Most of the content that I watch and the content creators that I'm subscribed to comes from the recommendations. As far as I'm concerned, the algorithm works great.
To this day the name of the professor brings a smile to my face. If I remember correctly, I didn't even plan to take this course (had no interest in finance), but after watching the Intro video I was hooked.
I have forgotten about it until this comment. Prof Gautam Kaul's MOOC was the first course I took on any MOOC. I did not finish it, mainly because it became very mathematical towards the end and I couldn't keep up. The course gave me appreciation for many things in finance, including personal finance. It's not exaggeration to say that that MOOC was a trigger to seek pay rise, contribute more to 401K and few adjustments in personal finances.
A good reminder and greatful to MOOCs and this course.
A minor correction: Bosnia is not a country with a majority Muslim population. At least 55% of people there are not Muslim.
Christians make up 52% of the population (Serbian Orthodox 36%, Catholic 15%, Protestant 1%). There are also a few percents of atheist, Jews, and others.
My mistake. Bosniaks (who are predominantly Muslim) do only form the largest ethnic group, ie the 'relative majority'. I've actually visited the country and have 'extended' family (or whatever the proper English term for family you're only 'related' to by marriage is) that hails from there.
There's a shortage of talent willing to work 80 hours a week and get paid for 20. There's a shortage of talent with 5 years of experience in technology that is 3 years old. There's a shortage of talent willing to jump through an absurd number of hoops in order to work for you.
No language will replace C, but all of those mentioned will eat some of its cake. Its usage will shrink, but C is here to stay.
D is what C++ should have been. It had some traction in mid-2000s but the Tango vs. Phobos debacle killed it.
Go is the most serious of the three languages mentioned. It has the momentum, solid community, solid tooling, and corporate backing. It's well suited for networked services, but it is not replacement for C.
I'm not so sure about Rust. Unlike D and Go, Rust can replace C (in theory), but I don't think that will happen. Rust has a feel of a hobbyist language in perpetual alpha.
> but the Tango vs. Phobos debacle killed it.
It was D1 lang.
You should know now that D2 have single standard lib, the official compiler front end is wrote on D, and open source. Plus there is LDC and GDC implementations.
In early 2000s, Microsoft basically told Win32 API developers to either migrate to .NET or to go fuck themselves. There was a lot of FUD flying around. At one point, people were wondering will the new Visual Studio ship with C/C++ compiler.
In it's quest to promote .NET, Microsoft even got Borland to kill itself by jumping on the .NET train. The days of native Windows development were over and the best alternative to MS stack, Borland with its Delphi, decided to commit suicide.
That was the chance for D to shine. I was among the developers looking for non-MS solution for native Windows development and D was my favorite, but the Tango vs. Phobos thing killed it for me.
Like many developers at that time, I left Windows for the Web development. If D was then what is now, I would stay with Windows a bit longer than I did.
First, I want to tell you that my comments are not malicious (at least, not on purpose), just telling you what impression I get when looking at it.
Rust got a lot of love from the beginning, a lot of people tried to use it before it was anywhere near stable. They've got burned when their two weeks old code wouldn't compile. I know, they were warned about it, but it still kinda sucks.
If you look at the Rust FAQ[1], it promises yet more incompleteness and breakage to come:
>4 Is any part of this thing production-ready?
>No. Feel free to play around, but don't expect completeness or stability yet. Expect incompleteness and breakage.
Another question people have is: "Are we web yet?" and the answer is: "No, we are not." [2]
No stability, immature ecosystem,... Either the docs are outdated or you're "selling" it wrong. The message I get is "Rust is awesome, but not here yet".
We released 1.0 stable in May. We don't make those kinds of changes anymore. The only reason that FAQ entry survived so long is that the FAQ is currently being entirely re-written, so people hadn't read it in a while...
The standard line is that choice is good for us, that it confers on us freedom, personal responsibility, self-determination, autonomy and lots of other things that don’t help when you’re standing before a towering aisle of water bottles, paralysed and increasingly dehydrated, unable to choose.
That's just ridiculous!
According to the author, a towering aisle of water battles reduces you to the Buridan's ass.[0] Yes, there are some hard choices that will force you to think hard and put you through emotional hell. Yes, there are choices that will make you stuck in analysis paralysis, but choosing which bottle of water to buy isn't one.
>Yes, there are choices that will make you stuck in analysis paralysis, but choosing which bottle of water to buy isn't one.
He was going for rhetorical effect. I think they should teach these things in reading/writing classes, so people don't take everything literally.
That said, choosing from "a towering aisle of water bottles" can still cost you up to a minute or more on deciding, which, while not Buridan's ass, it's still non-productive and worsens your shopping experience.
Nope. Making a simile with Buridan's ass is a strawman.
It's not that you wont be able to decide (yes, that would be ridiculous). It's that you will be less satisfied with the choice you make because it's harder for your to quantify the opportunity cost given so many alternatives.
From the article: you’re standing before a towering aisle of water bottles, paralysed and increasingly dehydrated, unable to choose looks like the definition of Buridan's ass to me.
I'm familiar with the Schwartz's paradox of choice, but the author is pushing it too far. Does anyone really agonize over trivial choices such as which bottle of water to buy? Is anyone really getting dehydrated and unable to chose among many alternatives? Does anyone even considers opportunity cost when making such trivial choices?
My problem is not with the paradox of choice, my problem is with the author's trivialization of it.
I agonize because there are so many worthless options I will definitely not choose. I'm looking for any acceptable option - no chemical 'flavors'; no fancy bottle making it cost $$$. It takes time to winnow any wheat at all from the endless chaff.
I found a $0.79 bottle at my local quick stop, that actually fit in my bicycle water bottle holder for my lunchtime ride. Then, of course, the quick stop closed and was torn down. Woe is me.
Are organic soil filters a core tenant of our tribe? How do I balance my need for sport electrolytes with the inevitable guilt of consumerism that follows?
I wish there was a sandwich I'd like to eat, but there never is. Perhaps that's what it is. But yes I've been meaning to upgrade my laptop with an SSD for about a year, and still can't decide on size, make or model.
It seems to me that the author just wanted to bark about something to be the edgy contrarian of his social network.
In my opinion that is unfair assessment. From my reading of the article, the author is attacking the overzealous evangelists, not the meditation per se.
Lie on your bed. Relax. Instead of trying to fall asleep (and thinking about it) think about making yourself as comfortable as possible. Turn this way, move your arm that way,... Once you've done it, the sleep usually follows. In short, think comfort not sleep.
P.S.
I've used to have troubles falling asleep, but that simple method helped me to solve the problem. I would give the credit to the original author, but I can't remember where I read it.
Trying to make a profitable predictor for the English Premier league. Currently, the predictor is profitable on the whole season, but not on the weekly basis.
I've train it on data from the 1992/1993 to 2011/2012 season, and tested it on the 2012/2013, 2013/2014, and 2014/2015 season. In tests, it shows profitability from 4.12 to 8.40%.
Most of the content that I watch and the content creators that I'm subscribed to comes from the recommendations. As far as I'm concerned, the algorithm works great.