atheriel

There is a pretty widely-used extension [0] for using Positron with WSL, if that's helpful to you.

[0]: https://open-vsx.org/extension/kv9898/open-remote-wsl

That is in fact a common topic on Gelman's blog, if you go through the (large) archive.

Our organization looks similar: models are almost all written in R but the business operates in C#. We just use simple HTTP APIs to intermediate. Specifically, we do the following:

1. Use R packages to bundle up the models with a consistent interface.

2. Create thin Plumber APIs that wrap these packages/models.

3. Build Docker images from these APIs.

4. Deploy API containers to a Docker Swarm (but you could use any orchestration).

5. Stick Nginx in front of them to get pretty, human-readable routes.

6. Call the models via HTTP from C#.

This stack works pretty well for us. Response times are generally fast and throughput is acceptable. And the speed at which we can get models into production is massively better than when we used to semi-manually translate model code to C#...

Probably the biggest issue was getting everyone on board with a standard process and API design, after a few iterations. And putting in place all the automation/process/culture to help data teams write robust, production-ready software.

Most of these tidyverse vs. data.table arguments end up sounding a bit irrelevant to me. They tend to focus on syntax, which is largely down to preference, or performance, which is really only important once in a while. And they seem oddly focused on the need to choose one or the other, when it seems obvious that all are good choices with various tradeoffs.

I tried my hand at saying something more original about this debate recently: https://unconj.ca/blog/for-and-against-data-table.html

On the other hand, it's nice to see some criticism of RStudio and Hadley, even if it does stray into the conspiratorial. They've done a lot for the R community, but they do have some obvious blind spots.

I'm in a similar boat, using base R, data.table, or tidyverse as needed. But over time I've found that I respect, more and more, the good decisions that have been made in base R.

Absolutely. I usually respond to the "R-is-not-a-real-language" line with something like "R is syntactic sugar on a Lisp where the atoms are APL arrays". It's plenty interesting from a computer science perspective, if you bother to look.

For instance, why does R use <- instead of = for assignment? Because initial versions (of S) predate C -- developed down the hall -- the language that first introduced = for assignment.

The blog this post belongs to has loads of interesting posts on C.

This is attractive in theory but it's a bit difficult to do in practice. Usually the places with the worst comparative odds are also quite aggressive in banning sharp accounts (including any proxy accounts you'd set up as this rival sportsbook). You've got to take the vig into account, as well, which is likely high. So in most cases it's probably not be worth the cost. Especially when there are plenty of other ways to use sharp information to make money.

This is exactly what happens at the sportsbooks that take sharp customers.

In practice these outfits have accounts at large Asian sportsbooks (which don't bother to ban sharps) or at Pinnacle (which has traditionally welcomed them). Even setting aside the risk of being banned, successful syndicates are unlikely to bet at major Western sportsbooks because the vig (margins) are too high.

This is only true in major metro areas -- that is, Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. Most smaller cites/towns or rural regions are far less tolerant.

(In fact, differential enforcement by regional police departments was one of the more compelling arguments in favour of decriminalization.)

My understanding (granted, second-hand from international copyright law experts) is that this is the correct interpretation: Microsoft does not want Chinese or Russian governments demanding the source code of Windows. I'm extremely skeptical of the Linux Journal's claims here.

As per usual in international trade agreements, this provision merely codifies the present status quo. There's no reason to expect that it will affect the GPL.

Likely because that would mean rewriting public history, which I believe Linus is opposed to, particularly in the case of a huge project like the kernel.

The hledger implementation [0] has Windows binaries available, and it's mostly compatible with the original.

[0]: http://hledger.org/download.html

This is really neat, but I'm wondering if you are better off triggering the change by sending SIGUSR1 to the Emacs process [0]. This would remove the need to run the function in a timer every 1s.

[0]:https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Mi...

This is really neat.

This is totally brilliant -- nice find.