I get why it's problematic, obviously, but if it produces statistically better results (which I have no idea of), I don't think it's right to just write it off because of this.

When the abstraction detracts more value than it provides.

I think this is an interesting direction to explore. Plotly is fine. So is D3 and plenty of other solutions, but neither represent the ultimate pinnacle of charting.

I don't know what the author thinks this could have meant, other than "give me the original". Making up details is what he is asking it to do.

True, you can't see the eyebrows in the original, but you also can't see (IMO) an absence of eyebrows and since far more people have eyebrows than not, I would be extremely surprised if it had come up with a version without them.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49010863

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

I also could no longer tell you how to balance a binary tree or implement Quicksort.

I am sorry to be pedantic, but the correct phrasing would be "I think I know within a second", which seems like a pretty important distinction.

I am not completely sure what you are saying here, but it sounds like a variation of the "it's just a stochastic parrot" argument, which is reductionist. The human brain is also just a bunch neurons firing.

Come think it, I feel that I have on the other side of this many times: I read a post or watch a video that opens up something in my brain and I get a sort of crush on the author. I read everything they write or watch all their videos. For some authors, I retain interest. But for others, where it seems like they produce regularly in order to maintain the frequency, I lose interest.