Read a bit, extracurricularly, about linear algebra after looking up Greshgorin's Theorem. Had to refresh my memory a bit about eigenvalue stuff.
Yesss: I can cut some office hours because people never show up.
Larry Wasserman made a post about K++ means (a technique for using K-means that helps you pick good starting nodes), wondering aloud about a couple things, and somebody on reddit pointed to a paper by people I know in my department who did experiments showing it placed in the middle of the pack.
A friend of mine is getting married! Way cool. And apparently we're going to be invited! Way cool. She's the sort of person who has a billion people, family and what-have-you, and I don't quite know how close we really are, so I would not have been offended at all not to be invited. But pleasantly pleasant to be invited. It's right before New Year's.
I'm going to have to take over the Orthodox Christian student group at the university. But, you know, if the way they're proposing running the meetings make them the sort of meeting I wouldn't want to go to and that I think other people wouldn't want to go to, might as well turn it into something better.
I've been reading some non-statisticians talk about rationality and how it's super-rational to be Bayesian and it's so much better than "frequentism", but I'm not really feeling it, as a statistician. They're not really doing probability or statistics. Using Bayes' Theorem doesn't make you a Bayesian, using Bayes factors instead of the classical likelihood ratio makes you a Bayesian, but I don't think very many integrals are going on in a soi-disant "rationalist's" head. They certainly are in some cases, to be sure, but, really, I have one simple rule: you can't be a Bayesian if you've never done an ugly integral to calculate a Bayes factor. You definitely can't be one if you don't know how to set up the integrals or can't pick one out of a lineup with a maximum likelihood estimator.
I mean, you can believe in general relativity without knowing what a tensor is, you can believe in quantum mechanics without understanding bra-kets and Hilbert spaces, but this differences only really comes out in either ugly integrals or high-powered computing. In terms of impact on everyday life, it can't have an impact because the level you're going to use the theorem for informing your beliefs is not going to distinguish you from the frequentists - it's a theorem of frequentist statistics, too, you know. Or maybe I'm missing something, who knows? I'm not exactly good at thinking.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1641 Of course, one must be skeptical of anything involving cost projections.
I just replaced my 2 gallon per minute shower head with a 1.25 gallon per minute shower head.
Finally ordered a clothes washer. The local government will give me a $100 rebate because we got an "Energy Star" one.
Still on a Soundgarden kick.
The implicit political atmosphere of the students here is extremely Democratic/Liberalist. I suspect some people are more moderate, but this is the only viewpoint expressed.
Doctor Who: that was manipulative.
Now, by the power vested in me by the state of New New York, here is my diary.
|< What I want.... | Event driven. >|