terriko: Yup, I took this one. The eyes are paper, not photoshop (chair)
First some me-related updates:

  • I got to help staff a table at roborave on Saturday. fun! I was too busy to take pictures, so don't ask.

  • GSoC ranking continues apace. It's actually less busy for me than it was, since I don't need to interact with the students as much until selection is finished, so I've gone from over a hundred people potentially wanting to talk to me to something closer to 20-30. (project admins + mentors with melange trouble). I expect there'll be some wrangling to make sure the Systers and Mailman don't have any overlapping project ideas, but that can wait a few days.

  • To save people from asking me: I'm not expecting to hear about the Portland job for another couple of weeks. This is actually pretty convenient for me since it means I can focus on GSoC during the selection period; horray for good timing!

And then some links that amused me:

terriko: (Default)
Three links of interest from this week:

Conversations About the Internet #5: Anonymous Facebook Employee: What makes this story so entertaining isn't so much the content (which is pretty unsurprising, IMO) but the way in which it's presented. The drama! The intrigue! My personal favourite is describing eye-tracking, a fairly common technique used to analyze designs, as scary scary "psychological analysis." Seriously fun way of presenting what otherwise would be rather pedestrian information (OMG, Facebook keeps track of your relationships and behaviours! Like, oh, every other company that has any data about you...)

Programmers need to learn statistics or I will kill them all: You'd think there's no way that the essay could top the title, but it's actually a fantastic explanation of the problems many programmers have with statistics, as well as a reasonable rant about how little they care when they're told they're wrong. I've seen these mistakes in high-level peer-reviewed "scientific" papers in my field, and it kind of drives me (and many others) crazy. So if you're a computer scientist, go click that link and make sure you're not making those mistakes. You don't have to be stupider than slime mould, mathematically speaking.

An interesting side-note in that paper, for the women:

"Oh, and you wonder why I say, “he”? I never have this problem with female programmers. Maybe it’s because I’m tall (6’2”), or nicer to them, but they always speak rationally and are really keen to learn. If they disagree, they do so rationally and back up what they say. I think women are better programmers because they have less ego and are typically more interested in the gear rather than the pissing contest."

I leave interpretation of these remarks up to you. *grin* They don't have statistical significance anyhow. But either way, read the essay: it's a snarky but awesome and clear explanation of common statistical errors.

ProtectMarriage.com issues Cease and Desist for Prop 8 Trial Tracker logo depicting family of two mothers with two kids: ProtectMarriage.com threatens what seems to be a spurious lawsuit regarding a logo that is quite covered under parody laws. Prop8trialtracker.com hires the best lawyer ever, who responds with a rather impressive letter. I find it awesome that you can cite case history regarding entertaining stories like the slogan "Open up a Can of Woof-A**" -- I guess it's not entirely surprising that trademark case history will include a lot of funny/embarrassing examples, now that I think about it. Still, kudos to the lawyer who put together something so funny and clear on such short notice.


terriko: (Default)

September 2017

3456 78 9
1011 121314 1516


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 07:57 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios