This confused me as well. The point of browserify is that it groks npm versions and wrangles your dependencies. Whether you want to transpile or uglify etc. is orthogonal to whether you need browserify/webpack, isn't it?
There wouldn't be a bundle for Babel to transpile if the code wasn't Browserified first. I don't know much about Closure compiler but apparently it handles both the transpilation step and the bundling step.
I think that closure and other transpilers do "bundle", but only in the sense that they resolve explicit ES6 imports. They don't attempt to grok versions or dependencies the way browserify/webpack do.
Humbug! In my day you had to resolve linker dependencies, and god forbid if you mixed debug and release or one of the things you were linking against accidently set your process to single-threaded apartment mode, kids these days have it easy!
I'd successfully finished the Andrew Ng Coursera class using Matlab on my old MacBook Air, and moved on to TensorFlow. Turns out Docker is just too much for my 2 Gb Mac - it totally hangs.
I got it working pretty easily on a web IDE codeenv, but it has limitations and I couldn't load the sample files or use ipython notebook.
I'd love to run through these tutorials on a remote hosted environment with minimal configuration work. Anyone have advice?
I agree (about Python, not node.js). This was my introduction to Python. What a mess! Nothing quite worked, and the instructions were very incomplete. Install with or without sudo? System python, homebrew or something else? Python2 or python3? When pip installs libraries, then what's easy_install? How come I can't specify which python version to use for easy_install?
I tried pretty much every permutation, starting with the recommended one in the tutorial, and every one ended in a different error.
Don't get me wrong, the Ruby tooling situation for instance is probably just as bad, only I've gotten used to that by now.
> Don't get me wrong, the Ruby tooling situation for instance is probably just as bad
Under the hood, it's comparably horrible, but IME bundler does a much better job of papering over that horribleness for experienced users and newcomers alike.
I discovered it was nearly impossible to set up pip on windows. It required installing virtual environment stuff first which was very difficult. I eventually discovered someone who had a binary wrapper of it.
Python on windows is a special case. Don't try to use pip/easy_install(setup tools) for anything that has extension modules, or needs compilation rather. Just find the binary distribution for your CPU architecture for windows and install using that.
Pip and setup tools were not made for a windows-type environment. I.e. Where you have don't library dependencies automatically installed and you require a compiler. Windows is a second-class citizen when it comes to those things, but it's getting better with cygwin and all that.
Japan imports almost all of its oil and commodities. Shouldn't low price of oil and commodities result in a massive surplus for a country that sells high value added goods ? Buy iron for cheap and sell robots for a high price.
Now the argument many people will make is that the people who are buying the high-value added goods won't have money anymore - but the argument can be made in the opposite way too - high prices of oil and commodities will result in lower surplus - meaning growth will be most in countries who produce oil and commodities.
Citing "low price of oil" as a reason for economic woes just seems like bad science - I though economists were better than this ?
I think you are confusing exchange rate mechanism and domestic economics and their interactions. Deflation does not mean that exchange rate of Japanese yen increases relative to other currencies.
Japan has free floating currency with inflation-targeting framework.
Japan's import-export balance adjusts more or less automatically because the currency floats relative to other currencies. Japan has very little foreign debt, so the huge national debt is not creating inflationary pressure trough exchange rates.
Japanese yen suffering from long period of low inflation and deflation (lost decade) is caused by the lack of structural reforms and demographics. Japan is getting old fast and people are saving for their retirement. Domestic consumption is not taking off
To put things into perspective:
Household consumption makes 61% of the Japanese GDP
Of course it does, but the effect is not linear and its mostly correlation caused by underlying mechanisms.
Too much inflation is usually sign of problems in the economy. Too low inflation is also sign of problems. The optimum rate of inflation is usually somewhere 1-4%.
Strong currency is not good thing in itself. It hurts exports and makes foreign goods cheaper.
Your instincts are not wrong, believe it or not. Unfortunately most economists fall short of the current state of their science. The first thing one needs to understand about economics is how rife it is with special pleading from selfish interests, because the output of economic science is so important to justifying public policy prescriptions. One thing that is constantly ignored is how government fiddling with the interest rate has a way of warping the capital structure into unsustainable configurations. You don't need an economics Nobel Prize to know that when Venezuela puts price controls on food the grocery stores go empty. But there are much more powerful special interests served by price controls on borrowed capital, so a lot of effort goes into willfuly bad "economics" aimed at justifying the practice.
