As long as you stick to basic CNO type chemistry, you can probably figure
out a valid SMILES generator pretty quickly. But it might be easier to
work in the explicit molecule graph instead and just use SMILES as a
content name string. The things that might go wrong after the SMILES input
parses c
A search algorithm that, say, proposes a prefix or a suffix to a SMILES string
would need to have a way to autocomplete candidates before it could use these
descriptors to guide an optimization because the parsing step is non-trivial,
never mind the sanitization step (mentioned on that web page)
Hmm, when I was in the drug discovery canal, the "descriptors" that you
could calculate from a SMILES string were legion.
Here's the list for RDKIT,
https://www.rdkit.org/docs/GettingStartedInPython.html#list-of-available-descriptors.
There are one bunch that depend entirely on the formula and mol
< An employee of mine once claimed "you don't understand my process". >
I am really amazed how many interviews presume to try to understand how their
candidates think.
If it can be understood, it can be programmed. If it can be programmed, you
don't need the candidate.
If your poor employe
Here's what I posted, for clarity. Your taking 1 sentence out of context is ...
[ahem] ... slop.
On 10/12/21 11:13 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> "General Semantics" reminds me of this guy:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Raniere
>
> or perhaps this guy:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubb
"I post here because I like contextually laden posts."
Ha. If only. Most of my posts (as well as just about everyone else that
attempts to write meaningfully) are met with banality with probability near
one, so don't give me that slop. You made a claim about something
mattering:
*"What matters is
In the Usenet days I had the sense that it was possible to argue down people.
It might take a lot of work, but it was possible. The opposition might take
you out of context or play rhetorical tricks, but there wasn’t fundamentally
bad faith. There was some sense that there were winners and l
Ha! Don't make the mistake of thinking because I act one way, my actions are an
attempt to control your actions. You do whatever floats your listing boat. I
was explaining my is→ought inference, not yours.
However, to whatever extent another finds my laid out rhetoric plausible, they
are free t
Why should any particular forum adhere to a set of rules or some arbitrary
definition? In the CS Department at Carnegie Mellon there was the Opinion
Bboard. The rule was that anything goes. A discussion of erotic fantasies
(euphemism) emerged. A woman who was a high level administrator became
o
Well, similar to your "why must I mean all that" reaction to my past attempt at
some kind of state space reconstruction of a pithy post from you, I can
construct *many* generative models for your "Matters to what/whom?" post. But
if it'll simply end with another pithy rejection of whatever I rec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkuNWDG3yNM&t=70s&ab_channel=DWNews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obsHRjulO8A&ab_channel=DWNews
...
So I can imagine a double-digit kyu witnessing Taiwan's "reintegration"
into China and thinking, sure, you can capture those guys, do it! And then,
I can almost h
I was playing with RDKIT the other day, and it wasn’t obvious how to get a
scalar quantity of plausibility of a molecule. It seems a SMILES string is
right or wrong, and then maybe there are some warnings that can be trapped.
However, the benefits for search or fair sampling are different th
"I call it heart rate research."
Ah yes, the banality of evil. Where's Hannah.
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/
"Bah. I understand it can be fun to troll. But if you can't make at least
an attempt to avoid blankface pithiness, I can't respond."
Sorry, I thought we were one something like the same wavelength there. Care
to expand? Feel free to call me if you imagine that I am in anything but
good faith chatt
"I mean from the perspective of aesthetics. Understanding why Pandora is
messing it up means sampling the deep wells."
Yes, but not more than one has to. This is why I am advocating for methods
like a weighted ensemble. The working analogy for me comes from drug
discovery. It doesn't make a lot of
I mean from the perspective of aesthetics. Understanding why Pandora is
messing it up means sampling the deep wells.
From: Friam On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 11:16 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?
"Computing distributional overlap out in
I call it heart rate research.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 12:29 PM Jon Zingale wrote:
> "if you're purposeful enough to actually target something ... instead of
> staring at all the fingers."
>
> Ah, I knew it w
Bah. I understand it can be fun to troll. But if you can't make at least an
attempt to avoid blankface pithiness, I can't respond.
On 10/12/21 11:25 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> "What matters is whether a silly dance on TikTok goes viral."
>
> Matters to what/whom? I understand that it is a joke to
"if you're purposeful enough to actually target something ... instead of
staring at all the fingers."
Ah, I knew it would come back around to Frank's phoney 1970's race research.
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoo
"What matters is whether a silly dance on TikTok goes viral."
Matters to what/whom? I understand that it is a joke to imagine
stewardship, but virality and its effects are the consequences of
structural design.
Wrt TypeFocus, seems like FaceBook should have (or maybe did) used that
before hiring
Ha! Well, I wouldn't fault Pandora for playing that tune on my Swill station.
But I'd thumbs down it. So, perhaps I'm a hypocrite.
