« first day (3128 days earlier)      last day (1811 days later) » 

5:43 AM
@danielunderwood I don't know what that second one means
@danielunderwood but I have a a folder within a folder with the same name with all my files...I messed up a scp command lol. How do I get rid of the redundant folder...
@danielunderwood e.g. I have a folder structure like home/user/dialogs/dialogs/{bunch of files}
I want to go to home/user/dialogs/{bunch of files}
I want to make sure the files don't get deleted by accident tho
 
6:28 AM
cd ~/dialogs
mv dialogs/* .
Or:
cd ~
mv dialogs dialogs.old
mv dialogs.old/dialogs .
 
 
1 hour later…
7:56 AM
hey
 
8:16 AM
what does independent funding mean?
 
it means get your own money
 
8:44 AM
Hey! Sup?
 
Your feet
 
 
3 hours later…
12:00 PM
@enumaris it means I created an RNN without using my brain. Now I’ve managed to create one that predicted a constant output but has somehow beaten all my other scores on that Kaggle competition. What John said for the directories though...I manage to make that mistake about any time I rsync/scp
 
 
2 hours later…
1:51 PM
Anybody here good with recursive functions?
 
How is one good or bad at recursive functions?
 
whelp you're bad if you don't know how they recur :-)
 
Well, more specifically, I'm looking for how to go about simplifying f(r) = r + sin(f(r))/r^2. I suspect it simplifies to f(r) = r + sin(ln(r))/r^2, but apart from comparing graphs as I plug f(r) in repeatedly until just using r, and seeing that they look like they converge, not sure what else to do
Not even sure if my recursive function is even what I want - it's a crackpottish replacement for g in relativity, using r as Minkowski distance - but figuring out how to do it if I figure out the correct way seems important regardless.
 
That's a weird function
But note that not every function can be simplified, you might be stuck with needing numerical evaluations
 
Yes it is. I'm thinking spacetime is conserved, and that spacetime density (curvature) varies according to a sinuisodal function, as spacetime is moved around. But it is self-interfering, so I need to figure out how to express that the distances involved change as a result of the way the wave itself changes the distances involved. Hence recursion
If I can express it correctly it has the advantage of being normalizable, so I should be able to start testing quantum mechanics in the model.
If it can't be simplified I need to invent new mathematics. Calculating proper distances in it require integration, and that would turn into an infinite sum of recursive elements
 
2:05 PM
Well, I'm not sure what to say beyond "have fun with that."
 
Lol, I've been having that for decades at this point.
 
Decades? Don't you use any sort of textbooks as a guide?
 
I know that $\psi$ represents wave function as a complex number, so does $$\psi = Ae^{i\theta}$$ where $A$ is the amplitude and $\theta$ is the phase?
Or is that wrong?
 
They're only helpful up to a point, which is slightly short of "How to develop and then formalize new physics models". They're more helpful for providing the framework mine has to match, so I can test to see if a given scale corresponds correctly to a given gauge theory, less so to getting my mathematics to the point where I can actually do that
 
2:12 PM
@PrittBalagopal the wavefunction is a function of space and time i.e. it is $\psi(t,x)$. For every $t$ and $x$ the value of $\psi$ at time $t$ and position $x$ is in general a complex number.
 
Oh okay
But isnt that for a time dependent wave?
 
So you would have to write $\psi(t,x) = A(t,x) e^{i\theta(t,x)}$
i.e. both $A$ and $\theta$ would be functions of time and position.
 
Oh, I see.
 
Oh, wait, no.
 
@JohnRennie how can phase be a function of time and position?
I cant seem to understand that, isnt phase like "fixed" when a wave generates
and a phase difference exists between waves?
 
2:14 PM
The split into a real $A$ and $\theta$ can only be done for time independent wavefunctions.
 
Ohh okay
So how can phase depend on position? I dont seem to understand it.
 
An eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian factors into $\psi(x) e^{iE/\hbar t}$ (or something like that - I forget the exact form).
 
