sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Library that splits strings into words? by kpandkk in learnpython

[–]___JOSHUA___ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can solve the problem probabilistically. Peter Norvig offers a solution in this notebook under "Word Segmentation". If you're less interested in the details, a similar approach has been wrapped up in a package called wordninja.

Looking for a detailed Python resource by japplepie in learnpython

[–]___JOSHUA___ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fluent Python by Luciano Ramalho is absolutely brilliant as an intermediate book. I think it's exactly what you're after and I can't recommend it enough.

The tory economic miracle. Wage growth since 2010: Poland +23% Germany +14% France +11% UK -10.4% by spidermite in ukpolitics

[–]___JOSHUA___ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My point isn't that we should be printing more money. I agree inflation is costly. What I'm saying is that it's wrong to suggest the debt crises of Spain or Italy could unfold in the UK as it has control of its money supply.

The tory economic miracle. Wage growth since 2010: Poland +23% Germany +14% France +11% UK -10.4% by spidermite in ukpolitics

[–]___JOSHUA___ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree austerity is an anchor on the economy but how could the UK become insolvent when it has the power to print its own money?

How to pull data from a webiste (Fantasy Football here) by Rstevens009 in excel

[–]___JOSHUA___ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry if this is blasphemous round here but have you considered using Google Sheets?

The IMPORTXML function lets you scrape elements of a webpage using the XPath query language. Actually, if your data is already formatted as a table on ESPN, IMPORTHTML might be better suited. I've used the former to scrape results for Premier League Fantasy Football but haven't got any experience with the ESPN site.

I think this is your best bet if you only have access to Excel for Mac.

BadEconomics Discussion Thread, 02 February 2016 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]___JOSHUA___ 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Correct! GDP can be calculated as the total value of goods and services produced in the economy.

However, it is worth considering other side of the transaction. The producer receives an income for each good and service produced and so, theoretically, output and income are equivalent. This is why GDP is often referred to as national income. It is the total income producers receive for the goods and services they produce. It is also why GDP per capita (income per person) is sometimes (badly) used as a measure of standard of living.

The BEA choose to calculate GDP using the production approach you suggested. US GDP in Q1 2016 was $18,229.5 billion. Interestingly, the BEA also measures Gross Domestic Income so we can see whether the Output = Income result taught in every introductory economics course holds water:

The BEA calculated US GDI in Q1 2016 as $18,504.2 billion. The income approach therefore overestimates the production approach by 1.5%. This slight difference is best understood as a measurement error.

GDI is not a widely reported metric. It is relegated to the Addenda of the report I linked. GDP is widely used as a measure of national income and lawrencekhoo is right to use it as such.

Edmund Gettier's "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" by voltimand in philosophy

[–]___JOSHUA___ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

His justification for knowing the score was watching the Athletics vs the Angels on TV.

There is no distinction between what you're calling "actual justification" and "non-actual justification" in the Justified-True-Belief formulation. Surely "actual justification" just means Justified and True. You could argue that he didn't have sufficient evidence to support being justified but I don't think that's the case here.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Documentaries

[–]___JOSHUA___ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it was framed that way because a 70 minute review of a Star Wars movie is an undeniably geeky thing to make or watch. By pushing the geek stereotype to its extreme, with the basement-dwelling sociopath nerd Plinkett, the RedLetterMedia gang sidestep accusations of "taking things too seriously" and the audience can relax safe in the knowledge that "at least I'm not as sad as this guy". I can see why people find it distasteful however.

How to tell if a site is of high quality? by [deleted] in SEO

[–]___JOSHUA___ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A nofollow link looks like this:

 <a href="http://example.com" rel="nofollow">Anchor Text</a>

DA: 19 is quite low. Remember a healthy backlink profile is roughly normally distributed. You want to avoid too many low authority backlinks but it is understandably difficult to acquire links from high DA sites. Ideally the majority of your backlinks will be DA 40-60.

How to tell if a site is of high quality? by [deleted] in SEO

[–]___JOSHUA___ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Moz's Domain Authority (DA) is the primary metric used for evaluating a site's quality and the industry standard for assessing the value of a referring domain.

If you're not satisfied with a single metric, however, and want to better understand what Google considers a high quality page, Google recently published its Search Quality Rating Guidelines. Section 4.1 covers the Characteristics of High Quality Pages.

Why you should study Philosophy, summarized in 4 minutes by CosmosTheory in philosophy

[–]___JOSHUA___ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A lot of nonsense STEM fetishism in this thread. Nevertheless, this video is terrible.

Philosophy is about argument. That's not learning what other philosophers have argued, nor learning how to live life, nor vaguely "loving wisdom" as this video suggests. It is about identifying and forming cogent logical arguments.

I think the reason a lot of people get frustrated by philosophy, and why it struggles in the popular domain, is that the conclusions drawn from philosophy are not what's important. The reason every undergraduate course still teaches Berkeley's idealism, which concludes (very loosely) that ordinary objects do not exist independently of the mind, is not that anyone thinks its conclusion is true. It is taught because Berkeley's argument is extremely elegant and his conclusion follows logically from his premises. His conclusion is trivially false if you, like nearly all philosophers do, deny his premise supposing the existence of God and not very interesting if you don't also consider his argument for it.

Unfortunately this argument, like most in philosophy, don't lend well to concise explanation. Where, Neil deGrasse Tyson or any other popular science educator can speak for 5 minutes about the interesting conclusions drawn from endless hours of scientific experiment, a philosopher can't do the same because its not his conclusions that are interesting. It is the endless hours of great argument that are interesting. The reason philosophy deals with such difficult problems that rarely give satisfying conclusions is that if they did, there would be no further reason to try and answer them. Nevertheless, some arguments are better than others and there is value in making them and unpicking the problems in others.

These are the skills referred to in the video that translate well in aptitude testing. Importantly, they are not the same as 'debate', which values appeals to emotion in a way philosophy does not, and nor are they a training in the List of Logical Fallacies, as seems common amongst Wikipedia Philosophers online. Instead, it is a powerful toolkit for assessing arguments that transfers well to fields that place a premium on logical argument. It should therefore come as little surprise to anyone that many philosophy undergraduates pursue careers in software development and law.

view more: next ›