Alekanekelo

Joined 14 years ago

Karma

Submissions

Member since

Mar 6

Recent submissions

I agree with you that it would be interesting to see a Taleb-Peterson conversation. Perhaps you might enjoy this podcast with Gad Saad and Taleb:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezhjumayRsg

Comment · 5 years ago

Yes, one of the central points of his books ("Maps of Meaning", "12 Rules for Life", and "Beyond Order") is that meaning in life is found by taking on personal responsibility. A good starting point is probably his "12 Rules for Life".

Comment · 6 years ago

You will have to register to Scitation and the free access is only temporary.

> Scientists and students in affected regions can now register on Scitation.org to activate temporary free full-text access to content through April 30, 2020.

Comment · 7 years ago

A preprint of the paper is available on arXiv [1].

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05080

Comment · 7 years ago

p-values are commonly misinterpreted as the probability of a type-I error, i.e. that the null hypothesis is true but is being rejected. However, the p-value is actually a random variable. A nice paper covering this can be found in [1].

p-hacking also seems to be an abundant problem, i.e. the replication crisis in psychology [2], and it's not necessarily done on purpose [3].

Regarding the threshold for statistical significance, there are arguments for abandoning the concept altogether [4].

[1] https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/000313008X332...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[3] http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_...

[4] http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/ab...

Comment · 7 years ago

Morningstar published a response to this paper [0].

[0] https://www.morningstar.com/learn/bond-ratings-integrity

Comment · 8 years ago

> Bell's explanation of his theorem in a 1985 BBC Radio interview includes an appeal to the debate between free-will and determinism when interpreting his results.

That sounds very interesting. Is the radio interview (or a transcript) still available? I tried searching for it and found a possible match for a show on BBC Radio 3 in 1983 [1].

[1] http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/7c8c2aba48024a5e925d0aca69c57b21

Comment · 12 years ago

        fatal error: too many errors emitted, stopping now [-ferror-limit=]

According to the User's manual the default is 20 for -ferror-limit [1].

[1] http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html

Comment · 12 years ago

Thank you very much for this book! As a beginning game developer this was just what I was looking for. After learning how to do rendering, physics, AI and so on I was missing how to put it all together in a proper way. This is a great resource! :)

Comment · 12 years ago

> there's a rotate button when you click through to the detail page.

When rotating some of the images (for example Img 999) it seems to cut the edges of the image off and clicking to zoom doesn't help.

Comment · 13 years ago

Thanks for the post. They are simple but extremely helpful and not always apparent tips. Courtesy and personal conversation gets you a long way.

Comment · 14 years ago

Thank you all for the answers. Yes I suspect that I was a bit quick to jump on the appeal of the faster microcontroller on the Due while I wont really need it at all, especially in the beginning.

Comment · 14 years ago

I am new to Arduino but very interested in starting. So far I have read that the Uno R3 is the best for beginners but now that the new Due is out will this be preferable for a beginner?

From what I've read, the Due is faster and able to handle more things. But is it easier to use compared to the Uno?

Comment · 14 years ago

The gravitational acceleration is equal to G * M/r^2 where G is the gravitational constant (G = 6.67 * 10^(-11) N * m^2/kg^2) M is the mass of Earth (M = 5.97 * 10^24 kg) and r is the radius of the Earth (average radius = 6.37 * 10^6 m).

At the place where he jumped out the gravitational acceleration would roughly be:

g = G * M/((6.37 * 10^6 m) + (39000 m))^2 ~= 9.69 m/s^2

This is not far from the normally used 9.8 m/s^2 and this would of course get larger as he gets closer to the ground.

Comment · 14 years ago

Could you elaborate a bit on your point 1/3? How come the little interest in this subject? Even though it contains no relativistic effects it would seem to have some importance in filling out the complete 'cube' of theories?