Hmm so it looks like $\psi (x)$ is the amplitude of the wave function
and $\frac{E}{\hbar t}$ is the phase
which seems to inversely depend on time.
Am I reasoning correctly?
 
@PrittBalagopal sorry, bad formatting, it's $(E/\hbar)t$
 
Ohh okay
 
2:22 PM
$Et/\hbar$
 
Ahh okay
So the phase increases exponentially with time
 
It's basically $e^{i\omega t}$ because $E = \hbar \omega$
 
As far as I know, phase is like the "angle of starting" for a wave. Like in a light wave, the phase is what denotes how the wave looks when shifted longitudinally, which depends on the magnitude at wave beginning.
what does "phase depending on time" supposed to mean
I'm sorry this is really confusing :(
 
2:44 PM
How do I get MathJax to render in chat?
 
@jacob1729 You need the chrome extension
Hold on lemme find the link
This is it
 
@PrittBalagopal there are (at least) two meanings of the word 'phase'. One is just whatever the argument of a trig function / complex exponential. Eg $\sin(kx-\omega t)$ is a function of a dimensional number $\phi = kx-\omega t$ often called the 'phase' of the wave.
 
Oh okay
 
The other meaning is what you were saying, which is a constant offset $\phi_0$ to $\phi$.
 
vzn
3:10 PM
@Adirian very ambitious, attempted by only a few, but very worthwhile... do you have STEM bkg?
 
@Adirian some of that sounds a bit 'out-there', but you are basically trying to solve an "implicit function" equation $F(x,y) = y - x - \frac{\sin(y)}{x^2} = 0$ for $y = f(x)$
People use tools like Newton's method etc... to approximate solutions to equations like these, even in the Kepler problem one is forced to deal with equations like these
In mathematics, an implicit equation is a relation of the form R ( x 1 , … , x n ) = 0 {\displaystyle R(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})=0} , where R {\displaystyle R} is a function of several variables (often a polynomial). For example, the implicit equation of the unit circle is x 2...
 
I dont think thats implicit
Its polynomial in x
 
You should look at the 'implicit function theorem', which is probably what you want
In mathematics, more specifically in multivariable calculus, the implicit function theorem is a tool that allows relations to be converted to functions of several real variables. It does so by representing the relation as the graph of a function. There may not be a single function whose graph can represent the entire relation, but there may be such a function on a restriction of the domain of the relation. The implicit function theorem gives a sufficient condition to ensure that there is such a function. More precisely, given a system of m equations fi (x1, ..., xn, y1, ..., ym) = 0, i = 1...
 
atleast you can multiply $x^2$ on both sides to get a cubic polynomial in $x$.
 
3:27 PM
Hm. Okay, I'll dig into that when I get home. Thanks!
And my background is programming, which, given that I am basically a crackpot, is probably predictable. Minor in mathematics that stopped just short of the math I need now
 
The reality is, trying to advance physics subjects you know nothing about will probably lead you to misinterpreting things from about 5 areas of math/physics combining into a gigantic misunderstanding that you'll double down on out of a desire to figure out what's going on, ultimately leading you to eschew learning even the basics of those fields, when you could simply spend some time reading good books before starting down this path and save yourself potentially
a lifetime of false understanding
Read the first 4 here to save yourself years of false knowledge
The Course of Theoretical Physics is a ten-volume series of books covering theoretical physics that was initiated by Lev Landau and written in collaboration with his student Evgeny Lifshitz starting in the late 1930s. It is said that Landau composed much of the series in his head while in an NKVD prison in 1938-1939. However, almost all of the actual writing of the early volumes was done by Lifshitz, giving rise to the witticism, "not a word of Landau and not a thought of Lifshitz". The first eight volumes were finished in the 1950s, written in Russian and translated into English in the late 1950s...
 
I'm currently studying quantum physics. I can read the mathematics, albeit barely in some cases (actually, while I've integrated partial derivatives, it wasn't until I started trying to understand quantum physics that I even figured out what the hell a partial derivative is). Tensors are next on the list when I finish up quantum physics; I'm terrible with vectors and arrays and don't expect that to go quickly.
 
