Why a pro/con list is 75% as good as your fancy machine learning algorithm
1–10 of 29 posts
Re: Why a pro/con list is 75% as good as your fancy machine learning algorithm
#2Aren't we, like, not supposed to do this kind of thing anymore?
Re: Why a pro/con list is 75% as good as your fancy machine learning algorithm
#3Aren't we, like, not supposed to do this kind of thing anymore?
I agree with you. This introduces race and sex into a topic that requires neither, benefits from neither, and doesn't explore either in a useful way.
Re: Why a pro/con list is 75% as good as your fancy machine learning algorithm
#4Aren't we, like, not supposed to do this kind of thing anymore?
Author here. I know that treating the L^2 ball as somehow equivalent to binary vectors is invalid - I even say so in the post. If it helps, I explicitly point out the place where the real work for the binary vector would have to go.
The basic idea is I think is to use the central limit theorem on dot(u,d) and dot(p,d) - but unfortunately the CLT does not show that these two dot products are independent.
Re: Why a pro/con list is 75% as good as your fancy machine learning algorithm
#575% as good... 100% not good enough
Re: Why a pro/con list is 75% as good as your fancy machine learning algorithm
#6So the author thought, "I'll make an article about pro/con lists", but he thought he'd make it sexist and racist while he's at it. That's hilarious.
Couldn't you pick something less controversial, like say, comparing religions, political parties or sports teams?
Re: Why a pro/con list is 75% as good as your fancy machine learning algorithm
#7Author expresses confusion about why people are offended in 3, 2, 1...
Re: Why a pro/con list is 75% as good as your fancy machine learning algorithm
#8Aren't we, like, not supposed to do this kind of thing anymore?
Author here. I know that treating the L^2 ball as somehow equivalent to binary vectors is invalid - I even say so in the post. If it helps, I explicitly point out the place where the real work for the binary vector would have to go. The basic idea is I think is to use the central limit theorem on dot(u,d) and dot(p,d) - but unfortunately the CLT does not show that these two dot products are independent.
[deleted]
Re: Why a pro/con list is 75% as good as your fancy machine learning algorithm
#9I'm somewhat amused that both women get +1 for great legs and both get 0 for "not letting me work", heh.
It's also interesting that white Svetlana gets +1 for being smart, while black Elise gets +1 for being black but isn't smart. Interesting little Freudian slip (is that the right term?) there, I guess.
I also agree with other commenters that introducing sex/race into this discussion seems completely unnecessary. A better example might be cars, comparing a minivan vs a convertible or something less... politically charged.
Re: Why a pro/con list is 75% as good as your fancy machine learning algorithm
#10So the author thought, "I'll make an article about pro/con lists", but he thought he'd make it sexist and racist while he's at it. That's hilarious. Couldn't you pick something less controversial, like say, comparing religions, political parties or sports teams?
Those are strange examples of "less controversial."
A "less controversial" topic of comparison would be boxers vs. briefs.
EDIT: I'm bad at sarcasm detection.