A framing from that podcast that helped me better understand the role of Bonsai is that it's really a framework for building incremental distributed state machines.
This framing is also in the post. From the readme:
> Bonsai itself -- this library -- is actually more generic than the above makes it sound. It allows you to build general-purpose incremental, composable state machines. Bonsai_web builds on top of that core library, specializing it for interactive browser-based UIs, but we also have Bonsai_term for building interactive terminal-based UIs.
The value proposition about this web framework over things like React, Phoenix, etc is that it uses incremental computing right ? Using Jane Street's incremental computing library. I see it being used at https://github.com/janestreet/bonsai/blob/f31661450eb133fe89...
Iron exists in many different crystal structures in different kinds of steels. Some of these forms are magnetic, others are not. When you work the metal, such as by bending it, you can cause it to change from one structure to another.
304 is an austenitic stainless steel, and austenite is non-magnetic. But when it's cold worked, it turns into martensite, which is harder and magnetic. If you anneal it by heating it and letting it cool, it turns back into austenite.
Martensite is less corrosion-resistant. But note that slight working like bending it a bit will only turn a small portion of it into martensite, most of it will remain austenitic.
Not a physicist, but I’d guess that bending the metal causes it to heat up, which in turn could make it easier for electrons to align and respond to magnetic waves.
CriticMarkup seems to emit more correct HTML, but is more demanding (e.g. it recommends against embedded newlines). It doesn't emit TeX. It does have more (i.e. any) editor syntax files.
I mildly prefer having the marks outside the brackets: ++[foo]++ seems easier to read than {++foo++} because the "wrapping" is outside the "box".
While I strongly empathize with the author's feelings on this (I've had similar feelings in my own field), I also want to voice an opposing viewpoint:
> Good/useful/valuable/important/positive-ROI science doesn't necessarily require everyone to know what the major discoveries are nor even care when 60% of studies fail to replicate.
Handful of reasons I feel this way:
- If I care deeply about exactly 10 of the 100 publications in my sub-field, and you care about a different 10, it may not matter much to either of us when 60 of them are later refuted. I may have not cared about those specific conclusions, already been skeptical about them, or have several other studies and my own unpublished results to maintain my confidence in the broader idea.
- While we all have great examples of dramatic upheavals in _other_ people's fields — pick your favorite of cosmology, genetic engineering, mathematics, etc. — when you're immersed in it, science is much more incremental, subtle, and complex. Congratulations! You've ventured on beyond the Dunning-Kruger effect. Scientific progress is not a series of miracles.
- Relatedly, I'm guessing most scientists are much more aware of the shortcomings in their own and their peers' research. Do keep this in mind while reading the perspective of an insider. Be skeptical, by all means, but not only of psychology.
If Einstein's paper on Special Relativity were proven wrong there would be quite a stir. Is there such a paper in psychology carrying such weight? Or even a central idea?
All of the central ideas in psychology are actually cribbed from philosophy (very selectively and almost never with attribution because you know, we're doing "science"; biased toward material that can be wrenched into guidance for "positive outcomes" that get the grants and TED talk invites), while all the data is extraordinarily messy, mantled under mouldering traditions of associating ones product with the group protection of a figurehead "school" (i.e. so-and-so's Biopsychoturbochemo Model) highly resistant or essentially unsuited to normalization, and of course unrepeatable in any rigorous sense.
The biggest difference between psychology, (alongsid its armed infantry counterpart psychiatry,) is that unlike math or physics or chemistry, which are all intrinsically descriptive, psychology is concerned with how to change behavior that has not yet happened. Not to describe phenomena that already exist but have not been encountered or formally described yet.
I don't know this particular story, but — FWIW — it's common for different teams working in the same field to be aware of each other's manuscripts and impending submissions. When two teams are about to submit papers with the same discovery, they'll often work with an editor to put it in the same journal issue.
By coordinating a simultaneous publication they can get extra publicity for the discovery, both get the first-mover advantage in citations (both papers get cited by everyone), and also get breathing room to be fully rigorous and write the best possible paper.
I too owe a lot of my PhD and postdoc productivity to Snakemake. It's my bioinformatics super-power, allowing me to run a complex analysis, including downloading containers (Singularity/Apptainer) and other dependencies (conda), with one command.
Great for reproducibility. Great for development. Great for scaling analyses.
I think my gripe with the argument in this video (which is, nonetheless, interesting from an offensive marketing perspective) is that equating making clothes out of petroleum products with "being a friend of the oil and gas industry" is disingenuous. For the most part, the environmentally disastrous emissions come from _burning_ fossil fuels; I'm guessing cheap plastics are just a side-effect of a massive energy market, and not a major driver of the industry.
Pollution occurs in many ways, not just burning. The whole "microplastics" thing is largely due to apparel made from petroleum-based synthetic materials. Activewear and outdoor wear are rarely if ever made from natural materials anymore. Not to mention all the energy needed to process crude oil into those materials.
That used to be the case, but the industry is incorporating more cheap plastics to harden against future projected fossil fuel revenue loss. On that topic, this PBS Frontline episode is a good resource: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/
If we turn every ounce of oil in the ground into plastic that's a problem, but a way more manageable one than burning even half that amount in our atmosphere.
It isn't enough to say we're seeing something in blood and fetuses, it has to be quantified by how it is a problem.
I find alcohol in my blood all the time, I understand the effects and manage it so it's never a problem. Alcohol in fetuses on the other hand is a well understood problem where no level is really tolerable.
From the linked article, plastics are a problem but the pollution level is probably below the threshold of harm for most people. But it's also possible that the levels have increased over the past couple of years to the point that it is harmful.
I think this is a fair concern, but if we're being honest, we know the real, present, and accelerating danger from putting more GHGs into the atmosphere. We are currently unaware of the negative impacts of traces of plastics in our bodies.
It makes a ton of sense to put the literal fire out now, and worry about what the effects of the plastics are when there is evidence of serious concern.
This is a very common argument, but I'm still waiting for the link to that and...anything else.
If we think it causes cancer (*and have some evidence) then sure, but if it's just like ' hey this stuff is here' then I will continue to be more afraid of 'ecological collapse.'
I just tested the PDF reader out for about 5 minutes and I can already say it's substantially better for me on MacOS than any other PDF reader besides Preview. No glitching like Acrobat and the annotations features are more inline with what I want than Preview's are.
i agree it’s great. some minor ux issues. for example if i select text then click highlight it should highlight the selected text. keyboard shortcuts for annotation would be amazing.
(Responding more to the title than the well written article itself:)
The question is never what would be good to add to a curriculum; the question is what we should remove.
Students _could_ have classes on statistics, critical thinking, physical education, some sort of art, the "classics", religion, emotional intelligence, resilience, entrepreneurship, ...
Share a point-of-view on which parts of the high school curriculum should be dropped to make room for these and then we can have a _real_ debate (slash argument).
Students can test out of classes early (or get placed out if they solve challenge AKA from-the-next-section problems on tests, or something), and take the other classes instead. Not everyone will be learning everything, like how not everyone takes calculus or advanced chemistry before going to college, but better to teach some students extra then waste their time “teaching” them stuff they already know.
Another issue is, whose going to teach those courses? But we can consolidate classes and rely more on programs like Khan Academy, with teachers only devoting their time to students who struggle. Lots of teaching can be done via just computers at least for advanced students.