That's good, what quantum book are you using
 
I understand everything at an intuitive level, I think, although my internal conceptualizations tend to be quite... different. Curvature in GR, for example, I conceptualize as spacetime density
Quantum Physics for the Gifted Amateur. It's... dense.
 
You mean 'Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur'?
 
3:40 PM
That sounds right
 
Hmm.. That's a super advanced book, it is basically 'relativistic quantum mechanics' and you need a really good understanding of things from 'special relativity' and 'non-relativistic quantum mechanics' as well as 'Lagrangian's' and things introduced in 'non-relativistic classical mechanics' to even understand what they are doing, also 'vectors' are part of "linear algebra", something people learn in 1st year as part of the math background, while they study a 'calculus-based physics' book like
 
Currently on perturbation theory. Need a really firm grasp on that for my purposes, as my model doesn't actually have energy quanta, instead having a finite set of stable configurations which give rise to apparent quantized behavior because sub-quantum energy levels can't be measured (since they don't cause state changes). Light emission is handled using Rhydberg's theory.
 
Fundamentals of Physics is a calculus-based physics textbook by David Halliday, Robert Resnick, and Jearl Walker. The textbook is currently in its tenth edition (published 2013). The current version is a revised version of the original 1960 textbook Physics for Students of Science and Engineering by Halliday and Resnick, which was published in two parts (Part I containing Chapters 1-25 and covering mechanics and thermodynamics; Part II containing Chapters 26-48 and covering electromagnetism, optics, and introducing quantum physics). A 1966 revision of the first edition of Part I changed the title...
Rydberg's theory is basically a trivial consequence of non-relativistic quantum mechanics and makes zero sense without it
 
Yeah, it's super dense. I'm familiar enough with most of it that the math is the only thing I have to spend time figuring out.
Rhydberg's original theory, pre quantum physics, was that blackbody light emission spectra corresponded to the resonant frequency of a given electron orbit. He abandoned that idea after quantum physics was developed; apparently the math for anything more complex than hydrogen got really complicated.
He might have redeveloped it in terms of quantum physics afterward, but he started out trying to solve the same problem
 
Not sure what that means, but do the electrons follow paths on those orbits or not, if they do then matter should collapse (Larmor), if they don't you have quantum mechanics
The Larmor formula is used to calculate the total power radiated by a non relativistic point charge as it accelerates. This is used in the branch of physics known as electrodynamics and is not to be confused with the Larmor precession from classical nuclear magnetic resonance. It was first derived by J. J. Larmor in 1897, in the context of the wave theory of light. When any charged particle (such as an electron, a proton, or an ion) accelerates, it radiates away energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. For velocities that are small relative to the speed of light, the total power radiated...
'A classical electron orbiting a nucleus experiences acceleration and should radiate. Consequently, the electron loses energy and the electron should eventually spiral into the nucleus. Atoms, according to classical mechanics, are consequently unstable. This classical prediction is violated by the observation of stable electron orbits. The problem is resolved with a quantum mechanical description of atomic physics, initially provided by the Bohr model.'
 
3:59 PM
That assumes the orbit is the result of energy balancing against forces; in my model, for instance, the orbit corresponds to a local energy minima
Above that point, spacetime density is decreasing with distance - gravity curvature. Below that point, it is increasing with distance - an opposite curvature. Things on either side fall into the stable orbit after radiating away their energy.
It does require Kaluza-Klein, or an equivalent solution, to work, I think; electrical forces don't work correctly otherwise. Haven't gotten that far in the mathematics.
 
What does that mean - does the electron physically move around the nucleus on a path or not?
 
4:16 PM
In my model, mass is just the amplitude of the spacetime wave sin(f(x))/x^2. I don't think it moves, per se, so much as the wave just being skewed over the entire two dimensional surface of the orbit.
 
I don't think sin(f(x))/x^2 can even be called a 'wave'
 
It looks pretty similar to sin(ln(x))/x^2, if you want to see what its graph looks like. It's a wave with decaying frequency and amplitude.
 
