No. The LLVM foundation is.
By numbers, Apple probably isn't even the largest contributor anymore (but this is just a guess based on mailing list traffic)
But it also depends on what you count. Google definitely has more people working directly on LLVM itself than Apple (At Google, they almost all work for me, and I know the numbers for Apple).
If you start to include related open source projects (like clang, etc), the numbers get closer, but then you have things like all of the Android related open source stuff that gets worked on (Renderscript), etc.
In any case, i'm not sure what the goal of any corporate measuring contest would be here. We are all friendly and working on the same open source projects. It's not about what "Google is doing" or "Apple is doing" but "what is getting done in the LLVM project".
Google and Apple used to be friendly and working on the same open source project named WebKit. Looking at the precedent, it is not unreasonable to consider such things, even if everything is okay in LLVM at the moment.
The LLVM project as a whole has many contributors from many different companies working on things they care about and contributing it back to the community.
They fill the same role as concepts - ie. bringing type checking to the call site when using parametrized types, rather than using a duck typed approach, which leads to the big template stack traces that you get in C++.
There are some technical details that make them different, if I recall correctly. But they're kinda similar. They're also close to Haskell's typeclasses.
I went through college without a Facebook, but I made one shortly after graduating and I've been using it more and more (about 3 years).
I now realize that in retrospect it was a huge mistake as I missed out on a lot. I think on a certain level, if you don't have a FB, people won't make the extra effort to try and contact you. Its most important social function is turning acquaintances into friends
So just as a PSA, please please use Facebook. Even if you don't like it and you think they're a horrible company, you won't appreciate how much you're hurting yourself till it's too late
I never had a FB account. I'm 39 and married. Exactly what am I missing out on?
I use email and text message for most correspondence, and have LinkedIn mainly as a virtual Rolodex so I can get in touch with old friends and colleagues.
I don't get what I'm missing. Maybe I'm just in the wrong demographic?
I made an account back when it was popular, and used it hard for about six months, then evaluated if it did anything for me. Answer, no, so deleted.
The kids had a fad of facebook about a year ago, they guilt tripped me into rejoining, they used it hard for a couple months, now its dead. It was weird because all the people who used to use FB, stopped. Its very quiet...
I'm 37 and married, also never used Facebook. I think the difference is that we probably have established social circles and can also get drawn into more via a partner who may use Facebook.
I think OP is referencing going through high school and tertiary study without Facebook and I can see their point.
The RStudio guys have really made R a pleasure to use. Thank you guys!
The core language is still a confusing mess (I'm still never sure when to use a matrix, a dataframe, a list..), but if you use their tools you can ignore it for the most part.
In under 10 lines you can massage data and generate fantastic graphics.
A little off topic: but does anyone know what their business model is? Are they going to run out of money and burnout in a year or two?
And no, we're not planning on burning out. We currently sell three things:
* RStudio Server Pro. An commercial version of the open-source server version that provides stuff that corporate IT wants (e.g. monitoring, more auth options, ...)
* Shiny Server Pro. A more flexible version of the open-source shiny server that offers more configurability (e.g. number of R processes per app), and again other stuff that corporate IT wants.
* Right to use the RStudio desktop IDE to companies who don't want to use AGPL software
Here's how I think of it, which has been working for me:
matrix - If you have data that would make sense to be in a spreadsheet-type format and all your data are numbers.
dataframe - If you have data that would make sense to be in a spreadsheet-type format and some columns are numbers but other columns are something else (character strings, dates, TRUE/FALSE); but each column is only one thing. That is, you have one column that's all dates, another column that's all numbers, yet another column that's all character strings, etc.
list - if you need to mix data types within a certain entity (vector or column of data).
To piggyback on what hadley said a bit, I find thinking of a data frame as a "collection of records", and a matrix as "two dimensional data" to be a bit better.
One useful heuristic worth asking is "Does it make sense to sort this data by something". In that case, you have a data frame. Whereas if you want to perform matrix math on something (inverting it, multiplying it by another matrix, reducing it, etc.), you have a matrix. Things that I use a matrix for can generally also be expressed as a data frame with columns rowId, colId, and value. If it doesn't make sense in that format, a matrix is generally not the appropriate structure.
I'd amend that a little: use a matrix when you're actually calculating statistics (internally to the function). Clean your data so it always fits in a data frame when you load it. Lists are for representing things like data scraped from html before converting it to a data frame.
I find Facebook lists to be a lot more convenient for "micro-sharing". The lists are completely on your end, and none of your friends know what list they are on. It just makes it so that everything from you is targeted to them .
While he was not a communist, his plans for social justice were very threatening to the establishment
If you read "Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?" (which he wrote towards the end of his life), he basically says that the Civil Rights movement needs to shift from racial agenda to an agenda of helping the poor. However he never presents an actual plan other than some vague idea of a massive transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.
I'd go farther to argue that he's not a communist b/c he wasn't really thinking in those terms and he actively tried to avoid the label (that's why he took for ever to stand up against the war in Vietnam)
Are they really making money with Azure? Isn't that one of the most competitive markets at the moment? I'd imagine the margins are slim to none as everyone is trying to price each other out.
Unfortunately our perceptions can't be boiled down to chemicals in the brain. You can be depressed and have normal chemical levels. Just because increasing some chemical will make you happier, doesn't necessarily mean that's the only way.
Until we're able to analytically evaluate perception (which we are no where close to understanding), what you're describing isn't possible
There is no reason that chemicals are the only actively defining part of our mind. It may very well be that chemicals are everything we need to messure, it may also turn out that we need to messure a lot of other things. Point is we do not know, and have a growing problem to figure it out.
Structure. An integrated circuit is just doped silicon, but understanding its chemical composition tells you practically nothing about how it actually works.
This "chemical composition" is like reading packets off a broadcast network. It's not the full state, but it's good enough to reverse-engineer what's going on at a high level.
Blood work, including blood neurotransmitters and hormones, can tell you a lot about someone's state of mind specifically because of this.
The reality is that the professionals have better tools. It's not just gambling, it's gambling against someone that can see the cards.
If there is some method to turn $1 into $2 then there is a whole sea of people who are better and smarter than me who will keep doing it till that method no longer works.
> The reality is that the professionals have better tools. It's not just gambling, it's gambling against someone that can see the cards.
They may have better tools, but small investors have the advantage of being nimble.
If you're trading say, 10K per trade on large-cap stocks, you can have your entire trade executed within 10 seconds without moving the stock price (thanks to HFT, but that's another story). This makes trading on swings much easier for the small investor.
And there are plenty of tools available for the small investor, most brokers will give you access to them when you sign up for an account. Sure, you may not get streaming L2 quotes on a basic account, but you'll get all the company information you need and access to basic real-time quotes. If you want to get a little more sophisticated, you can use something like R to automate some of the information-gathering process, run models against historic data, or simply use it for very fancy charts (with every technical indicator known to mankind).
And, as has been mentioned, hedge funds, mutual funds, etc..., have different motives for trading. Sometimes they are hedging, sometimes diversifying, often they're very long term, etc... They're not always trading. Even HFT is mostly arbitrage. There's still plenty of room for small to medium traders to make money.
Professionals also have a much more diverse set of goals, obligations, and restrictions. For example a professional running an SP500 index fund is not going to buy a great deal just because they can see it. Their goal is to track the SP500 and that is how they will decide which deals to do.
Even for non-index managed funds there are often objectives or restrictions like cap size, geographical location, industry, time horizon, etc.
So while they might have better tools, they're not necessarily competing with you directly.
Obviously someone at Apple decided this makes business sense. What's the thinking?