mandlebro @mandlebro@social.cleverlibre.org

Are there any runners on here that carry while running? What gun do you carry and how do you carry it? I’ve been thinking about coming up with a set up for myself.

@sevvie ew gross

@nina I dig the symmetric background on top of the chaotic foreground.

@trebach@mstdn.social @stux in pretty much every state but Texas it is illegal to use lethal force in the defense of property. It would be a very foolish move for a rail worker to risk their freedom for a company’s property.

@khird a likelihood needs to be between 0 and 1 since its a probability so when he says it goes to infinity I assume that its just a typo and he means the negative log likelihood. You are, however, correct in that if the mixture parameter does not entirely favor the dirac then the log likelihood is nonzero. In fact, if you let the the mixture parameter vary and hold one side at a Dirac and the other a gaussian, you would expect the maximum likelihood solution to entirely favor the gaussian. It just seems like however wrote that section was mistaken. It is true that mixture models tend to have bad local minima and can have multiple mle solutions, so I think they just made a mistake while expressing that point.

I've been reading Elemnts of Statistical Learning by Hastie et. al. And I'm pretty sure the following ingredients is just wrong: "Note that the actual maximizer of the likelihood occurs when e put a spike of infinite height at any one dara point..." pg 274 par 4. They are talking about gaussian mixtures. But if you interpret this literally then the likelihood is 0 since all the other points have likelihood 0. If you interpret it in the limit the same occurs. The limit goes to zero, since one point in the product goes to 1 and the rest go to zero. Am I missing something? The book's been good so far.

@NEETzsche @pleb@hunk.city @bot @jeffcliff how does this mean bayes is wrong? The only confusion here is over whether you are calculating the probability conditional on your choice or the overall probalility, which is just a matter of how you interpret the language of the question. There is no contradiction of bayes.

@lebronjames75 how did driver know?

@polarisera @lain @kaia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb2rSCFKnW8

@freemo “That’s trivial.”

@sim I think he's saying that since true and false can be thought of as monomorphism between with the same two source (think functions with the same domain and codomain) you are free think of them as the same function. This is however, retarded, so charity would suggest some other meaning. I have no idea what he means by nominal duality, maybe a single thing with two names? Mathematically, this is not what I would call a duality, it's more of a singularity, isn't it? Does principle of power refer to the power a notion of truth has? So is an identical principle of power an alternative but similarly useful notion of truth? How degenerate to arbitrarily reference category theory in this context.

@nerdman @overflow I think I would prefer physical work, but I make more money working at a computer. The same is probably true for many people.

@Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham lawyers are known for safely handling guns

I think I just realized what bothered me thematically about Squid Game. Early on (first two episodes), it seemed like the thesis was that the games were better than capitalism because they are more fair. They were more like the ideal that capitalism is sold as, as opposed to the hopeless reality of most of the characters' lives. But as the show went on and the games got more random and arbitrary, that really breaks down and it seems like the games are supposed to be more of a direct metaphor for capitalist society, which is just the author saying "Look! Capitalist society is cruel and unfair just like the contrived metaphor I've come up with! " It's also just a boring take that's been done over and over.

@augustus 22 is just an awkward number. Anything with prime factors over 10 stops feeling natural.