thrownawayalre
The built-in / with hlsearch on enter and nohlsearch on leave, together with the built-in <C-G> [1] for next match and <C-T> for previous match **while still in /** provides a faster and more natural solution because no need to read labels. From :help incsearch,
set incsearch
augroup vimrc-incsearch-highlight
autocmd!
autocmd CmdlineEnter /,\? :set hlsearch
autocmd CmdlineLeave /,\? :set nohlsearch
augroup END
For instance to delete until the second match of fum, type
d/fum<C-G><ENTER>
[1]: see :help /_CTRL-G
Too bad for the other large size company where similar things happen which won't get similar publicity and won't ever be investigated.
Not working at GOOG, but I don't get the hate in the comments or the idea that it is a google thing. The tough interviews that everyone is very critical about are actually a good edge against that sort of system (recruiting members of your cult). Too bad the process/interviews aren't that hard for contractors?
The kid is barely 18. The emotion and stress resulting from mistakenly sending a notification to 400,000 is likely overwhelming. Now his real name is going to stay at the center of the internet for a while thanks to being 1st on HN. I would definitely not have coped well with that much internet attention at his age. Some Github replies are more immature than the initial action and I hope he does not receive any threat.
I hope the Epic developers reach out to him nicely with constructive feedback and maybe a thanks for his well-meaning PR.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1303182/how-does-blas-ge...
Why turn your back on all the carefully crafted optimizations?
For example, the optimization of np.einsum has been passed upstream and most of the same features that can be found in this repository can be enabled with numpy.einsum(..., optimize=True).
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18365073/why-is-numpys-e...
Did I misunderstood your comment?
Parents bringing their kids to playgrounds, that have not much to do except talking to other parents. Being at a playground with their own kid filters out most mentally unstable or interested parties.
Very easy to strike conversations if kids have the same age. Lots of opportunities for new and sane friendships, with who you can then double-date when their kid come home to play with yours.
The researchers essentially rank the proposals and decide the outcome:: proposals at the top of the ranking will be funded until money dries out.
Researchers do not know how to evaluate grants the way the NSF wants them to do it. Researchers know how to review papers but not NSF proposals. The broader impacts expectations of the NSF are as obscure to the researchers in the panel as for everyone else. At a panel, after discussing the scientific merits of the proposal, the NSF officers asked the researchers in the panel for broader impacts in the proposal. The first day, the researchers kept pin-pointing (what they thought could be) broader impact items that the NSF officers rejected. As time went by, researchers in the panel started figuring out what kind of broader impacts the NSF officers expected, and could use it to push proposals they liked because of the science. Broader impact sections of the proposals were used to supercharge an already interesting proposal based on the science.
While 15-20 researchers may be in the panel, a few of those will be leading the discussions because of character and interest of looking at these proposals. If these researchers have integrity, the panel will do a decent job. I am sure it is highly dependent on the panel, but the ones I participated in, I thought we did a decent job, maybe with an inclination towards funding young PIs who never got funded before. But networking with NSF officers didn't help any PI; the science dominated the ranking.
Polished broader impact statements appear naturally in tier 1 universities that have many examples and templates of previously funded proposals. Most of it is window dressing; of course there are genuine initiatives but that's not the norm. Asking for diversity statements or whatnot will favor applicants from the alumni and PIs of the Stanfords and Harvards who can network with their peers to gather existing successful statements. After a few generation of sharing these statements, the polishing gets really really good and looks quite serious. It's fairly easy to write broad impact statements with 5 funded examples, much harder when you have none and nobody to talk to (does requiring diversity statements in applications actually hurt diversity candidates? Who knows, studying that question would likely not get funding).
Successful proposals read really well, so well that you wonder how much of the proposed research is already solved. That is a strategy used to write some proposal: when the NSF deadline comes, pick your 1 or 2 most significant unpublished working drafts and write a proposal on the results. Some results you know you already have, others could be interesting generalizations that are within reach, and add to the mix maybe one sexy moonshot. Because you had the paper underway, the story and notation are things you already thought about for a while, and the resulting proposal looks pretty good. If the proposal gets funded, you already have some results to show; good job.
Source: academic who also got CAREER the first time, somewhat burnt out by all these games. Don't get me started on academic awards (the ones with a famous name attached to it)--but let me just say that staying away from those will delay the burnout, a bit; those games are much more rigged than NSF panels.