survival8

Sunday, March 27, 2022

Word Meanings (12 words) - 2022-Mar-27

Index of Word Meanings

hearken
/ˈhɑːk(ə)n/

verb
past tense: hearkened; past participle: hearkened

ARCHAIC
listen.
"he refused to hearken to Tom's words of wisdom"

---

coda
/ˈkəʊdə/

noun MUSIC
noun: coda; plural noun: codas

the concluding passage of a piece or movement, typically forming an addition to the basic structure.
"the first movement ends with a fortissimo coda"

# the concluding section of a dance, especially of a pas de deux or the finale of a ballet in which the dancers parade before the audience.
# a concluding event, remark, or section.
"his new novel is a kind of coda to his previous books"

Origin

mid 18th century: Italian, from Latin cauda ‘tail’.

---

expediency
/ɪkˈspiːdɪənsi,ɛkˈspiːdɪənsi/

noun

noun: expediency; plural noun: expediencies

the quality of being convenient and practical despite possibly being improper or immoral; convenience.
"an act of political expediency"

Similar:
convenience
advantage
advantageousness
usefulness
utility

---

troupe
/truːp/

noun
noun: troupe; plural noun: troupes

a group of dancers, actors, or other entertainers who tour to different venues.
"a dance troupe"
h
Similar:
group

company
band
ensemble
set

cast

Origin

---

primordial
/prʌɪˈmɔːdɪəl/

adjective
adjective: primordial

existing at or from the beginning of time; primeval.
"the primordial oceans"

Similar:
ancient

earliest
first
prehistoric
antediluvian
antique
primeval
primitive
primal
autochthonous
autochthonic
primigenial

Opposite:
modern

(especially of a feeling or state) basic and fundamental.
"the primordial needs of the masses"
h
Similar:
instinctive

primitive
basic
primal
primeval
intuitive
intuitional
involuntary
inborn
innate
inherent
inbred
natural
congenital
hereditary
inherited
in the blood

ingrained
Biology
(of a cell, part, or tissue) in the earliest stage of development.
"primordial germ cells"

Origin
late Middle English: from late Latin primordialis ‘first of all’, from primordius ‘original’ (see primordium).

---

stave
/steɪv/

See definitions in:
all
building
carpentry
weapons
music
prosody

noun

noun: stave; plural noun: staves; noun: staff; plural noun: staffs

1.
a vertical wooden post or plank in a building or other structure.
any of the lengths of wood fixed side by side to make a barrel, bucket, or other container.
a strong wooden stick or iron pole used as a weapon.
2.
British•Music
a set of five parallel lines on any one or between any adjacent two of which a note is written to indicate its pitch.
3.
a verse or stanza of a poem.

Phrases
stave in
break something by forcing it inwards or piercing it roughly. "the door was staved in"

stave off
avert or delay something bad or dangerous. "a reassuring presence can stave off a panic attack"

Origin
Middle English: back-formation from staves, archaic plural of staff1. Current senses of the verb date from the early 17th century.

stave in
phrasal verb of stave
verb: stave

break something by forcing it inwards or piercing it roughly.
"the door was staved in"
Similar:
break in

smash in
put a hole in
push in
kick in
cave in
splinter
shiver

fracture

stave off
phrasal verb of stave
verb: stave

avert or delay something bad or dangerous.
"a reassuring presence can stave off a panic attack"

Similar:
avert

prevent
avoid
preclude
rule out
counter
forestall

---

beaver 1
/ˈbiːvə/
See definitions in:
all
mammal
clothing
textiles
scouting
military history

noun

plural noun: beavers; plural noun: Beavers

1.
a large semiaquatic broad-tailed rodent native to North America and northern Eurasia. It is noted for its habit of gnawing through trees to fell them in order to make dams.
the soft light brown fur of the beaver.
"long coats trimmed with light beaver"
historical
a hat made of felted beaver fur.
noun: beaver hat; plural noun: beaver hats
a heavy woollen cloth resembling felted beaver fur.
noun: beaver cloth; plural noun: beaver cloths
a very hard-working person.
"Hopkins was a regular beaver where gardening was concerned"
2.
a boy aged about 6 or 7 who is an affiliated member of the Scout Association.

verbinformal
3rd person present: beavers

work hard.
"Bridget beavered away to keep things running smoothly"

Origin
Old English beofor, befor, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch bever and German Biber, from an Indo-European root meaning ‘brown’.

