Yes, so basically equivalent to the code I showed in the blog.
[flagged]
The text right above the code says why you can't...
The problem is a small change in the question can force you to make huge changes in the code in pandas. I recently gave some examples in my blog [1]. E.g. compare the last two code blocks, where the small change is just…
In my opinion a better argument to stop using pandas is the very unintuitive API pandas have. Additionally, a slight change in the query can force you to restructure the whole query (change all lines), while in Polars…
Here [1] is a video made 3 months ago going over an engine vs an engine made by of one of the big YouTubers, which has 1.4m views. Enough proof? [1]https://youtu.be/Ov7K4W-zAk0?is=6jVBkQpn8xbaA2Tz
Yes you are right, some people do watch chess engines play. TCEC (Top Chess Engine Championship) [1] streams them. Popular chess YouTubers goes over engine games from time to time too. [1] https://tcec-chess.com/
> Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since…
Yes which says nothing about Reuter like you wrote 3 times?
This is from 1st link, not 2nd like I said? > residents polled in a survey conducted *for Reuters* by the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute You managed to mistake [1] with [2] three times, really?
Source? And just so we are clear, are you suggesting academic malpractice, that the university intentionally designed it to be biased?
What is Reuters about the data source being a phone survey conducted by a research centre at a university in Hong Kong? (Or the 2nd source they linked to which I quoted above)?
Okay use my 2nd source then? Data source: > The survey data reported in this article were collected via a telephone survey conducted by a research centre at a university in Hong Kong from May to June 2020. And they also…
Saying a vast majority hated the protests seems like a too strong of a statement. Here are some sources which reports 57% supported [1] and 58.3% supported [2]. It has also been estimated that 36.4% had attended a…
Which has nothing to do with the total number of lines, it's just the theorem statement you need to check. Here is what they showed, which is under 300 lines with comments…
To claim something verified in Lean is wrong, you need to either argue that the theorem was stated incorrectly, or that there is a bug in Lean (assuming no `sorry` etc, which is checked by comparator). The number of…
From the article: > The finished proof was checked by Lean; it uses just Lean’s three standard axioms, and a comparator confirmed that the theorem’s statement matches Mathlib’s own statement of FLT. So it proved the…
Not OP, but here is an example using tidyverse (I leave the meaning of it to you; should be clear without any R knowledge): purchases |> group_by(country) |> filter(amount <= median(amount) * 10) |> summarize(total =…
[dead]
> The bare R experience is not that great Why do you say that? Base R is arguably nicer to work with data than pandas is for example. Happy to provide specific examples to prove my point if you want.
Yes, so basically equivalent to the code I showed in the blog.
[flagged]
The text right above the code says why you can't...
The problem is a small change in the question can force you to make huge changes in the code in pandas. I recently gave some examples in my blog [1]. E.g. compare the last two code blocks, where the small change is just…
In my opinion a better argument to stop using pandas is the very unintuitive API pandas have. Additionally, a slight change in the query can force you to restructure the whole query (change all lines), while in Polars…
Here [1] is a video made 3 months ago going over an engine vs an engine made by of one of the big YouTubers, which has 1.4m views. Enough proof? [1]https://youtu.be/Ov7K4W-zAk0?is=6jVBkQpn8xbaA2Tz
Yes you are right, some people do watch chess engines play. TCEC (Top Chess Engine Championship) [1] streams them. Popular chess YouTubers goes over engine games from time to time too. [1] https://tcec-chess.com/
> Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since…
Yes which says nothing about Reuter like you wrote 3 times?
This is from 1st link, not 2nd like I said? > residents polled in a survey conducted *for Reuters* by the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute You managed to mistake [1] with [2] three times, really?
Source? And just so we are clear, are you suggesting academic malpractice, that the university intentionally designed it to be biased?
What is Reuters about the data source being a phone survey conducted by a research centre at a university in Hong Kong? (Or the 2nd source they linked to which I quoted above)?
Okay use my 2nd source then? Data source: > The survey data reported in this article were collected via a telephone survey conducted by a research centre at a university in Hong Kong from May to June 2020. And they also…
Saying a vast majority hated the protests seems like a too strong of a statement. Here are some sources which reports 57% supported [1] and 58.3% supported [2]. It has also been estimated that 36.4% had attended a…
Which has nothing to do with the total number of lines, it's just the theorem statement you need to check. Here is what they showed, which is under 300 lines with comments…
To claim something verified in Lean is wrong, you need to either argue that the theorem was stated incorrectly, or that there is a bug in Lean (assuming no `sorry` etc, which is checked by comparator). The number of…
From the article: > The finished proof was checked by Lean; it uses just Lean’s three standard axioms, and a comparator confirmed that the theorem’s statement matches Mathlib’s own statement of FLT. So it proved the…
Not OP, but here is an example using tidyverse (I leave the meaning of it to you; should be clear without any R knowledge): purchases |> group_by(country) |> filter(amount <= median(amount) * 10) |> summarize(total =…
[dead]
> The bare R experience is not that great Why do you say that? Base R is arguably nicer to work with data than pandas is for example. Happy to provide specific examples to prove my point if you want.