My point about pointing was that there are scopes of similarity, some tightly
focused on the sign, some tightly focused on the referent, some (Korzybski?)
tightly f
"Computing distributional overlap out in the tails of high dimensional
distributions… Seems like it couldn’t possibly be sampled well
enough to be informative."
But isn't that where the money is? It is this kind of sampling game
with limited resources over ridiculously large spaces that some of
"General Semantics" reminds me of this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Raniere
or perhaps this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard
(Funny story: We met a customer at the pub the other day who calls himself
"Captain". When I asked him "What are you the Captain of?", the ba
I just listen to "Shuffle" which suits my purposes but it may be the least
satisfactory for you.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 10:58 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> Well, to be a little clearer, the Dwarves qualify as Swill.
Computing distributional overlap out in the tails of high dimensional
distributions… Seems like it couldn’t possibly be sampled well enough to be
informative.
From: Friam On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:52 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?
PPS. Wrt the distinction between popularity and similarity, there is a
sense to me that they both still aim to "point" at means, and this IMO, is
part of the problem:
With deep wells come deep silos.
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexit
Wow, Tijuana Cartel, now that's what my morning has been missing. So
are the similarity algorithms actually different or simply different
datasets? I get why similarity seems like a good idea at first, but
clearly, now that the boat is moving... or maybe said a different way,
"You have your whole l
Well, to be a little clearer, the Dwarves qualify as Swill. Danzig and Tool do
not. Rage Against the Machine comes close enough. It's obvious their technical
skill prevents them from being Swill. But their target emotional response is
the same. So I gave Pandora some slack there.
What I find ir
I was thinking D.E. Shaw, Musk, Gates Foundation, that sort of thing. I don’t
see academics as particularly privileged. In some ways it seems rather
miserable. I can see why the billionaires invest in age research. The first
life has to be spent getting the pile of money to spend in the se
"Canal hopping is distinct from turning up the heat?"
In the Brownian limit, no, but otherwise yes.
"To *really* keep foraging it seems to me vast privilege is needed."
I hear you as advocating for academia-like institutions, here? I
understand the classic arguments, that it is difficult to rese
Canal hopping is distinct from turning up the heat? Some bruising can be
expected when one bounces off the side of a canal 20 feet up in the air, and
lands on a bike stand. Is there really any more to hustle? By dumb luck one
can find some other interesting place this way. A problem with
I haven't read it, yet, but intend to:
Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs for alcohol use disorder
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32159228/
If we believe the results, my guess is the mechanism of action is *not* belief,
but behavior. Emotion is a poignant behavior and shouldn't rea
"""
I want to get this into some ethics of AI/ML course materials, but I guess
it would be the aesthetics of AI/ML and the ethics of inflicting bad
aesthetics on a captive audience.
"""
Perhaps, it could be part of a wider collection of courses called "The
Aesthetics of Domination"? Tongues-in-che
Running takes a lot of time. Runners say it is good, and often try to recruit
more runners, but the activity is probably a net productivity drain. The
elevated alertness after running doesn't last that long. It creates a focus
around something that is pretty fleeting. Perhaps runners live
The source of all evil is *'is'*.
This notion is implicit and semi-explicit in most mystical philosophies and is
explicitly applied to thinking in the works of Korzibski and the General
Semantics literature that was briefly popular and widespread a few decades back.
davew
On Tue, Oct 12, 202
Chuang Tzu's butcher did explain how he did it — "I just cut where the meat
isn't."
davew
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, at 7:03 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> As Yogi Berra might have said: all this talk about the ineffable, je ne sais
> quoi.
>
> The way that can be spoken is not the way, because the
Exactly, which is why Hume's Law is a criticism of axiomatic thinking. We
clearly do derive ought from is. Is is the only is that is. Is this a type of
moral realism? Emergentist morality?
On 10/12/21 6:03 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> As Yogi Berra might have said: all this talk about the ineffa
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 9:22 PM Jon Zingale wrote:
> [...]
>
> That said, I made some effort a few weeks ago (as well as on Friday) to
> get a conversation started around what suggestion engines and search
> engines could potentially do differently. One promising idea I have been
> researching a
Stephen,
Is this your work?
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
Nick
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfi
As Yogi Berra might have said: all this talk about the ineffable, je ne
sais quoi.
The way that can be spoken is not the way, because the speaking itself
spoils the effect. Chuang Tzu's butcher can carve a beast in one fluid
stroke of the knife, but he can't explain how he's doing it; and if he d
I feel that way about anyone who "stands in awe" of anything, actually. We're
consistently bombarded with phrases like "the majesty of" this or that ... or
this or that "takes my breath away" and whatnot. Maybe we could call such
nonsense the Idioms of Awe. Religious belief is the favorite bogey
41 matches
Mail list logo