Over what range of x values?
 
vzn
@Adirian why do you call yourself a "crackpot"? do you have a degree? (have some leads related to your ideas...)
 
Where did sin(f(x))/x^2 come from? I'm guessing $GmM/r^2$?
 
4:21 PM
I have a degree in computer science. I call myself a crackpot because I'm probably wrong. I insist on talking about it because I think there's important stuff there even if I don't actually have the details right - conservation of spacetime in particular.
Sin(f(x)) is my replacement for g. The full equation is f(x) = x + sin(f(x))/x^2
 
Where does that equation come from, and why are you replacing $g$ by something like this
 
vzn
@Adirian where did you get the idea of "spacetime density"?
 
I made it up! Because the forces follow an alternating pattern of attractive and repulsive, which I assumed continued forever
vzn - Trying to understand spacetime curvature. Typical explanations made my head hurt, but I noticed that the surface area of curvature increases with curvature, which means spacetime density, relative to Minkowski space, is increasing. That made more sense to me.
 
@Adirian I'm not sure if you can even be a crackpot if you acknowledge that you might be a crackpot/incorrect. A key feature of being a crackpot is adamant assertion that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
 
vzn
@Adirian ok. have been working on a roughly similar prj over many yrs, have many leads along the lines of some of your ideas... have found many papers... have been blogging on it... have some ideas on how to proceed... theres a lot of related dialog in the transcript, etc...
 
4:27 PM
If you're proposing something just to do the thought exercises of checking if it makes sense or not, you're probably not a crackpot. If you're proposing something, and you will only accept evidence that proves your claim correct, you might be a crackpot.
 
Also calling myself a crackpot means people who don't want to listen to the crazy ideas of a programmer can skip past them. They have their own projects, after all
 
vzn
@JMac alas, many physicists (experts) regard non-expert attempts to push fwd physics as "near-crackpot"... (and am not inclined to think its an entirely invalid pov...!)
 
vzn - I have a blog I've been attempting to write things down in. It's a mess - I often don't realize how many of my ideas are unconventional, so skip past explanations of things I think of as fairly basic. Like using spacetime density in place of curvature, which at this point is a much more obvious way of thinking to me - it makes understanding Rindler Coordinates super easy, for example, and in fact I reinvented them before somebody told me they already existed
 
@Adirian I've asked a few basic questions that haven't been answered, not being able to address basic questions like 'do they follow paths, where does this equation come from, why replace g by sin...,...' (some of which are asked to explicitly show you there is no way what you're saying can make sense) are signs this is not making any sense
Replacing spacetime density by curvature is a word salad, what does it mean
 
Bolbteppa - Sorry. I don't know the answer to the question of paths - whether electrons move within orbits depends on something I am undecided about, the introduction of which (electrons are white holes) is just going to be more confusing
 
4:34 PM
@Adirian right, this is literally the most fundamental thing to understand about quantum mechanics, the question of paths, and it's something you're undecided on, this is what I mean by saying to read basic textbooks before trying to advance these fields to save yourself potentially a lifetime of misunderstanding
 
The equation is one of many I have gone through. I made it up. It might be wrong even if my model is correct; certainly an early version with sin(1/r^2) didn't work out for me. I'm trying to turn an idea into math, and I've had a lot of failed leads there.
 
Lowest free energy in the n:th Brillouin zone according to band theory corresponds to the shortest distance to that zone in reciprocal space, yes?
 
