Is this accurate? I don't have a lot of firsthand experience with data science stuff, but usually when looking just past surface-level you find that some Python package is really a shell around some native binary core implemented in e.g. C (or Fortran?).

When I at the repos for spaCy and its assistant Thinc, GitHub's language analysis shows that it's pretty much Python. Is there something lurking in the shadows that I'm not seeing? Or does this mean that if someone cloned spaCy and Thinc and wrote it in JS, then the subset of data scientists whose work can be done with those two packages (and whatever datavis generators they use) will benefit from the faster runtime and the the elimination of figging and other setup?

I call this implicit step zero.

So much to unpack here...

What is the full list of types of links?

There are (associative) links created by the author (of an HTML document) as well as associative (and sometimes unwritten) mental links which may be suggested by either the context of a piece and the author's memory.

There are the links made by the reader as they think or actively analyze the piece they're reading. They may make these explicit in their own note taking or even more strongly explicit with tools like Hypothes.is which make these links visible to others.

tacit/explicit<br /> suggested mentally / directly written or made<br /> made by writer / made by reader<br /> others?

lay these out in a grid by type, creator, modality (paper, online, written/spoken and read/heard, other)

Although we are talking about implicit pedagogy, this brings about the necessity to be explicit by providing informative samples when teaching. This brings to mind when teachers ask random questions instead of being explicit in their questioning as it relates to the desired learning outcome.

Why music causes memories to flood back<br /> Marlene Cimons

Eh? The example below:

symbol_mash = SymbolizedMash.new(id: 123, name: 'Rey') symbol_mash.each do |key, value| # key is :id, then :name # value is 123, then 'Rey' end

seems to imply that this is possible (and does an implicit conversion) because it defines to_hash. But that's simply not true, as these 2 examples below prove:

``` main > symbol_mash.class_eval { undef :to_hash } => nil

main > symbol_mash.each {|k,v| p [k,v] } [:id, 123] [:name, "Rey"] => {:id=>123, :name=>Rey} ```

``` main > s = 'a' => a

main > s.class_eval do def to_hash chars.zip(chars).to_h end end => :to_hash

main > s.to_hash => {a=>a}

main > s.each Traceback (most recent call last) (filtered by backtrace_cleaner; set Pry.config.clean_backtrace = false to see all frames): 1: (pry):85:in __pry__' NoMethodError: undefined methodeach' for "a":String ```

Agreed. NodeJS is developer tooling. It's well past the time where we should have started packaging up apps/utilities that are written in JS so that they can run directly in* the browser—instead of shamelessly targeting NodeJS's non-standard APIs (on the off-chance everyone in your audience is a technical user and/or already has it installed).

This is exactly the crusade I've been on (intermittently) when I've had the resources (time/opportunity) to work on it.

Eliminate implicit step zero from software development. Make your projects' meta-tooling accessible to all potential contributors.

* And I do mean "in the browser"—not "on a server somewhere that you are able to use your browser to access, à la modern SaaS/PaaS"

... assuming you're a Rubyist and you have gem and ruby installed.

That's the explicit goal of triplescripts.org in its early stage—eliminating "implicit step 0" from software development.

Would this be referring, then, to explicit meaning or implicit meaning -- or neither?

Watched

Answers the question I had above: https://hyp.is/tpgdQo_4EeqPcm-PI0G2jA/www.iubenda.com/en/help/5640-email-newsletter-compliance-guide

If you have a molecular data partition, you can just use total evidence approach and the standard 1-parameter Markov model.

Potential synapomorphies will be compatible with the molecular tree and considered not likely to change. Potential homoiologies and symplesiomorphies are partly ("semi-")compatible with the molecular tree and, hence, considered less likely to change than highly homoplastic traits with (random) convergence.

Just try out a couple of datasets, and infer the (Bio)NJ and ML trees and then compare the result with the strict consensus network (not tree) of all equally parsimonious trees and the Bayesian tree sample.

Note that if you apply TNT's iterative character weighting procedure, what you effectively do is sorting the random convergences from parallelisms/ characters that are more compatible with the preferred tree.

This remark about "The French" is funny to analyze... I have fallen victim to this homogenous way of thinking. This is something very easily done. When we use micro aggressions, we often de-value or minimize individuals implicitly. This is sad, but can often be harmful, even if it is indirect.

This is a very powerful statement regarding the purpose of higher education. The commissioners of the university clearly had a vision for how the education that the university provided should affect its students. However, the statement is somewhat idealistic in that it includes the idea that education will drive out any "innate" or subconscious deviations from morality. We all know that this was certainly not achieved at the time of the university's founding, when the practice of owning slaves was perceived as moral, and also has not been achieved today, although UVA has introduced many new efforts to combat this problem. Through the university's response to the Unite the Right rally this summer, the numerous implicit bias modules and presentations it offers, and the engagements themselves, our "innate obliquities" are being discussed and brought to light so that we as a university can take deliberate steps towards achieving this ideal view of education put forth by the commissioners of UVA. Claire Waterhouse

Hiding in plain sight.

