So I had a strange dream last night which finally concluded with the main character, a celestial rabbit, who consumed the body of a deceased tortoise monster, "collecting the power of 3000 garden snails" to win a race. I am currently accepting licensing requests, and looking forward to publishing agents contacting me about the heartwarming reimagination of the classic fable, "The Tortoise and the Hare".
Along with the other stories my wife has told me about things I've said in my sleep (such as thanking her for "being the workhorse that delivers all the radars") I am convinced that remembering my dreams and publishing them would be enough to make me wealthy and/or institutionalized 😂
So, really cool new tool I've learning as I'm working with lisp for my startup: [symex.el](https://github.com/countvajhula/symex.el) for structural navigation and editing is VERY efficient, somewhat vim-based, and I really like it a lot. As an added bonus, some of its dependencies (e.g. lispy) are very useful for multi-lining s-exps (aka symexs) and formatting them, and it plays nicely with sly, which is even better!
Additionally, for all you #rstats people out there (who are asking why I included the tag on a post about Lisp), maybe take a quick look at [this](https://lisp-stat.dev/about/). I'm currently using it myself, and I've found it's pretty good for most basic things, and you may like it if you give it a try (or maybe not, it's not yet as full featured as R and its various packages yet, but it does benefit from some things I don't think you can get easily from R). Also, here's a super quick demo [thingy(?)](https://lisp-stat.dev/docs/examples/plotting/).
I know other tools leveraging tree-sitter try to achieve similar functionality, but when the code is already in an AST format, it really eliminates the guesswork and makes the experience seamless!
I made this out of Kingwood and got a really nice grain match across the cap and the body!
@freemo I know you like fountain pens (or at least calligraphy), what do you think?
While R isn't my favorite language of the ones I regularly use, I know you #rstats people adore it, so here's a fun package you should try out:
https://github.com/dirkschumacher/transduceR
If you like functional style, but want efficiency too, try out transducers, they're an amazing little tool that I'm still picking up, but they give you pipelines that don't create intermediate arrays (and composable reductions, lazy evaluation in this case, etc). Thus, they still provide clean, familiar functional syntax but with a pretty sizable performance boost!
Here's a conceptual primer on them from Clojure as well:
https://clojure.org/reference/transducers
I hope this proves useful to some of you! 😁
Well, it's good to know that fantasies can become a reality, that is, if your fantasy is to wonder what it's like to have a cartoon villain run your healthcare system 😂 ....😭
10 years after we created Registered Reports, the thing critics assured us would never (in a million years) happen has happened: @Nature is offering them.
The Registered Reports initiative just went up a gear and we are one step closer to eradicating publication bias and reporting bias from science.
Congratulations to all involved in achieving this milestone.
I am henceforth proposing the word "ambiative" (plural "ambiatives") to refer to either a positive or negative attribute of a given system, or a set of positive and negative attributes in the plural case.
There are no words I have been able to find that succinctly encapsulate the idea of "pros and cons" or "positives and negatives" in a single word, so I'm making one up. "Tradeoffs" comes close, but I don't think it's precise, and carries some undesirable baggage.
Even the roots make sense: -ative means "related to or connected with" and ambi- meaning "both". Similar to the definition of ambivalent: having both positive and negative feelings, but in this case it is the set of both positive and negative attributes.
Intended usage: "I'm weighing the ambiatives of the situation." Or similar, just replace pros and cons/positive and negative/etc.
RT @fchollet@twitter.com
Twitter is great because it gives you unfiltered visibility into the thoughts and decision-making process of some of the most successful people in the world. This has completely cured my impostor syndrome.
How do we fix our broken science funding system?
Criteria reform ✍️: Remove biased criteria and emphasize good science practices
Lottery system 🎟️: Applications are given a “yes” or “no” on fundability, then a lottery ensues within the “yes” group. Saves time and reduces reviewer biases
Universal funding 🌍: All scientists get a little bit. One calculation estimates that it would cost the government nothing to implement (in the UK)
PEER REVIEW PROBLEMS
In a classic experiment, 12 articles were resubmitted to the same journals in which they had already been published. Three were recognized as resubmissions. Eight of the nine articles reviewed again were rejected, often due to "serious methodological flaws."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/peerreview-practices-of-psychological-journals-the-fate-of-published-articles-submitted-again/AFE650EB49A6B17992493DE5E49E4431 @phdstudents @academicchatter @cogsci @academicsunite
Does science advance one funeral at a time?
One paper morbidly suggests so: "after the death of a star scientist, the flow of articles by non-collaborators [of the deceased] increases markedly [...] and is disproportionately likely to be highly cited."
The top 1% most-cited scientists account for 21% of citations. So a star's death leads to a citation vacuum, allowing lesser known researchers the chance to advance and reform the field.
A previous analytical biochemist, (functional) programmer, industrial engineer, working on a PhD with a focus in complex systems.