free Space Optical system are much lighter than the electronics for an RF system.
The concept 'Size, Weight, and Power' (SWaP) is commonly used when comparing FSO vs. RF systems. Incidentally, FSO systems have lower SWaP than RF systems. They're smaller and lighter payloads, and the system requires less poweR.
I wouldn't call myself proficient in Java, but I understand the basics. I'm a C and C++ programmer at heart, so the few times that I had to write new Java code back in the day I always would prefer snake_case class names and snake_case variable names. Although I'm sure it irked the Java guy we had working for us, at least it was very easy to determine who wrote a particular block of code.