...

beaver 2
/ˈbiːvə/
noun
plural noun: beavers

the lower part of the face guard of a helmet in a suit of armour. The term is also used to refer to the upper part or visor, or to a single movable guard.

Origin
late 15th century: from Old French baviere ‘bib’, from baver ‘slaver’.

...

beaver 3
/ˈbiːvə/
noun
plural noun: beavers

1.
vulgar slang•North American
a woman's genitals or pubic area.
2.
dated•informal
a bearded man.

Origin
early 20th century: of unknown origin.

---

prosaic
/prə(ʊ)ˈzeɪɪk/

adjective
adjective: prosaic

having or using the style or diction of prose as opposed to poetry; lacking imaginativeness or originality.
"prosaic language can't convey the experience"

Similar:
unimaginative

uninspired
matter-of-fact
dull
dry
humdrum
mundane
pedestrian
heavy
plodding
lifeless
dead
spiritless
lacklustre
undistinguished
stale
jejune
bland
insipid
vapid
vacuous
banal
hackneyed
trite
literal
factual
unpoetic
unemotional
unsentimental
clear
plain
unadorned
unembellished
unvarnished
monotonous
deadpan
flat

Opposite:
imaginative
inspired

commonplace; unromantic.
"the masses were too preoccupied by prosaic day-to-day concerns"
h
Similar:
ordinary

everyday
usual
common
conventional
straightforward
routine
humdrum
commonplace
run-of-the-mill
workaday
businesslike
pedestrian
tame
mundane
dull
dreary
tedious
boring
ho-hum
uninspiring
monotonous

h
Opposite:
interesting

Origin
late 16th century (as a noun denoting a prose writer): from late Latin prosaicus, from Latin prosa ‘straightforward (discourse)’ (see prose). Current senses of the adjective date from the mid 18th century.

---

licentious
/lʌɪˈsɛnʃəs/

adjective
adjective: licentious

1.
promiscuous and unprincipled in sexual matters.
"the ruler's tyrannical and licentious behaviour"

Similar:
dissolute

dissipated
debauched
degenerate
salacious
immoral
wanton
decadent
depraved
profligate
impure
sinful
wicked
corrupt
indecent
libertine
lustful
lecherous
lascivious
libidinous
prurient
lubricious
lewd
promiscuous
unchaste
carnal
fleshly
intemperate
abandoned
ribald
risqué
smutty
dirty
filthy
coarse
perverted
horny
raunchy
naughty
pervy
randy
concupiscent
lickerish

Opposite:
moral

virtuous
2.
archaic
disregarding accepted conventions, especially in grammar or literary style.

Origin
late Middle English: from Latin licentiosus, from licentia ‘freedom’.

---

10.

begrudge
/bɪˈɡrʌdʒ/

verb
gerund or present participle: begrudging

1.
envy (someone) the possession or enjoyment of (something).
"she begrudged Martin his affluence"

Similar:
envy

grudge
resent
be jealous of
be envious of
be resentful of

2.
give reluctantly or resentfully.
"nobody begrudges a single penny spent on health"

Similar:
resent
feel aggrieved about
feel bitter about
be annoyed about
be angry about
be displeased about
be resentful of
grudge
mind
object to
take exception to
regret
give unwillingly
give reluctantly
give resentfully
give stintingly

be dissatisfied with

Translate begrudging to

---

11.

vexed
/ˈvɛkst/

adjective
adjective: vexed

1.
(of a problem or issue) difficult and much debated; problematic.
"the vexed question of how much money the government is going to spend"

Similar:
disputed

in dispute
contested
in contention
contentious
debated
debatable
open to debate
open to question
questionable
at issue
open to doubt
controversial
moot
unresolved
unsettled
up in the air
undecided
yet to be decided
undetermined
unconcluded
ongoing
problematic
problematical
taxing
knotty
thorny
ticklish
delicate
sticky
dicey
hairy
iffy
dodgy

Opposite:
undisputed
resolved

2.
annoyed, frustrated, or worried.
"I'm very vexed with you!"

