Seanny123

> Unfortunately, the last step is a “draw the rest of the owl” moment. For us, this is deeply entwined in our collab layer, so we don’t have helpful code to share here.

By "the last step" here, do you mean the "do a three-way merge yourself" step? If you do, I would still be interested in hearing about why its "deeply entwined" even without sharing code.

> The main input cost is green hydrogen

I wasn't aware that was the current consensus, due to a lack of knowledge around this domain. Prometheus Fuels' process to generate ethanol doesn't see to require green hydrogen as an input step, so I assumed other production processes were also going to get around needing that input?

Don't feel obligated, but I would appreciate a quick link to something I could read about green hydrogen uses other than "burn this instead of fossil fuels"

Would for you to expand more on why you're bullish on synthetic hydrocarbons (also called e-fuels or power-to-gas). Is there a specific company you're bullish on, such as Prometheus Fuels or Terraform Industries?

Or with solar in Arizona or some other sunny place, as proposed by Terraform Industries.

What are some examples of the "enormous tool stack" required for XML? I ask, because I came into software development after everyone adopted JSON. When I do need to parse XML, there was a library I could use, although I will admit that needing xpath was a bit annoying.

Ray is a bit Python-specific, so I assume they have reasons to stick to Argo's language-agnostic approach?

I do find Argo's turing-complete language implemented in YAML painful, so I am also curious.

I don't understand type systems very well. When you say "check correctness" do you mean something beyond static linting with type-hints, like in Python? Or do you mean something deeper, like in functional languages like Elm and F#?

Also, is there always a trade-off between types and flexible meta-programming? Like, OCaml has meta-programming capabilities, but they make type-checking way harder, according to my PhD friend who's written extensively in Scheme and OCaml.

I mean, I'd like them to work like Python, Ruby and TypeScript, but you're right to say I can't describe why I want this.

Is there some guide I could read about structuring a large Julia project? It was pretty easy to intuit with Python, wherein I would put related files in a folder. But with Julia, everything is everywhere and I'm baffled.

SEEKING WORK: Ontario or remote

Data Scientist implementing Machine Learning algorithms (time series forecasting/regression/analysis, reinforcement learning). Also an educator able to create engaging curriculums and intuitive documentation.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sean-aubin/

Remote: Yes

   Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
   Remote: Yes
   Willing to relocate: Anywhere in Ontario
   Technologies: Python, TypeScript, MongoDB, SQL, Machine Learning
   Résumé/CV: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rg9acwslmgqvzvy/ds_resume.pdf?dl=0
   Email: [email protected]

I'm a Data Scientist with 5 years experience researching and implementing Machine Learning algorithms (time-series forecasting, reinforcement learning and others) turning theoretical insights into meaningful applications.

As someone who also completed a Master's thesis, I really hope that feeling goes away at some point.

The Qorum people have been doing psychology-informed Programming Language Design for a while now.

https://quorumlanguage.com/evidence.html

"An Absolutely Remarkable Thing" by Hank Green was delightful and insightful on multiple levels. It is an excellent dissection of internet fame and punditry, while also being funny as hell.

Whelp, there goes my laboratory updates repository. We were using each Google Fusion Table cell as a pre-formatted text-box which we could then sort and search. Does anyone know of any alternatives for this purpose? I made [a post](https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/49546/2134) describing the requirements for what is essentially a "sortable and searchable pre-formatted text post publisher" and I keep running into related use cases.

FYI, if you analytically determine the recurrent connections, you get way better results than setting the connections randomly. http://compneuro.uwaterloo.ca/publications/voelker2018.html

In my personal experience, PyCharm really mangles Jupyter Notebooks. Has it gotten to better recently?

I think the edit button ages out and I've missed the window?

Omg. I got the goodereader.com 13.3 inch confused with the Remarkable ereader. I have no idea how, but here we are...

Sweet, this is my second stupidest comment on this website.

Whelp, they marketed it as Android and it had access to the Google Play store, so I thought it was Android...

Seems I was wrong! I still maintain its very poor for reading papers I've found on my phone and then syncing the annotations.

It's beautiful hardware matched with absolutely horrid software. It's Android 4.0, which means literally nothing works. They've tried to fix it with custom apps, but I still can't achieve a decent work-flow and there's no community to make it better. It's actually the worst.

Is there a word for these types of articles that roughly describe why something works so well? I especially like the acknowledgement of how it could all go wrong and the limitations of the format. Is this considered "critcism" in the classic sense or is it something else? I want more of this compassionate/curious/generous/careful engagement, but don't know how to search for it.

complice.co which I've written a love-letter to here: https://medium.com/@seanaubin/an-open-love-letter-to-complic...

LinkedIn represents every approach I abhor in a tidy package. 1. Idolisation of social norms 2. Inability to admit weakness or failure 3. Artificial elevation of meaningless interaction

I get that it's a reflection of current corporate/professional culture, but I'd like to minimize the amount of time I spend using that set of social norms.

Joe Edelman talks about an alternative that I find compelling, if not slightly idealistic.

https://medium.com/what-to-build/how-to-design-social-system...

Basically, if you focus on how people want to approach their goals/passions, instead of the goal itself, you get a really good idea of why they're doing something. If you know why they're doing something, you can design systems allowing get better genuine engagement. So, you stop designing for attention (which can be exploitative and bad) and start designing for meaning (which is empowering and enjoyable).

Applied to this problem of the lonely blogger/streamer, I'm not sure what the solution is... I'll think about it and post a reply later to avoid a wall of text.

I tried using this book to learn functional programming and Haskell. It didn't work for me, due to the learning curve and topic progression. I recommend instead reading "Programming Language Concepts" by Sestoft. It's F#, but it helped me understand the Haskell bits of this tutorial much better.

In my experience, the trick is finding the sweet spot between something you use every day and your abilities. I don't contribute to Ubuntu, because I have very little understanding of what's going on there. I do contribute to my lab's software Nengo and other libraries I use, because I understand the code layout and where I can contribute. Consequently, maybe it's a good idea to make a decision matrix based on these criteria?

I absolutely adore this style of "gonzo" writing. It's like a film directed by Wes Anderson. It's not ideal for every topic, but whenever it shows up I'm delighted.