I love 5/3/1 but I don't know if I would recommend it to a beginner. The progression is just too slow compared to one of the daily progression programs like 5x5 or StartingStrength.
Yeah, I totally agree - you don't need to progress that slowly at the beginning, so why would you? 5 lbs a workout is totally doable, not 5/10 lbs a month. I'm a big fan of slow and steady, but there's a difference between that and a flagrant waste of time.
You don’t even technically _need_ a program if you’re just doing it for fun.
I work out twice a week, bench both days and squat/deadlift on each of the other. Some days I do 6 sets of 5-10 reps, some days I do heavy doubles/triples, whatever I feel like doing, depending on how I feel that day. I’m almost 40 so I’m sure if I had started 15 years ago I’d have way better numbers.
~325 wilks with a poor squat because of an old hip injury (it’s less than my bench)
Hey all. This post looks at standardizing a time-series for machine learning. The idea is that when you have a running sensor, you have to batch standardize your data to remove any variations in the collection process. A vectorized algorithm for efficiently performing this standardization is presented.
I'm afraid the post got a bit too "math-heavy", but I'll be around the comments to answer any questions.
I would say it depends on what you are trying to learn.
These types of problems will give you a good intro to a language, but won't introduce you to the more advanced libraries which you'll likely need in a professional context (e.g. threading/mutexs, tcp/udp, etc).
You’re completely right. I investigated this as a means for solving the phase-unwrapping problem I was working on, and while it worked relatively well, a more domain specific solution was eventually used.
I purposely stayed away from mentioning phase unwrapping as I was trying to make this as accessible as possible without overloading the reader with jargon. My goal was to more show how problem transformation (like the frequency domain) can sometimes make hard problems far simpler (I was also just playing with data visualization). Looking at it now though, I probably should have added in the conclusion some external resources for people who have the background. It definitely wouldn’t have made the piece less readable, and could have added a bit more value.
Also, and this is a major oversight on my part - I was specifically looking at fitting data generated by an affine function, not “linearly fitting data”. How I titled this is definitely confusing.
Part of what interested me in writing about this though is how the discontinuities changed a trivial problem into something a bit trickier. If the data could be generated by more complex functions, then I would have forgone looking for an easy solution (as an aside, the problem I was working on had sharp timing and hardware constraints which kept me from using a more general solution).
Nice work, by the way! I didn't meant to be overly critical or "nit-picky".
The visualization parts of the post are _extremely_ well done, and it's a very clear example of how to apply mathematical tricks to practical problem solving. I feel like things like this should be in most AI practitioner's toolboxes, and they're too often forgotten.
I agree completely on the avoiding jargon point. Jargon is a real hindrance to learning something for the first time, and it's definitely best to minimize it whenever possible. (It is very useful when you're trying to find relevant papers though... I always find it fascinating/frustrating what different fields call the same thing...)
I also balked at it, but for the opposite reason. Everyone should be able to sit down to a terminal, make a change to a repository, and commit it.
I mean even if you don't know the command (or they are using a different version control system then you are used to) you can always check the help or man page. It's still a trivial task.
> Everyone should be able to sit down to a terminal, make a change to a repository, and commit it
Disagree - You're testing can someone use the basics of git in a terminal.
> you can always check the help or man page.
Assuming you know how to do that, and what you're looking at. Say I'm sat down in front of a terminal, and I'm told "here's a terminal, make a change and commit it"
I type in "git", and I get: "usage: git" - If you're used to using shell tools, then sure you can make sense of it, If you're not, then you're done.
You said "commit" and the description for that in the "git" command is:
> grow, mark and tweak your common history
> commit Record changes to the repository
Right, I don't know what that means, but lets try this `git commit`
> fatal: not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git
Ok, No idea here. I somehow figure out that git init will give me a .git folder. Now that I've got that out of the way, I try git commit , I get:
> nothing added to commit but untracked files present
Ok, how do I track files? "git help" doesn't mention tracking files. I'll try "git commit hello.txt", which gives me:
> error: pathspec 'Hello.txt' did not match any file(s) known to git
I give up at this point really.
(by the way, I got this far by doing this walkthrough this morning, and googling "how to use git" - which told me the answer in 3 seconds).
Not knowhing how to use a terminal vcs, or knowing the commands to perform even the basics doesn't mean you can't use version control, it just means you can't use a terminal for git. Is my 9 years of C++ and perforce experience because I didn't know that commit was analogous to submit, or because I've used a graphical interface for all that time?
> I type in "git", and I get: "usage: git" - If you're used to using shell tools, then sure you can make sense of it, If you're not, then you're done.
