ching_wow_ka
Re:The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Random Forests
on Saturday September 19, 2015 @06:34AM (#10243878)
Is this often done? Can you provide a reference explaining this further? Possibly specific to ML models.
Re:The world's fastest human-powered vehicle tops 85 mph
on Saturday September 19, 2015 @06:28AM (#10243871)
That's interesting. Any source? I live in the northeastern part of the United States and it's rare for me to see a speed limit above 65 mph.
Re:Show HN: redigest.it – Digest for Hacker News and reddit
on Friday September 18, 2015 @11:18AM (#10239667)
I couldn't figure out how to get "1." to work.
Re:Show HN: redigest.it – Digest for Hacker News and reddit
on Friday September 18, 2015 @10:57AM (#10239548)
I couldn't understand how it works. Are they supposed to be merged on one page or on two separate pages?
Deep Learning Summer School, Montreal 2015 Videos
Re:Artificial Neural Networks for Beginners
on Thursday September 17, 2015 @08:19AM (#10232885)
If you're trying to learn about deep learning, I highly suggest using Python(Theano) or Lua(Torch). They're free and used by the experts in the field for research.
Even if you don't want to use the frameworks, you'll still have access to fast linear algebra routines.
Re:DNA from Neandertal relative may shake up human family tree
on Saturday September 12, 2015 @05:03PM (#10209377)
That's right; we can't know for sure and I'm sure you'll get some backlash for this comment. As with everything though, we need a balance.
If we say that we can't know for sure and give up, then no advancements would ever be made in any field. On the other hand, we should recognize that science does not claim to provide us with certainty. Many of us speaking "objectively" with scientific "facts" often become emotional and arrogant when speaking to anyone who doesn't agree with our conclusions.
Re:What Ever Happened to Google Books?
on Saturday September 12, 2015 @08:53AM (#10207949)
How many words do you think the entire web, as crawled by Google, has?
Re:What Ever Happened to Google Books?
on Saturday September 12, 2015 @07:32AM (#10207832)
I can say pretty certainly that all the text they've gathered through the Google Books project is in use in their language models and other AI models for their search engine, speech recognition, etc.
They got what they wanted. I can't see what incentive they have as a business to grant access to the books that justifies paying employees for it.
Re:What Ever Happened to Google Books?
on Saturday September 12, 2015 @07:04AM (#10207798)
I think you'll agree that there's a big jump from being able to access an API X times a day to having access to a data dump.
Re:Informative YouTube channels
on Friday September 11, 2015 @10:58AM (#10204014)
I've found reading the right books to be the best way. Lectures tend to be too broad for me, although they can serve as good overviews.
My philosophy is that if I want to learn something, I get a few suggestions for books, briefly skim through their contents and pick one. After that I'll take notes in it and reread and basically squeeze every ounce of knowledge that I possibly can from it until it's engrained in my brain.
Re:Informative YouTube channels
on Friday September 11, 2015 @10:54AM (#10203985)
If you're going to say something like that, you might as well explain why you think that way.
They seem to fill the void between in-depth study and knowing absolutely nothing.
Re:The chicken that lived for 18 months without a head
on Thursday September 10, 2015 @05:34PM (#10200703)
I skimmed through the article, but I couldn't find anything about how the chicken was fed.
Re:Free Data Science Books
on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @08:29AM (#10190993)
It's there. "Mining of Massive Datasets"
Re:Free Data Science Books
on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @08:29AM (#10190987)
Depends on what you want to learn.
Re:Free Data Science Books
on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @08:28AM (#10190985)
If you're a beginner, you're probably going to be too overwhelmed by the options. I often find emailing/asking a few different professors/researchers/students in the field you want to learn for suggestions more productive.
That's not to say this isn't helpful. This is from my own personal experience.
Re:“This week, I resigned from my position at Duke University”
on Sunday September 06, 2015 @03:27PM (#10178702)
I am somewhat ignorant. What significant achievements does Dawkins hold in his field? All I know is that he's known for trying to convince others of his beliefs.
Re:The Effects of Computer Programming on the Brain (2012)
on Sunday September 06, 2015 @08:32AM (#10177445)
A quote from someone who commented on the page:
"When the programming addicts on Hacker News write about programming addiction, they almost never call it programming addiction. Usually they call it being passionate about programming. And in their opinion, programmers who are not passionate about programming are bad programmers."
Not saying I agree, but it could be the start of an interesting discussion.
Re:Inferring Algorithmic Patterns with Stack
on Saturday September 05, 2015 @12:25PM (#10175231)
I doubt that it's used in M.
"Why not just build M with neural nets from the beginning? Without the right data, neural nets couldn’t provide a service much more powerful than, well, Siri, and Wit.ai’s tech can get things started with relatively little data. “This is a good way to bootstrap. With a few thousand data-points, you can start to build a model,” Lebrun says. “Then, using this model, you get more data, and once you have about a million data points, you go to Yann and get some deep learning.”" [1]
Re:Show HN: Neural network that impersonates writers
on Friday September 04, 2015 @08:17AM (#10169907)
So then it seems like the author of the code doesn't understand that "NN" means "Nearest Neighbors" and not "Neural Network"?
He mentions that he used sklearn's Neural Network libraries in his blog post, but sklearn doesn't have any aside from RBM.
Re:The Universe Is Made of Mathematics
on Thursday September 03, 2015 @05:04PM (#10167520)
I'm not much of a mathematician, but I found "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" by Morris Kline (http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Loss-Certainty-Oxford-Pape...) very insightful in regards to the development and current state of mathematics. A brief synopsis:
From Amazon: "This work stresses the illogical manner in which mathematics has developed, the question of applied mathematics as against 'pure' mathematics, and the challenges to the consistency of mathematics' logical structure that have occurred in the twentieth century."
From goodreads.com: "Most intelligent people today still believe that mathematics is a body of unshakable truths about the physical world and that mathematical reasoning is exact and infallible. Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty refutes that myth."
Edit: This was also interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlMMeqO7wOI , a video by Stephen Wolfram. I know he is often criticized for various reasons, but much of what he says makes intuitive sense.
Re:The Universe Is Made of Mathematics
on Thursday September 03, 2015 @04:51PM (#10167460)
I think rather than saying "The universe behaves according to laws of physics...", it would be more appropriate/correct to say that our "laws" of physics somewhat consistently describe our observations of the universe.
Re:Dinosaur Feathers Found in Amber Reinforce Evolution Theories (2011)
on Monday August 31, 2015 @07:58AM (#10146391)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
Can someone address this? I've seen this put forth by many and Dawkins sounds very, very confused and completely avoids the question.