If your goal is to edit code and not discuss it aider also supports a watch mode. You can keep adding comments about what you want it to do in a minimal format and it will make changes to the files and you can diff/revert them.
> My experience is a first implementation / novice programmer will write Julia code of a similar speed to python.
No because of JIT compilation he would write code faster than Python by default. Now to truly rival optimized C++ code one has to do the tricks mentioned in this post like optimizing memory access, SIMD and maximizing instruction parallelism.
The key point is you are better off by default and can do some ugly stuff in the critical parts of the code while still using the same language.
It really depends on what you end up doing. A lot of "python" code is really just thin wrappers around fairly optimized C routines (although there's inefficiencies from the wrapper, and the optimization barriers), so if you're doing something where the bulk of the work is happening inside those routines, beginner-written julia code will end up being roughly comparable to expert-written numpy code or whatever.
But yeah if you're writing a loop or something else where the majority of work is actually being done by python itself, then it's going to typically be much much slower than the equivalent julia code.
> beginner-written julia code will end up being roughly comparable to expert-written numpy code or whatever
This is not possible by definition, or is a misunderstanding of where and how performance occurs. If this is possible, then it is just as easy to perform worse if the beginner steps to either side of the happy path or if their problem doesn't fit the preconceived optimizations and is therefore no longer a "language" but some kind of "library". I think Julia should be seen as a library and not a language because a language is not comparable in this way that Julia likes to handwave away as magic.
You do NOT need this as a hobbyist. I will go as far to say it will be counter productive. Pickup Art of Electronics or the lab manual that comes with it instead.
One of the points of the talk is emphasis on working on "important" problems. It does make sense to not work on incremental things for merely publications so it is definitely good advice. However once you decide to do so what is "important" becomes a difficult question.
I like this article from Daniel Lemire which explores this further
The way I’ve always interpreted this is that if even you don’t think it’s important, why are you doing it?
Sure you can’t accurately predict what will and won’t be important long term, but you should think your work is important. Whether you’re right or wrong time will tell.
> It does make sense to not work on incremental things for merely publications so it is definitely good advice.
True but unfortunately this is how funding works based on what I saw during my time working at various labs.
You need to provide enough evidence that what you are after is going to "work". Most of the brand new ideas get resources by repurposing data from existing funded projects. If you don't have what you need, you finangle the funded project to produce the data the new idea needs.
I'm all for not syncing resources into crazy ideas that will never work but current state of affairs (it's getting worse) is too conservative
It is important to point out that on his speech (and the book) he tells people to work on important problems (always on the plural), and that he never say not to work on non-important ones.
In fact, I remember the book having a very clear assumption that you can't work on important things all the time anyway. But well, there has been some time since I've read it. But it is a very sensible and nuanced advice for highly ambitious people.
I don't belong to the SC/ST group. I don't wear the thread and none of my friends (no matter which group they come from) do. So I am not sure what is your point? Once again this is some stupid journo not doing research and spreading FUD. If Westerners want to be moralizing the first thing they should start with is being sound about their research. Even actual issues will be dismissed in future by larger population in India if this is the kind of work that is presented as truth.
Completely agree.This is just governments as well as big tech on a power trip trying to censor things by whatever morals are in vogue now. It is quite insulting treating grown adults like "don't see this. we are telling you it is bad for you."
Agree 2 years is more than enough. Within the first 6 months of those 2 years the ones who had been there longer had no advantage. Guys who had been top at their local schools quickly caught up if they studied hard.
counterpoint - maybe the significance of not undermining the other 2/3 of the company is exactly extreme managerial competence when the crisis has already made itself clear.
If you're saying that limiting their losses to _only_ 1/3 of their staff is a sign of great managerial flair then I'm afraid that I disagree very strongly.
It's like cutting off a limb with gangrene. The mistakes they made to get to this situation have been recognized, and now the next decision is how to make sure you continue to live, unpoisoned.
> Hansson told me that the rules are not draconian — no one is going to be bounced out the door for occasionally straying out of bounds. The founders’ goal is to reset the culture and focus on making products, he said, not to purge political partisans from the workforce.
You're looking at the press release and not reading what they're saying. 1/3rd of their company couldn't live with only 'occasionally straying out of bounds' and wanted to make everything political such that 'straying out of bounds' was the norm, so they got 'offered a buy out'.
what the sentence you quoted is saying is that its not based on political viewpoints, but based on behaviour, 1/3 of the company would not accept only occasionally being out of bounds enough to stick around. those 1/3 were likely undermining the actual effectiveness of the company for their political causes.
> Remarkable how when 1/3 of the company resigns in one go - many of whom have great and longstanding professional reputations with no history of political activism and including head of marketing, design, customer support, iOS etc. - following fundamental changes they read about in a blog post, it's because _they_ were all intolerable, proselytizing activists who all had to go for the good of the company.
> Absolutely nothing to do with the two leaders who spend a good chunk of time on social media telling the rest of the world how to run their business in the most in your face way possible.
>no one is going to be bounced out the door for occasionally straying out of bounds.
1/3 of their workforce couldn't accept that and took the buyout instead. That's why it was important to do it - they valued their politics over their continued employment. It wasn't to purge people based on their politics, it was to purge people who couldn't limit themselves to 'occasionally straying out of bounds' - 1/3 of the company undermining the other 2/3 to push their politics.
I don't see an issue per se, but it makes it clear that they've got the money to live outside of the sphere of politics and society that their employees exist within.
They can afford to make it a non-issue for themselves. And so they have. An empathetic option was available to them (own up to the stupid silly names list) but they cast it aside.
As a consequence, they've lost a lot of respect both in their workforce and in the court of public opinion. I don't intend to put much stock in whatever else they have to say now.
And for me it's not about the politics at work bit. It's the rest of it that is getting less attention. Cringeworthy Huxley quotes, paternalistic benefits, etc. etc.