That's part of the test, to see if they're familiar with the command line and if they know how to open the man page. It's trying to weed out the people that can only work in the confines of an IDE and gui tools. That said I wouldn't expect anyone to know git from the man page, I would however expect anyone for a senior role to be familiar with what is a de-facto industry standard.
And source control in general is a great topic for interviews on both sides. Many devs (and companies) don't know what a branch is or what you'd use one for. Many companies make it hard/impossible to create feature branches, either by policy or crazy mono-repo stuff. Even their choice of SCM says a great deal about them, I'd avoid anyone that uses clear case or TFS.
> That's part of the test, to see if they're familiar with the command line and if they know how to open the man page.
That doesn't tell you anything about how good a programmer they are. I don't need to use a command line or man pages for 99.999% of my work, so I'm not going to waste time learning to use more tools.
> It's trying to weed out the people that can only work in the confines of an IDE and gui tools
Ah, so anyone who uses a terminal is superior to someone who uses an IDE or a GUI?
> I would however expect anyone for a senior role to be familiar with what is a de-facto industry standard.
In _your_ industry. As I've mentioned before, I use Perforce (which is standard in my industry).
> And source control in general is a great topic for interviews on both sides
Agreed, but asking somone to rattle off `git init git add . git commit -m"I can remember three lines"` doesn't tell you anything about how much they know about source control. Talk to them about branching/workflows to find out how much they know about source control, or let them use the tools they're comfortable with, but plonking someone in front of a terminal to rattle off some commands is the equivalent of looking for a "culture fit"
> That doesn't tell you anything about how good a programmer they are. I don't need to use a command line or man pages for 99.999% of my work, so I'm not going to waste time learning to use more tools.
I don't want to offend but you sound like exactly the type of developer I try to filter out. IME there is a large correlation between at least rudimentary command line proficiency and being a good developer. Aside from that I want someone to know about the world outside of the IDE and what options are available, because a unix like environment offers far more power than an IDE.
I expect developers should be able to automate common tasks, work with build tools, grep through logs, remote into servers, debug on servers without an IDE installed and a million other things that are very common.
Maybe this doesn't apply to your specific industry but it does to everyone I've worked in to varying degrees. Not memorizing git I could forgive if you could explain branching workflows, but living life in the IDE I wouldn't.
I've encountered people who didn't know the concept of a man page exists, or that -h / -? / --help is a semi-standard construct.
Yet they carried mid/senior-level titles.
You should absolutely test for the things that you think are annoyingly trivial if this person is to be a close peer or a direct report, because your level of disappointment will be so much greater after that person becomes an employee.
I define "annoyingly trivial" as the things that you feel everyone should know "at this stage", and you would be annoyed at having a conversation about said topic for more than 5 minutes.
My personal opinion is Git definitely falls into that category.
> I've encountered people who didn't know the concept of a man page exists, or that -h / -? / --help is a semi-standard construct.
I can count on one hand the number of times I've relied on man pages for descriptions. Using git as the example, compare https://man.cx/git-commit(1) to https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/saving-changes for someone who has never used version control. One of them talks about saving, with examples. The other talks about storing an index in a log.
> My personal opinion is Git definitely falls into that category.
There are plenty of developers with working knowledges of branching/merging workflows, version control, using visual tools, or non-git tools.
The intricate of GIT commands are not obvious in the man page. I'd be more interested in a talk about how often to commit, branch, merge, review, ect. If you got that right, the VSC is just a tool you learn if you don't know it.
I see a lot of the note apps popping up - what is the fundamental problem that people are trying to solve that hasn't been solved by all the other apps? Is it collaboration or syncing or other?
That's only true if you don't lose capable talent due to the low salaries. If most of the talented French engineers move to Germany to get higher pay, then the low pay will hinder the startup scene.
Personally not a huge fan of two-way binding. As someone who has come from the C#/XAML world (where two-way binding can be abused), I found the pure-functional component strategy for React and similar frameworks to be far, far simpler.
Now, I do agree that it can lead to a bit of boilerplate, but this extra verbosity helps keep a simple mental model for us to reason about. Two-way binding can get very complex when you can have weird cyclical state changes.
I think weird cyclical state changes are a feature of your chosen framework. For instance I worked on an angular (1.x) project where we would routinely have these issues - in fact they were well documented. We ported the project to hyperdom and I've never seen an issue with state since.
That is a pretty good walkthrough of the "harder" parts of functional programming.
Although, I always found it telling that the language designers needed the "do" imperative notation for monadic state computations.
While the benefits of monadic-state are pretty well known at this point, it does seem interesting that for widespread adoption it has to be "wrapped" in an abstraction more familiar to developers.