@Adirian the Larmor link I gave above points out that if electrons follow paths we can apply classical electromagnetism and by the Larmor formula the electrons should radiate all their energy and collapse into the nucleus and all matter collapses, this is one of the biggest motivations for QM back in the early 1900's, the only way to deal with this is to destroy all of classical physics and say 'electrons don't follow paths', because if they did the above should hold - it clearly doesn't
So when you try to say Rydberg had some idea he abandoned that might be right and are completely unaware of why he abandoned it and don't understand the fundamentals of the subject you're trying to come up with an alternative for, it's pretty much going to fail without a miracle
It turns out that by learning the fundamentals, people can build upon those ideas and advance the subject without falling into any of the pitfalls tons and tons of amateurs fall into and end up doing nothing, I really advise spending time learning the fundamentals
'Standing on the shoulders of giants' etc
 
Well, I didn't set out to come up with an alternative, my brain just wouldn't shut up about it, and at this point I have something with ideas that I think are useful. I set out to become a programmer.
 
I was wondering why people use social media and post pictures of themselves all the time? Do they feel the need to be accepted, liked by otgers in order for them to feel good about themselves?
 
4:45 PM
For example, my model, not having traditional particles, needed a replacement for velocity. As it turns out, we already have one. Lorentz Contraction isn't symmetric in the vector of motion - there is a slight assymetry causing electromagnetic fields to tend to move forward. Meaning, when we consider that Lorentz Contraction also contracts a moving object's gravitational field, Lorentz Contraction can be considered to cause motion
 
@NovaliumCompany probably a better question for social scientists than physicists
 
Does this mean that on a subconsciouss level they feel insecure about themselves?
 
@JohnRennie greato, that worked, thanks!
 
@KyleKanos True, but there is no psychology (neuroscience) chat room with active users.
 
@enumaris cool :-)
 
4:47 PM
Asking physicists for insight into human nature is a...risky choice :P
 
@NovaliumCompany irrelevant
 
@danielunderwood it means your previous system somehow couldn't even output the mean correctly...which is unfortunate...
 
@Adirian again very word saladey, and I am pretty much sure that there is no asymmetry causing the electromagnetic fields to move forward :p
 
Sure you can openly wonder here, but you're not likely to find an actual answer
 
Likewise, Rindler Coordinates mirror the assymetry of gravity. If we treat this shape as the shape of acceleration, and treat it as a transformation of the geometry of an objects' gravitational field, we can get a purely geometric description of velocity, momentum, and acceleration.
 
4:48 PM
@KyleKanos Irrelevant is to say something is irrelevant without explaining why. :)
 
Wait longer before typing ;)
 
brb gonna get a kebab from across the street.
 
Shape of acceleration?
 
@Adirian before you try and invent new physics, it's probably a good idea to have the basics down reasonably well. How much (conventional!) relativity do you know?
 
@KyleKanos true, sorry
 
4:49 PM
@NovaliumCompany good priorities :-)
 
@JohnRennie it's so yummy
 
Whoops
 
meow
 
@Adirian going through a calculus-based physics book like
 
4:51 PM
Fundamentals of Physics is a calculus-based physics textbook by David Halliday, Robert Resnick, and Jearl Walker. The textbook is currently in its tenth edition (published 2013). The current version is a revised version of the original 1960 textbook Physics for Students of Science and Engineering by Halliday and Resnick, which was published in two parts (Part I containing Chapters 1-25 and covering mechanics and thermodynamics; Part II containing Chapters 26-48 and covering electromagnetism, optics, and introducing quantum physics). A 1966 revision of the first edition of Part I changed the title...
 
@NovaliumCompany don't need to apologize! I probably waited too long in thing a response (I am at work...)
 
would really help you iron out the way you're trying to convey things, to see how silly some of this sounds, even if you're making a good point underneath it, this would be like learning about for-loops etc so that you can then use them later properly without crashing :p
 
Jacob - Depends. I derived Rindler Coordinates from a thought experiment, but I can't read tensor equations, so... somewhere weird in the middle, where I can calculate time dilation (and understand that there are two kinds of time dilation), but can't read GR.
 
omg I have no idea how to set up linting in vs code...
 
