achal

My first reaction to this was that this was definitely less understandable, but I realized there were two pieces to this. One is banal - mapM_ and putStrLn are not near as simple as `for' and `print' (the latter have English meanings directly).

The second piece is interesting: Is something of the sort "<mapfn> <printfn> <list>" easier to explain to someone who's new to programming than "<foreach> <print>"? I've always thought the latter was easier to understand, but I'm curious which one someone who has no previous programming experience would grasp more immediately.

> 'a,'b

Between mark `a' and `b'

> g/fred

If the line contains the pattern Fred, execute the following command (s/dick/joe/igc)

> s/dick/joe/

Replace dick with joe

> /igc

i: Case insensitive

g: Replace multiple occurrences on the same line

c: Ask for confirmation on each substitution

I may be wrong about some detail, but I believe that's it.

You may have been on your initial commit; in that case, you need to use rm --cached instead of reset to undo a git add.

In case anyone else thinks they're insane, the two are the same. The second one should have been

    func main()
    {
    }

Looks really interesting. I love Pandora and having seen this I realize I really want Pandora for video. Would be great to have more Pandora like features -- specifically, videos recommended based on likes/dislikes of other videos, and being able to view videos without any past information. You could do this, for example, by showing popular videos for people who haven't logged in, and then customizing from there.

Thanks, the fact that it was so simple to make it do random things is great. Very fun.

As far as I can tell, they currently don't.

  “How will you deal with context?”

  We are currently developing a principled method to identify 
  relevant phrases, for example to deal with the multitude of both 
  positive and negative uses of profanity. We expect to be scoring 
  phrases instead of words, where appropriate, in the near 
  future."

Also, they mention elsewhere that they use a bag of words classifier, so they can't really account for things like this easily.

From what I can tell, the actual issue in this case was that they simply summed the wrong thing, rather than ran into some floating point error.

Also, I haven't gone through the first paper, but that second link just seems to show how they generally conform to IEEE 754, except for three cases (div/0 errors instead of infinity, NaN errors immediately instead of allowing further computations, and [this one is a bit more important] they don't implement denormalized numbers). I'm not sure why that would mean Excel is terrible at floating point math.