@kuba what are you trying to publicly say about you clients? And that will be on record for the rest of human history?

@halirutan @Szabolcs @b3m2a1 it is not a rumor. It was explicitly said that there's the intention of creating an app market.

and there were no NDA's signed

lately, we are only signing NDA's when going inside WR building (next to the conference)

but there w re not a lot of details discussed on this topic; most likely because there are not yet a lot of details to be discussed yet.

I mean, before creating a market place, the system needs proper rights managements. The work done on the encryption, etc., seems turned to that direction, but it is obviously just a small part of what is needed. (And we all know that priority is currently elsewhere, independently of our agreement or not)

but My personal feeling is different than @halirutan 's one. I don't think that there's a conscious neither inconscious search to the exploit everything as money.

@P.Fonseca What about the "bit coins" you need for your awesome web-projects?

I can't even remember the correct name.

I mean, it is obviously that everything is at the end exploited as money, as there are salaris to pay, and no taxes payers money is going to WR projects, as it happens on many "free" tools (or at least, not more than some eventual research grants or something similar that might be used as resource).

but what I mean is that I have never felt greedy on that direction. The subject of an open source, WL based free to use micro kernel is even discuss more and more.

I really think that the purpose that WR has in mind for the market place is in respect to our eventual use to commercialize our own work.

@halirutan I really which I had bought a few dozens...

Man... reading back what I wrote, really proves, to myself, that I'm either tiered ( just landed...), or that virtual keyboards are really a thing hard to master after a certain age...

(Let's go with the tired version... right?)

@P.Fonseca Hehe.. night just began here :)

Aren't we just 1 h apart? (0:40 here...)

1:41 here

That's it. Just came from that time zone, and landed one hour earlier... but still lost time...

Am I the only one for whom documentation reindexing happens every time F1 is fired in a new section? Very often causing front end hand with 'abort dynamic updating'?

@P.Fonseca 'client' not 'clients' :) and it is rather 'happens sometimes' as opposed to 'it is the case now' :p

Hi everybody!

Is there a way to remove some set of values from the list

In here, not terrify. I have a list of numbers, which need to be plotted. Is there a way to remove those with inderminate values. I have {x,y,Inderminate} for some couple of values. I want to remove the, keeping other things intact

@L.K. DeleteCases

Indeterminate can be matched perfectly, so you have a pattern like {_, _, Indeterminate}

@halirutan Thanks. Yes this the pattern

I have them scattered here and there, trying to painstackling remove using Except

@halirutan I am just checked the documentation

@L.K. Look up the doc of DeleteCases. You can specify on which level it should operate

@halirutan Sorry, sure let me do that

@L.K. If your pattern is narrow enough so that it won't match anything other that your inner lists, you can safely use Infinity as levelspec

@halirutan You mean using /. (ReplaceAll)?

test = {{1, 2, Indeterminate}, {3, 4, 5}, {{1, 2, 3}, {1, 3, Indeterminate}}};
DeleteCases[test, {_, _, Indeterminate}, Infinity]

@halirutan Thanks again. Because I was doing DeleteCases[dataToPlot, {_Integer, _Integer, Indeterminate}]

And it didn't work

@halirutan I even tried DeleteCases[test, {_, _, Indeterminate}, Infinity], seems no success :(

@L.K. You numbers are not Integers

@halirutan My ignorance

Thanks a lot @halirutan. Life saver. My ignorance is just too much.

Is the only way to get this to work is with multiple function defintions?

 ClearAll[f]
f[ts_, maxError_, fitAlgorithm_: LinearModelFit,
  algorithmParams_: {\[FormalX], \[FormalX]},
  opts : OptionsPattern[]] :=
 <|"fitAlgorithm" -> fitAlgorithm,
  "algorithmParams" -> algorithmParams, "opts" -> {opts}|>`

This does not work for f[1, 2, StepMonitor :> (a = # &)] as it takes the StepMonitor option to be fitAlgoritm instead of the first item of OptionsPattern

I was kinda amazed to see how serious design decisions are taken with respect to adding new features in MMA. twitch.tv/videos/207012986 the deciding authority has forgotten much of pure maths and gets confused well too often. An example how Buzzword mania can doom even someone so qualified. Many chilling videos are available for us to get a hint on the new bunch of functions that will increase the MMA installation size.