Similar:
annoyed
irritated
angry
irate
furious
incensed
inflamed
enraged
infuriated
maddened
fuming
wrathful
choleric
exasperated
piqued
irked
nettled
ill-humoured
hot-tempered
testy
cross
in a bad mood
in a temper
in high dudgeon
huffy
in a huff
put out
fed up
disgruntled
displeased
dissatisfied
frustrated
resentful
upset
perturbed
fretted
bothered
troubled
worried
agitated
harassed
harried
flustered
distressed
aggravated
peeved
miffed
miffy
mad
riled
hacked off
peed off
hot under the collar
foaming at the mouth
browned off
cheesed off
brassed off
not best pleased
narked
eggy
teed off
ticked off
sore
steamed
vex
ireful
snuffy
wrath
vulgar slang
pissed off
pissed

Opposite:
calm

content

---

12.

vex
/vɛks/
verb
past tense: vexed; past participle: vexed

make (someone) feel annoyed, frustrated, or worried, especially with trivial matters.
"the memory of the conversation still vexed him"

Similar:
annoy

irritate
infuriate
anger
incense
inflame
enrage
irk
chagrin
exasperate
madden
pique
provoke
nettle
disturb
upset
perturb
discompose
put out
try
try someone's patience
get on someone's nerves
bother
trouble
worry
agitate
harass
harry
fuss
fluster
ruffle
hound
rankle with
nag
torment
pain
distress
tease
frustrate
chafe
grate
fret
gall
outrage
displease
offend
disgust
dissatisfy
disquiet
rub up the wrong way
mither
peeve
aggravate
miff
bug
bite
eat
hassle
rile
get to
hack off
make someone's blood boil
make someone see red
get someone's goat
get someone's hackles up
make someone's hackles rise
get someone's back up
get someone's dander up
drive up the wall
drive bananas
needle
be a pain in the neck
ruffle someone's feathers
get in someone's hair
get under someone's skin
give someone a hard time
nark
get on someone's wick
give someone the hump
wind up
get across
get up someone's nose
tick off
ride
rankle
gravel
bum out
vulgar slang
piss off
get on someone's tits

Opposite:
mollify

appease
West Indian
be annoyed, irritated, or unhappy.
"I wouldn't vex; it will be just great if whoever borrow the pump, just bring it back"
archaic
cause distress to.
"thou shalt not vex a stranger"

Origin
late Middle English: from Old French vexer, from Latin vexare ‘shake, disturb’.

Counting Till 20 (Auto-reader)

Chapter 1 - Power of Framing (Negotiating the Impossible)

1: THE POWER OF FRAMING
Negotiating in the NFL

“YOU’VE GOT TO COME up with some new idea. You guys keep talking past each other instead of to each other.”1 These were the exasperated words of United States Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, who had been tasked with helping to end an escalating conflict between players and owners in the National Football League (NFL). It was May 2011, and team owners had already locked out the players. Much of the action was taking place in courtrooms, as each side tried to gain leverage through legal maneuverings.
Ultimately, if a deal could not be struck, the coming season would be in jeopardy. This was not just a theoretical possibility: in 2005, a prolonged dispute between owners and players had decimated an entire season in the National Hockey League, eliminating more than $2 billion in projected revenue. The NFL had even more to lose, with approximately $10 billion standing in the balance.
With so much money at stake in professional sports, you can be assured that, once in a while, the action at the bargaining table will rival anything fans get to witness on the field. At issue in 2011 was the fate of the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), a multiyear contract between owners and the players’ union that governs the negotiation of individual contracts for all NFL players. The CBA also dictates, among other things, the revenue distribution between players and owners, the salary cap, minimum salaries, free agency rules, the terms of the annual draft, and working conditions. As in most CBA disputes in sports, one of the most salient and contentious issues in 2011 surrounded revenue sharing between owners and players. In other words, what percentage of the game’s revenue should go to players and what percentage to owners? In this case, the owners were demanding a $2 billion off-the-top credit to support investments before any split of revenues would take place, after which the players would receive approximately 58% of what remained. Players wanted no off-the-top credit for owners, and a 50–50 split of all revenues.2
How do you resolve a dispute in which the demands of each party add up to more than is on the table—and neither side is willing to concede?

