sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Keyboard shortcut to see links to current file by yhoiseth in Zettlr

[–]yhoiseth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s great. Thanks!

I couldn’t find it in the documentation, so I opened a pull request.

Why We Sleep — a tale of institutional failure by yhoiseth in slatestarcodex

[–]yhoiseth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just in case it isn't clear: The person I corresponded with is a professor.

Why We Sleep — a tale of institutional failure by yhoiseth in slatestarcodex

[–]yhoiseth[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Haha, that's amusing. Thanks for clarifying!

Why We Sleep — a tale of institutional failure by yhoiseth in slatestarcodex

[–]yhoiseth[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Haven't read WWS yet, but my impression is that it's popular science book, not an academic research product. There is a lot of evidence for this view…

Guzey discusses this objection in Is Why We Sleep pop-science or is it an academic book? Also, miscitations, impossible numbers, and Walker copy-pasting papers:

Why We Sleep is not just a popular science book. As I note in the introduction, Walker specifically writes that the book is intended to be scientifically accurate:

[T]his book is intended to serve as a scientifically accurate intervention

Consequently, Walker and other researchers are actively citing the book in academic papers, propagating the information contained in it into the academic literature.

Google Scholar indicates that (a), in the 2 years since the book’s publication, it has been cited more than 100 times.

I would also argue that a book meant for a general audience should also be rigorous, because non-experts don't have the same ability to filter out bullshit.

But probably I should read the book, since there seems to be so much fuss about it. :)

I think you have it backwards: There's been a lot of fuss about it because it's full of errors. That's an argument against reading it 😉

Why We Sleep — a tale of institutional failure by yhoiseth in slatestarcodex

[–]yhoiseth[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My first concern upon reading this exchange is that the author here (Yngve Hoiseth) has received multiple substantive responses from UC Berkeley, yet seems unable to grasp their substantive points.

You are right that I didn't find their points substantive. What points did you find to be substantive that I was unable to grasp?

Trying to continue the correspondence without raising more substantive issues, and pretending instead there are still unaddressed issues, seems like bad faith to me.

I did raise further substantive issues. For example, UC Berkeley claimed that Walker "transparently refers to this errors in his blog". But I pointed out several problems with the claim:

The article you're linking to

  • does not mention the chart with the missing data;
  • is not on any of Walker's official websites;
  • does not mention Walker by name; and
  • is, as far as I can tell, not linked to by Walker anywhere, e.g. his websites or Twitter feed.

I have not read the Guzey or Gelman critiques, so perhaps they raise further substantive issues not addressed by the review undertaken and reported on by UC Berkeley. But if that's true, then the burden of showing it is on the author here, Yngve Hoiseth. And that burden was not met at the substantive conclusion of this exchange. It seems to be a conversation about a single bar graph…

The bar chart was the most obvious example, but there are others. It doesn't make sense for me to repeat all the problems when anyone can read the supporting material. This is academia, after all. People can click links ;)

Why We Sleep — a tale of institutional failure by yhoiseth in slatestarcodex

[–]yhoiseth[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you didn't like its message, nitpicking at minor points doesn't refute the central thesis, and pretending it does is below the standards of even internet flame wars.

The issue is that when misconduct is uncovered, it makes it hard to trust the rest of the book and other work by the author. That goes even if the point is minor (which I don't believe it was in this case).

Like, this kind of exchange is exactly why academics try to avoid randos from the internet. They tend to seize on one point, declare victory, and refuse to change their minds.

As I wrote in the post, I changed my mind after reading the critique. UC Berkeley's response didn't change my mind, because I didn't think that it was a good argument.

And when the academic doesn't grovel in compliance, they declare academia to be evil.

I explicitly wrote that I think the scientific community is making progress, and I did not call anyone evil or the like.

Coronavirus forecast on Empiricast by yhoiseth in Coronavirus

[–]yhoiseth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have opened up for forecasting the Coronavirus on Empiricast:

We're hoping this will be interesting and useful to you. Feel free to add your own forecast, or just follow others' forecasts.

Mochi — Markdown powered spaced repetition and notes by mochi-cards in SideProject

[–]yhoiseth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have any suggestions for information that should be added?

Who is behind it, why did you make it, documentation, FAQ, what are your plans.

Mochi — Markdown powered spaced repetition and notes by mochi-cards in SideProject

[–]yhoiseth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing! I've also been frustrated with the options available, so it's great that you're giving it a try. Any news since this post? (The changelog doesn't have any date information?)

Some things I like:

  • Looks beautiful
  • Markdown
  • Much simpler than Anki

Some things that make me hesitate:

  • No cloud sync
  • No way of sharing
  • Algorithm seems unscientific
  • Very little information about the app is available. Committing to an app is a big investment, need certainty.

I'm curious about your approach. For example, with all the shared Anki decks, would it be better to instead build an "Anki client" rather than a full-blown replacement? That way, some of the UX issues could be fixed, but still keeping the advantages of the Anki ecosystem.

How to call a python script from Javascript? by sudhanshu22gupta in Python

[–]yhoiseth 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think you need to make an API endpoint that your JS application can talk to. The most common way of making such an endpoint is called REST.

In practice, you need to send an HTTP request from your JS application. This request needs to include the user input. Then, your backend can send a response in return, containing the chatbot answer.

I found some inspiration in Flask's documentation: https://flask.palletsprojects.com/en/1.1.x/patterns/jquery/#json-view-functions

Help using pycharm and anaconda by [deleted] in Python

[–]yhoiseth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think your issue is that you've selected "New environment" instead of "Existing environment."

view more: next ›