This is a chat thread. It is mostly unmoderated and casual. If interesting conversations emerge around specific topics, please create new topics. Remember that chat logs will be searchable.
To mute this thread (meaning you won’t get live chat updates or emails about them) click here.
BTW I’m going to treat this area as scratch space. If you @ me I might not respond if I don’t have time, and I’m not going to make a note to catch up on long chats.
Treat this like a chat room, basically.
Papers vs videos.
People have linked to both in their posts.
If you are a slow reader perhaps the video is good for you. The problem for me is that taking in an hour presentation takes an hour. I don’t know if I even want to watch it until after I have watched it.
I have felt that I have wasted the time it took to watch a video more than once.
Later, where was it that someone said something that I am looking for.
I find that I can scan through a paper faster to see if it is worth further attention -and- search the text for future reference.
I tend to post a lot of videos myself, since that medium sticks better in my case (I typically need to read a paper completely through several more times to grasp the information than watching a video – I’ll blame it on my ADD). Probably a good idea to write up at least a summary of the main points along with a video to help in sorting out whether it is interesting enough to watch or not.
I told Jeff this morning I had been arguing with Bayesians all weekend, and he said “you say that like you’re talking about aliens.” Which is kindof a funny concept. If only Star Trek would introduce the Bayesians… I wonder what they would look like. 
sortof like Vulcans then. 
Well you have to take into account both the probability that they are like Vulcans (which may be apparent from their physical appearance) and the probability that they are like anything else (Romulans, for example). Ok… I got nothing.
“Fascinating.”
It seems the that the natural grouping for Bayesians (according to google) is:
BAYESIANS, FREQUENTISTS, AND SCIENTISTS
We have the picture for Bayes, I think everyone has a good idea what a scientist might look like.
I am at a loss for what a Frequentist might look like.
