I don't think I can argue much with nationalism. India has had nearly 70 years now without colonialism
I think you may find a large proportion of grandparents who will say the positive developments aren't anywhere to be found. Though there have been some nice things going on like having no one rule & no one to opress.
From my point of view, better the British than the Mughals.
If you're a keen scholar of history you may also find that if it were not for the British India would be many many small countries today.
I'm not sure if that counts but it would have had a different sort of destruction this way, perhaps it may have turned out better. Would you say secessionist states today are good for India?
When the British came the Mughals were already there. It is a bit different to remove that fish from butter and place it in margarine since it's not free to begin with.
I'm glad you said that. Indian culture and civilization still lives strong, it's just not only in India anymore.
You can thank the British for that (though I guess you hate them).
Guy, instead of arguing with me on HN where nothing will happen run in for politics or something where you can impact people's lives instead. Our family left long ago. Though we've left we're still quite attached.
68 years is long enough after colonial rule not to blame them on the current problems. Singapore did it and got independence later than India did.
Let's not forget post-colonialization. Less explicit, still as effective in resource grubbing and divide-and-conquer.
From the people that lovingly prepared the best conflict zones for after they leave, such as India-Pakistan, Israel-Palestine, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Iran-Iraq, Nothern-Southern Cyprus etc.
While I wouldn't agree with enputen's characterization of "deliberate", it's entirely possible that they've been kept weak by a class of strongman lenders & landlords. Not an evil cabal, just a bunch of people who have the strength to play unfairly in the market and haven't been stopped. I don't have any special information here; it's just a hypothesis I find plausible.
Given how they had the researcher effectively locked up in a hotel room with strict security measures, I'd say it's because they're terrified of corporate espionage and suchlike.
One of the parallelized versions is Gibbs sampling that is used for sampling from Bayesian networks. In this case you don't even need a proposal distribution; neither would you need the test from MH.
I think Graphlab (https://dato.com/) comes implemented with something of this kind.
The trouble with Particle swarms/Genetic algorithms is that they aren't guaranteed to sample from the underlying p.d. It is not yet apparent whether you can find the mode of a distribution faster by choosing a Markov chain whose stationary distribution is different from the underlying one.
Are you sure that Gibbs sampling isn't just the multivariate version of MH?
What I'm saying is that convergence speed for MH is limited by the fact that guesses cannot communicate with each other... which doesn't matter when you have a pencil and a 4 function calculator like when it was designed.
A genetic algorithm or a particle swarm algorithm is capable of much swifter convergence because the guesses _can_ communicate and influence the direction of the drunken walk.
When I was in grad school, we used MH to compute 400-dimensional integrals. We computed ground state and excited state properties of a particular system, using a wavefunction as the probability distribution. This was easily parallelized.
While I can't say that one guess communicated with others, I can say that whenever I moved one particle, the others knew about it immediately because the wavefunction described a strongly correlated system. Communication between guesses sounds really interesting though. I've been out of the game for a while, so I'll have to look that up.
If your goal is optimization then MH is a bad choice. This is fine since MH is simply not an optimization algorithm! It's design to make accurate samples from a posterior distribution which you can measure but not find a functional form for.
It's a vastly more challenging problem than mere optimization.
It is a multivariate (co-ordinate wise) version of MH. You can paralleize it because the Bayes net allows a decomposition of the p.d.
I feel like while your comment on Global-optimization algorithms may indeed be true, I don't quite yet believe that the hacks they involve are quite that general yet.
MH wasn't designed for Global optimization, and there is only one "particle". I guess this what you meant by "parallel" ?
Frequently you'll see things along the lines of "we ran 10,000 MCMC iterations to find the solution" and my first thought is "that must be a lot of wasted cycles."
I think I see what you mean now about the parallelization by decomposing the variables (splitting the problem into i separate problems which can be chained independently?)-- I didn't know that was a possibility. I'll have to look at that.
Well, you can run multiple simultaneous particle chains and sum their results. There's some wasted work since each will need to burn in, but modern algorithms can make that go quite quickly.
Bernie Sanders does appear much more consistent than Hillary; and he unlike Hillary has talked of dismantling the NSA. I'm afraid he won't make the Democratic nomination.
The other republicans seem like a bunch of idiots. It's likely that Hillary will come to power. She does seem to have the money for it.