Sounds like a really interesting book! I read the synopsis and the mainstream is sorely in need of a approach that acknowledges the extreme complexity and heterogeneity of an economy. Nothing irks me more than to see Paul Krugman speak of the world as if it can be quantified in a handful of "aggregate" variables and then blame his political enemies any time things don't go according to plan.
There are different effects of the lower oil price on Japan's economy. BoJ staff have weighted them and determined that the net of them will threaten to move inflation growth off target.
How is the growth of inflation threatened? The BoJ thinks business confidence in Japan will drop because of recessions in trading partners.
This is why it is responding with a policy that will hopefully be more aggressive in pursuing higher inflation and GDP to offset the foreign developments.
Stable prices with a gentle growth are better for everyone. It's not important if oil is cheap or expensive in the long run, what matters is that you can make sensible forecasts and do long range planning without having to worry about one of your main inputs wildly fluctuating in price and causing havoc across the board.
It can be said the main reason oil is cheap is for political reasons.
Saudi Arabia has saved up a large stash over the past few decades & it would not like its regional power states to be taken away in wake of the removal of Iranian sanctions. At least not for a while.
The Saudi oil ministry intentionally lobbied for increased production as soon as they became aware Iranian oil sanctions could be removed.
If game theory is used to analyse the situation, it serves them best to encourage the oil price to stay low & everyone else is incentivised not to cut production either.
I live in China, and previously in Japan. My point is that the majority of the Japanese economy is not made up of exports to China, which in turn are not in majority made up of robots, as the parent believes.
ELI5: a reduction in demand from china will have a huge impact on japan. i don't know what other weird yarn about robots you're trying to spin with my words.
It's really about demographics. When people borrow money is created. When they stop borrowing money is destroyed as it's paid back, which leads to a deflationary collapse and other debts go bad.
We should have state issued money that tracks wealth created instead of debt that tracks boomer sentiment.
I sometimes feel we are trying to externalize all of society's ill on solving it through college/education/teachers.
It seems almost ridiculous that a 17 year needs to make decisions that even someone with a Phd with economics won't be able make.
I wish both kids and parents spent more time actually figuring out how to optimize learning rather than spend their energy thinking about nonsense - its almost like a gambling addiction ?
I remember when I was in school I used to watch students spend a year writing college essays, preparing for SATs, shelling out insane amount of money for tutors, etc.
Meanwhile I just concentrated on mathematics and programming to actually make myself valuable to society.
Most people will be surprised when they realize how far they can get with books.
Books are not as efficient as learning directly from Newton - but they are 1/1000 the cost.
I know the economy would collapse tomorrow if everyone just stopped going to school and spent their evening reading books but humanity has bigger problems to solve then the economy.
The main value-add of going to a university isn't attaining an education, it's gaining access to a strong network of educated people. This is something which can't be replaced by self education (which, you'll actually be expected to do at university anyway).
The vast majority of universities are not going to get you a strong network. Additionally, the vast majority of high school students are fed a line that focuses on the academics and minimizes or ignores the networking.
When there are only 13 EEs in your graduating class, no there aren't.
Also, I never said anything about having things "gifted", and I'm not sure how what I said gives that impression. In fact, I was specifically complaining that common college prep for high school students does not tell them about these tangential things they should be doing at the next level.
This is why we went from using AWS to using our own servers based on commodity hardware.
We went with mattermost instead of slack since we wanted to control our own data.
Of'course it depends on how talented your developers are and how much management want to bankroll your long term outlook - which unfortunately is not the case for many companies out there.
Everyone in the United States cannot be a programmer - its going to lead to the same problem we have with law, business, etc. Too many graduates leading to labour oversupply.
Government will always be slower to respond then markets.
So even though right now there is a shortage of programmers - it might not be the case once these student's graduate.
So Govt is always one step behind the movements in markets.
What is more important is helping students understand how important learning is. Even though my skills in programming helps me get paid - I use the knowledge I have in biology ( learnt in school ) to make informed decisions as a consumer. My knowledge in writing helps when I need to explain a difficult concept to my bosses. My skills in mathematics helps me model problems in much more efficient ways.
Being a programmer in a society with no doctors, or chemists is no fun.
Its understanding that the economy is extremely complex - and rather than create bursts of inefficiency in one area - the best thing to do is facilitate the system to perform better - maybe make it easier for labour ( students ) to choose what they want to do with their lives - rather than burden them with student debt ?
