Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 12 June 2016 09:35:13AM 0 points [-]

Where can I find the CFAR mailing list you mentioned?

Comment author: Fluttershy 12 June 2016 11:06:18AM 2 points [-]

I believe that you'll need to attend a CFAR workshop ($3,900 without a scholarship) to receive a subscription to the CFAR mailing list. I'd be willing to pay some amount just to get added to it, since I already have a CFAR workbook, and am relatively familiar with the material taught during the workshops.

Comment author: username2 18 May 2016 04:22:14AM *  5 points [-]

I'm sorry, that can't be right. In the most recent public data, there are 11 homosexual MtFs, 3 homosexual FtMs, and 1 heterosexual FtM, not to mention the respondents who chose "Other". In Python:

 >>> import pandas as pd
>>> survey = pd.read_csv('2016_lw_survey_public_release_3.csv')
>>> print survey.groupby('Gender')['SexualOrientation'].value_counts()

After dropping the rows where the IQ was lower than 80 or higher than 190, age lower than 14 or higher than 60, and income higher than 300,000, and dropping the rows where the IQ, age or income were N/A, there still remain 5 homosexual MtFs and a couple pansexuals. Perhaps your anonymous friend was somewhat aggressive in pruning the data?

Comment author: Fluttershy 18 May 2016 07:41:40PM *  0 points [-]

Good job on catching that, and thank you for mentioning it :)

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 17 May 2016 05:44:41PM -3 points [-]

Did anybody do any rationality-themed body modifications? I recently got a rationality-themed tattoo, and so have some other folks I know. I was curious about what other Less Wrongers do.

Comment author: Fluttershy 18 May 2016 04:34:39AM 1 point [-]

I'm curious that you know others with rationality-themed tattoos, too; do they either live in your area, or work for Intentional Insights? I hadn't been aware that people had these sorts of tattoos at all.

Comment author: Fluttershy 17 May 2016 05:48:40PM 1 point [-]

Hat tip goes to an anonymous friend of mine who had been playing around with the survey data, and noticed that all MtF and FtM trans survey respondents reported being bisexual.

Comment author: Arshuni 05 May 2016 09:26:17AM 5 points [-]

What skills are overwhelmingly easier to learn in institutionalized context?

(e.g math wouldn't count, because even if motivation is circumvented as an issue in institutions, you should be theoretically to study everything at home. Neither would necessarily the handling of some kind of lab equipment, if there was some clear documentation available for you, and (assuming that you took the efforts to remember it) if the transfer to practice was straightforward (so pushing buttons and changing settings would be straightforward, while the precise motions of carving a specific kind of motive into wood would be less so))

Comment author: Fluttershy 05 May 2016 05:36:13PM 0 points [-]

Neither would necessarily the handling of some kind of lab equipment, if there was some clear documentation available for you

In practice, learning to handle certain lab equipment outside of an institutional context is sometimes hard because it's much easier to break expensive stuff if you don't have someone looking over your work the first few times you do something. Of course, you qualified your above statement quite well, so you haven't said anything incorrect. :)

Comment author: iceman 27 April 2016 10:58:31PM 3 points [-]

Now, now, I'm entirely down with the use of ponies to make points about rationality.

Comment author: Fluttershy 28 April 2016 02:12:00AM 2 points [-]

You're very good at using ponies for that purpose, and have a strong track record to prove it. <3

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 27 April 2016 01:13:01AM 1 point [-]

friendly efforts

Just be grateful I'm not using ponies :-)

Comment author: Fluttershy 27 April 2016 06:00:43PM *  0 points [-]

You took that criticism quite well.

This comment was quite funny, because of the mental picture it evoked; using ponies can sometimes be a high variance strategy (which is sometimes a reason to not use ponies, sadly). ;)

In response to Gratitude Thread :-)
Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 19 April 2016 03:14:24AM -6 points [-]

I'm grateful that I was able to help a good friend out make a super-tough choice about whether to keep her child or give him up for adoption. That took a lot of spoons and cycles, but I'm happy to give her those cycles, as it's one of the toughest choices she'll ever make in her life. My hope is that my thoughts help her make an optimal decision.

Comment author: Fluttershy 19 April 2016 11:28:46PM 6 points [-]

Perhaps the way in which you helped this person would have been valued more strongly in one of the monthly bragging threads? Getting the upvotes you deserve after helping a friend make a tough choice would have merely been an issue of wording, if you had posted there.

Also, many of us who read Hanson will have developed the intuition that gratitude is about giving others status, while bragging is about giving yourself status.