Title: Is Polite Philosophical Discussion Possible? (guest post by Nomy Arpaly) - Daily Nous

Keywords: implicit bias, philosophical discussion, war crimes, moral inhibitions—

Summary: For brevity’s sake, let’s just say it’s a big part of politeness or civility not to correct people.<br>A soldier who is fighting, even for a just cause, is in a precarious situation, with regard to morality, because he has lost, of necessity, the basic moral inhibition against killing people.<br>A philosopher who is arguing with another, even in pursuit of truth, is in a precarious situation with regard to politeness, because she has lost, of necessity, the basic civil inhibition against correcting people.<br>Having lost, of necessity, the inhibition against killing people, some soldiers find themselves shedding other moral inhibitions—and committing war crimes.<br>Having lost, of necessity, the inhibition against correcting people, some philosophers find themselves shedding other social inhibitions—and being terribly, terribly rude.<br>That’s just the nature of inhibition loss.<br>You need the real thing.<br>Being compelled to break the rule of thumb against telling people that they are mistaken in the understanding of an important thing is no excuse for also yelling at them, repeatedly interrupting them and talking over them, responding to their painstakingly prepared talks with a sneering “why should I be interested in any of this”?<br>Furthermore, I will argue against the philosophical Henry Kissinger within many of us who worries that whatever might be true about war and war crimes, realistically speaking philosophical rigor just requires rudeness.<br>It’s clearly a vice, virtue ethicists would say.<br>I would like to add the following.<br>First, if everyone is rude, women are judged unfairly (as potential colleagues, for example) because rude women are treated more harshly than rude men, by everyone, due to implicit bias.<br>Again, changing behavior is much easier than changing implicit bias.<br>Some think philosophy should change here—either through what I called “pacifism” earlier or through changing the way we evaluate people, or otherwise.<br>It won’t solve everything, but if we reduce rudeness, I solemnly promise that more women will want to do philosophy.<br>It is shown most emphatically by downright quiet, mild-mannered philosophers whose objections, expressed in a nice tone of voice, are nonetheless absolutely lethal.<br>They say revenge is best served cold.<br>Philosophical discussion can legitimately feel like a very tiring game of squash.<br>(Vincent Van Gogh, detail of “Four Cut Sunflowers”)<br>

15. Your Name Determines What You Buy And Do, And You Need To Know

This claim is very credible and there is extensive literature on the subject. In particular, there is an article written by Frederik Anseel and Wouter Duyck which validates the claim made in the *Cracked* article in respect to the Name-Letter Effect and how it influences where one might choose to work as well as career of choice.
 Anseel and Duyck obtained information from the Belgian Social Security Administration containing the names of 1/3 of all the employees working in the private sector in Belgium, with their aim being to determine if the employees' choice of employment could be statistically proven to be linked to the N.L.E. Anseel and Duyck confirmed the N.L.E was a factor, and the numbers support that these people were more likely to choose employment with companies with matching initials, with rarer initials have a greater likelihood(Anseel & Duyck, 2008). Overall, the authors discovered that the same-letter matches were 11.84% higher that projected at the start of the study(Anseel & Duyck, 2008).

There is also an article published in Current Directions in Psychological Science which speaks to the Implicit Egotism claim. In the article Implicit Egotism, Pelham, Carvallo, & Jones state that implicit egotism is a tendency to live in places and associate with people who resemble the self (2005). The authors cite the work previously done by men such as Jozef Nuttin, credited with the origination of the N.L.E. theory, and take it a step further. They found that people were found to live states in the U.S. that most resembled their names (e.g. Louise and Louisiana or Virginia and Virginia). Pelham et al., found this out by examining the Social Security Death Index. It was discovered that when these people registered for Social Security as adults, the results supported that people more often inhabited states that were similar to their own names. In addition to that, the authors of Implicit Egotism also found evidence that people are also more inclined to associate and be attracted to people with whom shared initials are found. These findings back up the statements made in the Cracked article concerning implicit egotism and it’s influence on judgments that dictate our associations in society.

Here’s the link to the article Name-Letter Effect article: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libprox1.slcc.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=11&sid=e5b7258a-ee9a-4178-bd5a-86226cffed35%40sessionmgr111&hid=128&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=35068858&db=aph

Here's the link to the Implicit Egotism study: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libprox1.slcc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&sid=e5b7258a-ee9a-4178-bd5a-86226cffed35%40sessionmgr111&hid=128

You can identify your halos and pitchforks. These are the attributes that cause you to be most easily and unconsciously drawn into the halo effect and they are known as implicit biases.