> Everyone in the United States cannot be a programmer - its going to lead to the same problem we have with law, business, etc. Too many graduates leading to labour oversupply.
I agree. This just seems like an attempt at a poorly thought-out quick fix. The country has a lot of problems with unemployment/underemployment, so they're fixating on to one job category that's "hot" with a high pay/education ratio as the solution.
But since the real solution is to do something effective about economic inequality, misguided quick fixes are what we're going to get.
Plus, the more CS grads, the more competition for jobs, and the less they have to be paid and the more disposably they can be treated. I'm sure big employers are salivating over that just like they do over an increase in the H1-B quota.
> Everyone in the United States cannot be a programmer - its going to lead to the same problem we have with law, business, etc. Too many graduates leading to labour oversupply.
This is misunderstanding the future state of the programming professions of the future. This is understandable, since you're merely projecting the current state forward, but things will almost certainly change.
Up until now, the majority of programming jobs have been filled by people trained in CS and we've had to learn whatever disciplines which we're asked to apply our programming discipline to. But as we're able to layer more and more abstractions on top of the machines that do our computing, programming will become much more accessible and the situation will change. In the future, the majority of programming will be done by domain experts who learn enough programming discipline to automate their field. There will always be a small, niche of core CS practitioners that advance the state of the art of the tools used at the higher levels. But they will be that will be a very small percentage of the workforce.
The important thing isn't that we create more CS graduates. That will cause the problems you foresee. What we need to do is ensure that all graduates outside of CS are trained in basic computer programming.
Understanding computing and programming is useful in careers that aren't specifically centrally about programming, in much the same way that being able to write is useful in careers other than professional writing. But, sure, more people programming will mean more people who are can take jobs that are centrally programming jobs, which is a good thing for everyone except incumbent workers in the field who have more competition.
It also means people working in other fields who can more efficiently applying computing to their own domain, either directly or by being better able to identify opportunities and work with people who are primary programmers.to realislze them. That's also a general win.
The trouble is, things are always about satisfying markets, whether we like the market it satisfies or not.
For example, in the early days of the university in England and France, higher education served to satisfy the market of younger-child aristocracy who needed something to do to make them valuable to their family. It's no coincidence that monastaries, reading, and higher education were very often neighbors, and sometimes part of the same organization- they served chunks of the same market. That the universities started opening themselves to lower scions of aristocracy was a side-effect of how profitable that market could be, and the value that graduates could provide. [0]
In a more modern example, the disciplines of higher education that have less-certain ROI, but are still judged to be valuable, or serve education for education's sake: I would say that those serve the market of people who are either idealistic, or believe they understand some long-term feature of humanity that the 1-year, 5-year, or generational time-scale markets ignore. They pay the price, but they still do hope for ROI of some sort- even if not in cash.
Even more nebulous things, such as very low-overhead charities, serve a market- the market for people to feel generous, to avoid guilt, or to serve causes that the traditional free market overlooks. That so many charities are very high-overhead, or so bad at satisfying the ends they ostensibly aim for, seems to be a symptom that people don't care so much about the assuaging, as the fact that they have attempted to assuage.
So, are there ways to remove education from the capricious, short-term, short-sited nature of the modern free-market? Of course. State action, benevolent organizations, and other more attempts at far-sitedness are a good way to adjust the externalities of education. However, you simply cannot remove education from the market.
NO ONE - can accurately predict the economic future in the short term - its chaotic like the weather.
But the biggest indicator of economic health is demographics - and the US wins in this category hands down compared to other developed countries.
While Japan, Germany and other countries are rapidly aging - the united states continues to be culturally very open and meritocratic.
Britain tried being "open" but it backfired in a big way.
The United States will continue to dominate - its biggest rivals are of'course China and India. China is facing a huge demographic cliff while India even though it has the demographic advantage does not have the energy reserves nor is able to fully get rid of structural corruption ( US too has corruption but everything is relative )
At the end of the day - growth is just an anomaly - the longest state of the universe is decay.
Assuming inequality is constant - then yes. Your purchasing power would double, you could afford twice as much food, apple would produce twice as many ipads, etc.
Browserify is for package-management. For people who want to do node.js style requires in their browser.
Closure Compiler is for optimization, it is to get rid of dead code.
Browserify is not optimized for performance. Why is this post surprising ?