= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Academian comments on Conditional Independence, and Naive Bayes - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (15)
Hahaha! First thing on LessWrong to really make me laugh out loud :) Good stuff.
[Edit: That's the laughter of agreement and approval of a fun writing style; I should be more explicit on the internet, given the pernicious amounts of sarcasm that gets tossed around.]
To the downvote, in case it wasn't clear, I was laughing because I agree with the post, and because "simplify the living daylights out of your calculations" is just an awesome phrase. I laugh at things I agree with way more than things I don't, because the former things actually make me happy. (And the latter kind of laughter, on the rare occasion that it happens, I keep to myself.)
But if the downvote was for irrelevance, fair enough. I wouldn't mind being told that expressing appreciation of writing style alone is frowned upon.
It is frowned upon by some people, but not by all -- certainly not by me. See discussion here.
Thanks for the background... I think for a compromise, I might just stick to expressing laughter when I happen to have something of content to say along with it :)
It's a matter of how it's done. The more analytic and descriptive it is of what was good and how it worked, the better a reaction it's likely to get.
I would guess that this was downvoted by someone misreading it as an attack, interpreting the laughing as considering it worth ridicule.