Please keep in mind that the book by Bruno Latour referenced here (Science in Action) and another of his articles was lampooned in the Sokal Affair because Latour was confused about relativity:
I don't disagree that badly-written scientific code exists (both in academia and in the industry), but I want to point out a couple of things for people who have only a software engineering background.
1. Keep in mind that most scientific code for numerical analysis, being based in mathematics, follows the convention for using algebraic symbols, e.g. even in physics, we write
F=m*a
instead of the wordy version, which we overcame a couple of centuries ago. So using shortened variable names [1] comes from that background, and using longer names as in Java-world seems like a regression.
2. Writing code like [2]
Ax_1 += Bx_1 + Cx_1 # Add Bx_1 to Cx_1
Ax_2 += Bx_2 + Cx_2 # Same thing, but for Ax_2
Ax_3 += Bx_3 + Cx_3 # "
Ay_1 += By_1 + Cy_1 # "
is known as loop unrolling [3,4] and is used for optimization.
I made my first offer to a full-time employee, who could add necessary medical expertise to the team. She chose us over an existing offer and gave notice to her current employer.
I'd like to know this too. The blog reads like someone patting himself on the back for pulling back from taking money from wealthy investors, while hiring someone who had a job and another offer then pulling the rug out from underneath them.
Also, what happened to his team of "night-time hackers" who actually built the MVP. Did they have any say in the decision to shut down or were they just cast aside?
I was one of them. We had many spirited discussions. TA was completely transparent about what was going on and we tried hard to find an angle to make it work. I look forward to future hacking with the others.
According to the Wikipedia entry [1] and other pages mentioned in another comment [2], the statue was found with a fragment of a left hand holding an apple, and a right hand with a draped sash. This was taken to understand that the statue represented the Judgement of Paris [3].
So apparently it is known what the hands held, which seems to make this speculation unnecessary.
Here's how you can apply this interpretation of matrix multiplication:
Think of the columns of the matrix A as basis vectors of a coordinate system represented in global coordinates, and the vector v as the components of a vector in that coordinate system. Then the product A * v transforms the vector v into the global coordinate system.
Carrying this forward, matrix multiplication A * B gives the combined representation of two coordinate transformations.
Another way to look at it: A matrix is a linear transformation, and multiplying a vector by a matrix is how you apply the transformation. But linear transformations are really just changes of basis. How do you change your basis? You find the dot product of a vector with each new basis vector. And that's exactly what matrix multiplication is. When you multiply your column vector by a row in the matrix, you're finding the dot product, doing the projection in your change of basis.
Native Bengali here. The ligature used for the last letter of "haTaat" (suddenly) is not the same as the last ligature in "aditya" - the latter doesn't have the circle at the top.
More generally, using the vowel silencing diacritic (hasanta) along with a separate ligature for the vowel ending - while theoretically correct - does not work because no one writes that way! Not using the proper ligatures makes the test essentially unreadable.
I don't understand Bengali at all. I'm trying to understand your second sentence though. When you say "no one writes that way", do you mean nobody hits the keys for letter, followed by vowel-silencing diacritic, followed by another vowel? Or do you mean the glyph that results from that combination of keystrokes doesn't match how a Bengali speaker would write it on paper?
If it's the latter, isn't that an issue for the text input system to deal with? Unicode does not need to represent how users input text, it merely needs to represent the content of the text. For example, in OS X, if I press option-e for U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT, and then type "e", the resulting text is not U+0301 U+0065. It's actually U+00E9 (LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE), which can be decomposed into U+0065 U+0301. And in both forms (NFC and NFD), the unicode codepoint sequence does not match the order that I pressed the keys on the keyboard.
So given that, shouldn't this issue be solved for Bengali at the text input level? If it makes sense to have a dedicated keystroke for some ligature, that can be done. Or if it makes sense to have a single keystroke that adds both the vowel-silencing diacritic + vowel ending, that can be done as well.
---
If the previous assumption was wrong and the issue here is that the rendered text doesn't match how the user would have written it on paper, then that's a different issue. But (again, without knowing anything about Bengali so I'm running on a lot of assumptions here) is that still Unicode's fault? Or is it the fault of the font in question for not having a ligature defined that produces the correct glyph for that sequence of codepoints?
On page 3 I see two different pieces of Bengali. One is text, and the other is an image. I assume you're referring to the text? What makes it wrong? And what software are you using to view the PDF? If it's wrong, it's quite possible that the software you're using doesn't render it correctly, rather than the document actually being wrong.
I have viewed it in Acrobat Reader, epdfview, Chrome's PDF Reader, Firefox's pdf reader and my iPhone's pdf reader.
The problems are that joint-letter ligatures are not used, and several vowels signs are placed after the consonant when they should have been placed before them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/trans...
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/le_monde_english.html
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/noretta.html