Then don't lint
 
4:55 PM
@enumaris yeah I need to dig through it. I suspect it may be vanishing gradients or something, but I'm having to write the debugging plotting myself. Too bad pytorch doesn't have a fancy viewer
 
it's easy for networks to get stuck on predicting a mean
you may need a smaller learning rate to make it "step out" of that local saddle point
or a better optimizer
@KyleKanos I don't care about linting, the senior engineer on my team cares about linting
he wants me to also annotate my python code for types...
I denied that request
but to appease him, I'm ok formatting my code using pep8 or flake or something
 
Ugh, I hate pep8
 
I'm using adam at the moment...I kind of forgot the different optimizers. I guess I need to dig up my notes on them. I took too long of a time without doing ML and forgot too much
 
lol to me it's all overhead, but u know...I guess if my code needs to be read by someone else then it could make sense to make it more readable...
 
bolbteppa - The problem is conceptual overhead. Like paths. Paths only make sense if you have a meaningful particle - I might, it depends on if white holes are connected to the universe, which I don't think they are. Or if they are, it is through a geometry that a knot theorist might understand, but which I don't.
 
4:59 PM
My normal code is (sometimes) fairly organized, but it just becomes a jumble when I start doing data stuff
 
@Adirian so what is your table made up of, knots?
 
hmmm
 
vzn
@bolbteppa he said using spacetime density in place of curvature and its not word salad except maybe to most highly trained physicists :P
 
the difficult part of data science is u never know whether your optimizer just can't quite optimize the loss function correctly or if you wrote some bug into your code preventing that from happening
loool
 
bolbteppa - A particle is either a mass wave - literally it is entirely contained in the sin(ln(x))/x^2 thing - or it is a white hole, whose geometry is a two dimensional surface area and a closed dimensional loop, connected to three dimensional space in a way I don't have a mental model to comprehend
 
5:02 PM
right now my model is stuck at a very high loss
I think it's just my learning rate is too high though...
 
Although the surface area is effectively also two closed dimensions, so three closed dimensions, only two of which make sense in three dimensional space.
 
Big Doner Kebab in a box with a big ayran for 4$. Now that's called a nice meal.
 
So there might be a path, if it stays connected; otherwise it is all a wave, and it doesn't make sense to say it even has a position at the scales under consideration
 
How do you translate distance in real space to reciprocal space for a hexagonal lattice?
In two dimensions
 
The thing is that lowering the learning rate seems to just make it oscillate...or maybe I just need to let it train for a long time. What do you use for debugging with pytorch? Like there isn't a tensorboard equivalent, is there?
 
5:17 PM
tensorboard might work for pytorch? Not sure
I debug manually lol
AI is a fickle mistress
 
Is "debugging manually" just adding a bunch of print statements all over the place? :P
 
yes
print some tensors...
 
@Slereah what's Geroch's crazy incompleteness example
I'm trying to find it but I don't remember what it was
 
@enumaris I can't even tell if you're joking!
 
no joke
I write raise statements to put stop points
and print statements to look at what tensors are doing
but generally I trust Keras to do its job
or pytorch to do its job
so I don't generally inspect gradients manually
or write gradient checking code
 
5:28 PM
Can't you still run into vanishing gradients?
 
yes
if I suspect that, I print out gradients
really not too much you can do with respect to vanishing gradients tho...
i mean I already use LSTM or GRU cells
so if vanishing gradients is still a problem, I just attribute that to a difficulty of the model
I mean...it's not like you can tweak hyperparameters to fix vanishing gradients really
you'd have to change model architecture
 
glS
5:46 PM
@ACuriousMind or other mod: I recon this comment chain really ought to be converted into a chat, but I'm not getting the message to do that anymore. Any reason why?
 
@bolbteppa did I miss something cranky up the transcript
 
@Semiclassical It starts around here chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/50477842#50477842 Adirian called himself a crackpot, sort of.
@KyleKanos PEP-8's mostly ok. The line length restriction is probably a bit small on modern systems, although it does keep stuff more readable, IMHO. Also, some people like short lines even on large displays, since it allows you to have several windows side by side.
And when reading SO code on a phone, long lines are a PITA.
PEP-8 has become Python's de facto general style guide, but it started life as a guide for standard library devs. Nobody else is obliged to follow it, but having a universal style standard does make it easier for everyone to read & share each others' code.
 
