qwhelan

I've never ridden in Illinois, but yeah:

> § 11-1512. Bicycles on sidewalks. (a) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.

https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-625-vehicles/il-st-sect...

No idea if the lakefront trail is classified as a sidewalk but there are at least some cases in Illinois where either a bell or a "on your left" are legally mandatory.

Unfortunately in many jurisdictions it is legally required to do that when passing a pedestrian.

Yeah, it's understandable that the real world is messy and user-sourced data can be very suspect.

The case I'm thinking of is the eastern end of SR-520 over Lake Washington in the Seattle area. It has hundreds/low thousands of bicycle crossings/day (so surely dozens of Garmin users/day), the background is a dammed freshwater lake with a well known elevation, and clear view of the sky. Yet the elevation data is garbage somehow.

It doesn't really matter for planning purposes as any alternative has such a huge delta but it does signal that user data isn't being utilized to refine their data set even on high volume segments.

Yet it's unclear to what extent they actually use them - on freeway adjacent bike paths that have different gradients than the adjacent freeway (typically steeper), it's very clear Garmin is using data referencing the freeway.

Also, part of the City and County of San Francisco!

Well the login message I was greeted with on every ssh connection certainly threatened criminal prosecution for unapproved software at the extremely large bank I worked at.

Unlikely? Sure. But a lawyer somewhere thought it was worth reminding me 10x/day, so going to assume it's possible provided your unauthorized software caused a serious monetary loss.

Also worth mentioning that "unapproved software" on bank infrastructure is what an aggressive prosecutor would call "felony bank hacking".

Also political activists who know how the lottery system works far better than the rest of the population: https://apnews.com/article/cad8b58711d54b178660a0ce379288a4

This is an explicit rule introduced at the beginning of most Caltech courses, so the norm is that that behavior is cheating due to being warned in advance.

Some professors would provide past exams for study aids or use them as homework problems.

However, the explicit default was that you should not look at solutions from prior years. Professors would announce at the beginning of the course that they reuse questions and looking at prior years solutions was an honor code violation. I think it's pretty clear it's cheating when the expectations are clearly outlined.

If you had inadvertently come across the problem before and independently solved it, you were expected to disclose that as part of your answer. I personally had to do this several times, and never suffered any negative consequences for it, but the expectation for honesty was there.

The opening words of ACM95a my year are seared into my mind:

"I would like to apologize to the students who took this course last year. I always aim for a mean exam score of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Last year's mean was 29 and I will attempt to not repeat the mistake"

One example of an adversarial university environment is how fraternities and sororities keep copies of exams and assignments from prior years. Professors know cheating is rampant, so have to change the questions every semester.

Some courses at Caltech had almost identical exams for at least a decade when I went through. The professors knew cheating like the above simply would not be tolerated by undergrads.

I sat on and helped run the Board of Control, which handled academic honor code violations, for several years and professors who had been at other universities would absolutely rave about how much more they could trust Caltech students. And that was while reporting a suspected cheating case to me.

IIRC, CS1 was a mandatory class for other majors (like MechE) and a course in Scheme was basically hazing from their perspective.

I forget if Scheme was moved to a later course or made optional.

As yet another housemate of Andy's at Caltech, it is perhaps worth mentioning that he was also involved in updating Caltech's CS curriculum prior to it becoming as popular as it is today.

Hard to say how much of the trend is just what happened everywhere, but CS1 being in Python rather than Scheme probably helped a bit.

We've come full circle - Amazon has a bookstore chain these days (Amazon Books).

Definitely a bit of the former, but JPM and a few other big players have made similar moves.

Happened a month ago: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-wells-...

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's opt-in to avoid breaking existing behavior. But given that ingestion points are easy to identify, it's pretty straightforward to turn on (especially if you have a schema for your inputs): https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/user_guide/inte...

Yes, there's a lot of existing code written assuming the old behavior. But most code has only a few ingestion points, so it's pretty simple to turn on.

> Occurs in pandas 0.25.1 (and the release notes for 0.25.2 and 0.25.3 don't mention such a change), so that would likely be still the case in the latest stable release.

It was released in 0.24.0: https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/user_guide/inte...

For example:

    pd.DataFrame({"foo": [1,2,3,4,None]}, dtype=pd.Int64Dtype())

        foo
    0     1
    1     2
    2     3
    3     4
    4  <NA>

    pd.DataFrame({"foo": [1,2,3,4,None,9223372036854775807,9223372036854775806]}, dtype=pd.Int64Dtype())

                       foo
    0                    1
    1                    2
    2                    3
    3                    4
    4                 <NA>
    5  9223372036854775807
    6  9223372036854775806

You should upgrade your version of pandas if possible - that's been fixed for a few versions now.

>Want to join two dataframes together like you'd join two database tables? df.join(other=df2, on='some_column') does the wrong thing, silently, what you really wanted was df.merge(right=df2, on='some_column')

Simply a matter of default type of join - join defaults to left while merge defaults to inner. They use the exact same internal join logic.

>What if they're optional? pd.DataFrame({'foo': [1,2,3,None]}) will silently change your integers to floating point values.

This was a long standing issue but is no longer true.

>Want to check if a dataframe is empty? Unlike lists or dicts, trying to turn a dataframe into a truth value will throw ValueError.

Those are 1D types where that's simple to reason about. It's not as straightforward in higher dimensions (what's the truth value of a (0, N) array?), which is why .empty exists

>Of course, at RenTech in particular the employee-only fund is the good fund

Yeah, but only the long tenured/high performing employees get access to the good fund (there's a merely average fund that most employee deferred comp goes into, if I understand correctly).

Former colleague of mine was a M&A trader at Lehman during the crash. 95% of his net worth was in his fund, which was up 50%+ for the year when the bankruptcy trustee seized everything. IIRC, he was starting to get his money back in ~2014-15.

At hedge funds, the majority of your "cash bonus" can take the form of deferred comp that's locked up in a shitty fund that doesn't perform anything like the famous ones (both Citadel and RenTec do this). Some don't let you pull it out unless you never work again.

RSU comp can be quite competitive when you take those factors into account.

FWIW it looks like pandas is slow/OOM-ing because the benchmarks solely use Categoricals, which aren't as heavily used by pandas users compared to R.

In particular, I suspect the benchmark sizing is forcing falling back from numpy's int64 to Python ints as categorical labels, which easily could explain a 10x or more differential.

>SIPC insurance up to 500K USD on all (non-crypto) investment accounts? This is on-par with the same kind of protections you get with any FDIC-insured checking or savings account.

While similar, SIPC is not "on-par" with FDIC.

With FDIC, the bank is taken over Friday afternoon and your cash is available Monday morning.

With SIPC, it could very easily be five years before you have access to your assets again.

The difference in the value of the insurance also means the regulatory scrutiny behind SIPC is far lower.

The crosswalk is not part of the intersection, so it's the latter definition. For example, blocking a crosswalk and blocking an intersection are separate offenses.

> So why exactly should California spend 20 billion dollars

Because adding comparable capacity to SFO and LAX would be $100B+

Nope, the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets. They'll be kept for expensive international connections, but the frequency will be dramatically cut.

Also, who cares about actually going to an airport? It's only a means to getting where you need to go, which is probably downtown SF or LA

The single LAX-SFO pair is about 10% of LAX's daily takeoffs, completely ignoring SJC and OAK. Throw in BUR and HSR effectively amounts to a significant capacity increase for non-short haul flights.