Maybe my undergraduate institution failed mebut I don't feel that having taken linear algebra, multivariable calc, applied stats, and graduate probability over the summer that the PDF below contains readily accessible information to me. Does it require graduate linear algebra? Graduate multi-v? We're my courses not rigorous enough? Am just not smart enough? I graduated summa cum laude, so maybe I should be okay.
All I am saying that is that there seems to be a huge leap between having taken the prerequisites everyone says you should take and then seeing Cramer-Rao bounds on page 70.
Better than anything I could draw. Here was one of the most re known physicists/smartest guys around saying...hey, I'm not really an artist but I'd love to give it a shot.
Kind of makes you wonder if that same line of the thought led to his scientific successes.
can you please show me a repository of R graphs that look half as polished/nice as graphs made in d3? I am not challenging or being confrontational I am actually curious why you think ggplot2 produces great vizes. I am new to data visualization, but I've worked in bit in R before and understand it's power to handle large data sets. Do you mean that they are great as in they are very functional for producing basic static charts like in Tableau? Or dynamic/creative vizes too?
In my line of work, clients are more concerned about "out-vizzing" the competition by creating mind-blowing "Wow!" vizes. Doesn't this rule ggplot2 out for the most part?
To anyone that read this and identified strongly: I highly recommend you pick up 'The War of Art' and 'Turning Pro' by Steven Pressfield.
Essentially,accordingly to Pressfield, those writers who identify strongly with problems the writer has in the article would do well to adopt a "hard hat" mentality of doing creative work; grab your lunch pale, sit in front of the computer and suffer, and don't worry about whether what you write is good or not-just do the damn work. 'Pretend' that you only write for money (you don't, but money is nice).
The problem for me and I think for the writer is identifying one's ego and with one's work. You start to worry you're not cut out, good enough, etc. But when you start thinking of creative endeavors like grabbing your lunch pail and heading off to the construction cite to put in a hard day's work, everything changes. It's kinda zen like in that way. Success or failure-the construction worker doesn't take it personally-he still has a beer at the end of the day and laughs with his family.
If it's a government college loan, the interest rate is like 5%, and mutual funds are giving more than that right now...so technicallly speaking...I don't know how quick I'd say that
"However, it is long-standing government policy that pardons under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy should be reserved for cases where it can be established that the convicted person was innocent of the relevant offence, and not to undo the effects of legislation which we now recognise as wrong."
In this case, I guess pardon is not appropriate. I think the way we think of pardons at least in the US, is your first sentence, in which case Turing should definitely be pardoned.
I bet even if things got more amazing (like we started traveling around in those smart chairs like in Wall-E) people still wouldn't be happy. I enjoyed reading this because I often forget how amazing smartphones are.
Because I feel that people on HN try to micromanage their neurons to an extent that they evaluate themselves as if they were computer hardware....
"Well I only have so much RAM to do this task, but if increase my computer processing power through deliberate practice..."
I was a bit offhand, I admit. I was in a bad mood when I made that comment. But I stand by the fact people on HN take themselves and their capabilities way too seriously, without any thought to the fact, say, that the internet and programming are only a minuscule fraction of our history as intelligent lifeforms. While I love the internet/programming/topics discussed on HN, I just think that people here are too hard on themselves. You're not a computer with specs, you are the results of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.