He did have his showman side certainly -- but I'd argue that Alan Sugar of Amstrad was more the UK Steve Jobs because Clive Sinclair really did have deep technological knowledge himself (even though he obviously also had a staff of talented engineers like Richard Altwasser who rarely got their due in the public eye)
There isn't a technical reason why titles have to be that short, memory isn't in that short supply despite the RAM shortages. A function, therefore an algorithm, is deciding to truncate the title for some reason.
Because the edited title is incoherent and grammatically incorrect.
Until recently that would have marked it as likely done by simplistic automation. These days, it's hard to tell, because humans seem more likely to make simple errors of grammar.
It makes sense that they'd make a tomato-like fruit because potato plants, like tomato plants, are part of the Solanaceae (nightshade family). Also, not that surprising for the same reason that they are poisonous
I remember Anacreon! I used to play that, and another Turbo Pascal game called BEGIN that was a sort of port of the Star Fleet Battles board game on my first PC clone that I got in the early 1990s aftet leaving the 8-bit world.
I really liked the widget set (custom made for the program) that xv used. In the 1990s it looked far more "professional" than most GUI apps on Linux/Unix in general.
Even though I hadn't thought about xv in decades, as soon as I read the headline, the image of those 3d buttons with the crisp outlines resurfaced from my memory.
I remember when IBM was upset that various companies were calling their 80286 computers "<Brandname> AT" like the IBM AT ("advanced technology"). But you can't trademark a preposition!
I think Rafael Irizarry put it best over a decade ago -- while historically there was a feud between self-declared "frequentists" and "Bayesians", people doing statistics in the modern era aren't interested in playing sides, but use a combination of techniques originating in both camps: https://simplystatistics.org/posts/2014-10-13-as-an-applied-...
I agree... I feel like "The Elements of Statistical Learning" was possibly one of the first "postmodern" things where "well, frequentist and Bayesian are just tools in the toolbox, we now know they're not so incompatible."
After Stein's paradox it became super hard to be a pure frequentist if you didn't have your head in the sand.
There is some frequentist procedure there, but it seems hard to not recognize the deep connection to Bayesian statistics and wonder if you should begin to question your baseline assumptions. Since the entire justification for using a shrinkage estimator has a whole lot more in common with the foundations of Bayesian statistics than it does with the foundations of frequentist stats.
Purist frequentists using a shrinkage estimator looks a lot like heliocentric Ptolemic astronomy.
Downvote me all you want. Bayesianism is misapplied much more frequently than frequentism. It just makes it way too easy to fudge p values. Sorry not sorry.
I do always laugh when I see a Bayesian object to p-values, then use a Bayesian procedure that is mathematically identical to treating p values as posterior probabilities.
Just saying the word "Bayesian" doesn't actually make it different
It’s mathematically identical but conceptually different. The things that go into the calculation are different, the numbers that get out of the calculation mean different things. Laughing is healthy though.
You can just shortcut all of that if you're a Bayesian and just plain say "p-values are posterior probabilities under a uniform (improper) prior" and save everyone a lot of time.
And if you're doing that, don't care complain that p-values can be misinterpreted, because you're basically just laundering the misinterpretation of p-values.
Sure, you are mathematically pure because you made an initial assumption that it can be so, rather than being confused, but the end result is the same.
I have no interest in laundering the misinterpretation of p-values. I don’t know whose time is saved, frequentists don’t care about the Bayesian interpretation anyway and Bayesians don’t need to restrict themselves to a particular prior. The fact that in some cases you can choose one particular prior to get a numerical value for one probability that is equal to the numerical value for the probability of a completely different thing calculated by someone else doesn’t help anyone much. Bayesians can get the same result on their own if they want.
If you found Ulysses confusing, what would you think of Finnegan's Wake? Ulysses is practically a children's book in comparison. As for the lack of 1984, Orwell was an important author sure, but not particularly a good one. People read 1984 and Animal Farm for the messages, not for the exquisite prose that someone like Joyce can manage.
Sorry, I haven't tried to read that one. If it's even more, hm, abstract?, then I won't ever try.
Note that 1984 is listed, just as "Nineteen Eighty-Four". I missed it when searching, didn't think of searching for "Orwell" instead.
I'd disagree with you about its quality, I remember it fondly (well, as much as possible given the topic of having one's identity erased), it was a powerful experience - and I do remember it vividly, so when asked for books one remembers I'd absolutely mention it, and in a list of books of the century it does belong.
Joyce "prose" on the other hand did nothing for me but make me despise his book.
I also didn't think it was quite as good as it was hyped to be, but as someone who has long been into the web-based SCP stuff, I did appreciate how the book is introducing SCP to a wider audience.
reply