6:02 PM
Underscores are ugly and shouldn't be used
And using 2 spaces pretty indent level makes it difficult to read
If you have to go to a second line for inputs, you need to refactor your function/class design
And so on.
Maybe it was good back in 1992 when people were using CRTs with 90 character widths, but in 2019 and 220+ character widths, it's basically useless
 
2 spaces? I think 4 spaces per indent level is pretty common, and it works well on SO. But I agree that functions that have a huge arg list are a sign of poor design.
 
I'm pretty sure pep8 recommends 2 spaces per level...it might be a consequence of people trying to fit in 79 characters...
I write my Python like I write Fortran 90 & C++ because it's actually readable by others who aren't crazy
 
I can't tell you that snake_case is ugly, as that's your aesthetic judgement. It took me a little while to get used to snake-case, but it doesn't bother me now. And I appreciate being able to tell at a glance whether an identifier is a class name or not. And I think using leading & trailing double-underscores for stuff like __init__ is a reasonable convention.
 
@Semiclassical not cranky so much as amateur, trying to encourage learning some of the basics
 
6:16 PM
mmkay
 
@KyleKanos Nope, 4 spaces. See python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#indentation
 
Well just about every Python code I see on GitHub uses 2
I'm okay with internal Python methods, such as init, using leading & trailing double underscores. But for my own functions, underscores are ugly
 
When I used to write a lot of C I used a program called indent, which would indent code according to a config file. So people were free to use their own style, and could easily reformat code that used a different style.
 
And if you use syntax highlighting, like most people do, you can tell whether something is a class, function or something else by recognizing the colors
 
That depends on how smart the syntax highlighter is. An IDE can do a better job than a plain editor. The highlighting on SO is extremely basic.
 
6:26 PM
It's 2019. If you're not using an IDE (and aren't SSH'ing into a remote server), you're living in the past.
 
Because I'm so used to PEP8 style, when I read code that uses CamelCase for simple variable & function names, it slows me down.
I happily admit to living in the past. :) My habits have developed over the years, but I don't learn new stuff as quickly as I did 40 or 50 years ago.
 
Lol
 
7:01 PM
I don't use an IDE :(
I just write in sublime text
and command line it
 
7:23 PM
You mean data scientists don't only program in jupyter?!
I'm shocked!
 
I've been trying to set up an ide
Shits difficult
Should I go for python first or cpp
 
Python is certainly easier to get set up and running. C++ needs you to get include/link paths handled, which can be challenging the first time you run into it (or at least it was for me)...doing text editor + terminal only at first with some simple applications may actually be easier there
 
7:39 PM
Thanks
Cpp it is
 
 
1 hour later…
8:52 PM
woohoo new highest metric accomplished
@danielunderwood I actually never use jupyter lol
 
I try it out every now and then, but I've only had like one notebook so far that actually came out as a nice thing to present
 
I just...too lazy to mess with it...
 
9:53 PM
I've heard that "When we really want something, it most likely will not happen or something else will" Does that mean we shouldnt have dreams and goals?
I know this is BS but why people say it?
It should be corrected to: If you really want something, work for it and your chances of getting there will increase.
 
10:29 PM
0
Q: Automatic rejection of edit where I only added tags

HelenTo my surprise, I tried to add a couple of tags to this question but the edit was automatically rejected with an error message about how the changes must be at least 6 characters long, pointing to the body of the question. Is this a thing now or did I do womething wrong?

 
10:52 PM
@KyleKanos what if you're fully colourblind?
 
11:14 PM
@EmilioPisanty don't have a job that might require color vision? IDK.
 
it's why I didn't become a pilot
 
Also, some IDEs allow for boldface, underline and italicised fonts, so you could replace colors with those & be a good color-impaired programmer
 
@EmilioPisanty Total colorblindness only impacts something like 0.003% of people. I wonder if we could Drake-equation our way to figuring out how many totally colorblind people end up as programmers
 

« first day (3128 days earlier)      last day (1811 days later) »