tyrael71

These are direct solutions to the exercises. I took the class some time ago and also did it in python.

'It's also worth checking out existing neural net code-bases to see what tricks they have. The fine details usually aren't in papers, and they're not all in the text-books either.'

Given that you are a person who is highly-qualified to answer, I am genuinely curious why do you think that is? Reimplementing algorithms from scratch is an efficient way to learn, understand the underlying concepts and attempt improvements in a research context.

Can someone explain how this repo is so popular/ why it's so popular here? This is a basic implementation of a relatively simple algorithm that you learn when initially starting with ML/DL.

I do not want in any way to sound critical and am genuinely curious about the dynamics of why people would find this interesting given it's reduced complexity.

Is there anywhere I could access/read the research, or is it just the information you have on that blog?

I feel like this has become less and less true in engineering and software in the past decade. A portfolio of projects with varying complexity speaks equally or more about your ability to code or build things. Google and other companies have come out and said they haven't found strong correlations between degrees (with GPA measurement included) and being a better engineer.

> 'college dropout' featured in nearly every early article. It became something of a compliment after a bit though and helped them stand out somehow.

'Standing out' is irrelevant in this context unless your business is entirely based on you being a famous figure in the press. Gates and Jobs are famous because of the incredible companies they built, not the other way around. The press needed to paint a story, so they went with the college dropout narrative. However their success, and the success of every company/founder is entirely independent of founder social validation.

The article is well written, but the comparison is made on a false premise. People do not choose ambition over relationships, or vice-versa.

These terms are much more abstract than people think. The underlying denominator should be purpose, or rather definiteness of purpose. What I mean by that is, the arbiter of whether you should invest resources in your 'ambition' or your 'relationships' is the purpose with which you choose to live. If my self-determination and calling is to colonize mars and build self-driving cars to better humanity, I will position myself to do so, be it through relationships or allocation of other resources.

The problem is most people do not have a purpose, ambition can be interpreted both ways, as with everything. If I am defined by egotism and vanity, I might do almost anything I can to feed my vices, whether by buying cars, houses or spending money poorly. People would characterize me as ambitious, and they would be right, but it would be irrelevant, my purpose is built on a flawed foundation, a psychological need to prove myself to others.

TL;DR: We shouldn't be comparing terms without considering the purpose through which we choose our everyday actions.