Comment author: andrewjho 10 April 2016 10:10:10PM 2 points [-]

Could you please elaborate with specific examples of times when Jonah's explanations were too abstract and not sufficiently practical?

This will be useful information for us, because we certainly want to identify areas in which our curriculum needs further improvement. My personal recollection of Jonah's lectures is that they involved a lot of example code, visualization, back-and-forth Q&A, and interactive exploration of real datasets in lieu of presenting, say, abstract mathematical proofs.

It also skewed the distribution of topics taught away from things relevant to industry.

Along similar lines, what are some specific topics that you think were neglected in favor of more abstract but less applicable material?

I'm particularly interested in what material you thought was overemphasized in the curriculum--my impression is that all of the topics covered were very fundamental to data science as a whole. While one can express a valid preference for certain fundamental topics over others, I would be hard-pressed to say that any of the topics covered in the Signal curriculum weren't extremely industry-relevant.

Comment author: Fluttershy 12 April 2016 02:22:53AM 1 point [-]

I've already had versions of this conversation with Robert and Jonah in person, but I'll reiterate a few things I shared with them here, since you asked politely. Also, this conversation is becoming aversive to me, so it will become increasingly difficult for me to respond to your comments as we get farther and farther down this comment chain.

specific examples of times when Jonah's explanations were too abstract and not sufficiently practical?

There were actually multiple times during the first couple weeks when I (or my partner and I) would spend 4+ hours trying to fix one particular line of code, and Jonah would give big-picture answers about e.g. how linear regression worked in theory, when what I'd asked for were specific suggestions on how to fix that line of code. This led me to giving up on asking Jonah for help after long enough.

what are some specific topics that you think were neglected in favor of more abstract but less applicable material?

Intermediate and advanced SQL, practice of certain social skills (e.g. handshakes, being interested in your interviewer, and other interview-relevant social skills), and possibly nonlinear models.

Comment author: Gentzel 09 April 2016 09:56:08PM 6 points [-]

I think it is better to assess personal fit for the bootcamp. There are a lot of advantages I think you can get from the program that would be difficult to acquire quickly on your own.

Aside from lectures, a lot of the program was self study, including a lot of my most productive time at the bootcamp, but there was normally the option to get help, and it was this help, advice, and strategy that I think made the program far more productive than what I would have done on my own, or in another bootcamp for that matter (I am under the impression longer bootcamps may develop specific skills at using the software better, but they don't convey nearly the same level of conceptual understanding of statistics in data science, and likewise there are many types of mistakes graduates of other programs will make that graduates of Signal's cohort have been taught not to). When there was not the option to get help, I usually shifted my work schedule and it wasn't much of a problem: there are so many projects to work on, that there was almost always something productive to work on where I wouldn't get stuck (optional exercises on prior projects or making prior projects better). I can see this being very frustrating for some people though, as getting stuck and not having immediate feedback interrupts flow.

Many of the organizational problems didn't seem to really be problems, and seemed more like differences which are good for some and not for others. Pair programming was not always optimal due to the large degree of differences between students. It wouldn't have made sense for everyone to pair program since it would have been holding back some of the faster students. A more rigid structure would have helped people who were less naturally self directed/focused though. Organizational problems that happened with respect to the first cohort in terms of setting up (furniture, internet, whiteboards, etc.) are unlikely to be problems for future cohorts now that the instructors have learned from experience and have a place set up. The first cohort took the risks and costs of such things, which later cohorts probably won't have to worry about.

This is not like other bootcamps, it is less expensive, more individually focused rather than having the entire group doing all the same curriculum, and there are a bunch of rationalists iteratively helping you decide which jobs are best to apply to, who can network you into what position, and which skills actually matter most for aiming for the specific jobs you are aimed at. I don't expect you to be able to have the same opportunities at a normal bootcamp, but a normal bootcamp is probably also lower risk if you don't trust yourself to make things work out (other programs may have quizzes where they throw you out if you fail, and essentially force you to remain focused, with Signal you are more in control yourself, and can take time off to apply to jobs.

Comment author: Fluttershy 10 April 2016 05:23:41AM 2 points [-]

I think it is better to assess personal fit for the bootcamp.

Yes, this is correct.

Pair programming was not always optimal due to the large degree of differences between students.

You're good at socializing and very pleasant to be around, and didn't generally had problems finding pair programming partners when you wanted to work with someone. I'm shy, and couldn't even find anyone who wanted to pair program with me most days, even though I was generally interested in working with others, and often asked Jonah or other students if anyone wanted to work together.

View more: Prev | Next