NEGOTIATING THE IMPOSSIBLE

The conflict escalated, and good faith bargaining gave way to legal maneuverings, heavy-handed tactics, and even appeals to the US Congress for intervention. Finally, there was a breakthrough. The resolution came when the parties agreed to a proposal (originating from the owners) that called for an entirely novel structure for revenue sharing. They decided that the way forward was to stop negotiating over “what percentage of all revenue” goes to each party. Instead, the parties would divide “all revenue” into three separate buckets that represented the different streams of NFL revenue. Then, they negotiated a different revenue sharing percentage for each bucket. The idea worked. The final agreement, signed August 4, 2011, states that players will receive:

• 55% of League Media revenue (e.g., revenue from TV rights)

• 45% of NFL Ventures / Postseason revenue (i.e., revenues from related businesses of the NFL)

• 40% of Local revenue (e.g., stadium revenue)

The solution, however, begs the question: What percentage of all revenues do the players receive from this deal? Running the numbers indicates that the three-buckets solution gives the players between 47% and 48% of all revenues in the first year of the contract. But wait! If that’s the case, why go to all the trouble of creating three buckets with different percentages for each? Why not avoid the hassle of creating a new accounting system and simply agree to the players getting ~47.5% of all revenues?

There is an economically rational explanation for why three buckets may be a wiser solution than one big bucket. For example, consider what happens after the first year of the contract. If the players expect that League Media revenue will grow faster and hence represent a larger share of all revenues in the future, and the owners project that Local revenue will grow more rapidly, then the three-buckets approach is a value creating solution: it gives each side a higher percentage of the bucket it values most. The only problem with this economically rational explanation is that it has very little to do with why the two sides actually agreed to three buckets. We can be sure that the economically rational explanation falls short because when you read further down in the CBA, there is another provision that contains the following language:

If, in any of the 2012–14 League Years, the Player Cost Amount … is greater than 48% of Projected “All Revenue” then the Player Cost Amount will be reduced to 48% of Projected “All Revenue.” … If, in any of these League Years, the Player

Cost Amount is less than 47% of Projected “All Revenue”, the Player Cost Amount shall be increased to 47% of Projected “All Revenue.”

In other words, the two sides are agreeing to roughly 47.5% of all revenues going to players. If the percentage deviates in any meaningful way from 47.5% in any direction, it will be brought back to this relatively tight range.3

So we still have the same question: why go to the trouble of creating three buckets if the agreement is practically indistinguishable from what they could have achieved by agreeing to some specified percentage of all revenues for each year of the contract? To answer this, we need to first keep in mind that very few people actually look carefully at these kinds of contracts, and almost no media outlets comprehensively report or analyze the finer details of the deal. Second, while practically inconsequential, there is a small degree of movement possible in the revenue split in future years.
Most importantly, the three-buckets approach is superior to the one-bucket approach in one essential respect: it allows each side to go back to its constituents and declare victory. It creates just enough room for league negotiators to report to the owners that they can keep a higher percentage of revenues where owner investments are greater (i.e., stadium-related revenues), and it lets Players Association negotiators announce that they get more than 50% of revenues whenever fans click on the television.

CONTROL THE FRAME

As the NFL example illustrates, even in difficult negotiations where the parties are deadlocked, stalemate might be overcome without the use of money or muscle.4 Even though the argument was over money, the league did not have to keep throwing more dollars on the table to get the players to agree to the deal. Instead, what they did is a great illustration of the power of framing: objectively identical proposals can be made more or less attractive simply by how they are presented.
The “frame” of the negotiation is a psychological lens. It is a sense-making apparatus that influences how people perceive each other, the issues at hand, and the options that exist. There is almost no limit to the number and types of frames that can emerge in a negotiation. For example, negotiators may look at a deal through a financial or a strategic lens, see it from a short-term or a long-term perspective, or regard it as a friendly or hostile engagement. Likewise, diplomats may look at a problem from a political or a security point of view, as being a central or a peripheral concern, or in a historic or present-day context. Deal makers may evaluate a proposal relative to their initial aspirations for the deal, or how well it compares to what others have achieved, or how it will be judged by others.
There are no “right” or “wrong” frames, but which frame takes hold has important implications for how the parties behave and what they will ultimately be willing to accept. For example, sometimes a low-stakes issue that neither side really cares much about becomes infused with so much political or symbolic significance that neither side is willing or able to back down. In recent years, Democrats and Republicans in the United States Congress have been confronting this problem extensively: compromise on the slightest issue is considered by many partisans to be akin to wholesale betrayal, making it harder to reach agreements even where there is a lot at stake and plenty of bipartisan support on the substance of an issue.
Importantly, negotiators almost always have the power to influence the frame, and as we will see, reframing can be a powerful tool for overcoming barriers to deal making. Regardless of the objective stakes, much of what determines how people approach a problem depends on how they (or their constituents) subjectively make sense of it. Deal makers are unwilling to make concessions to perceived adversaries but are more amenable to doing so when they perceive the task as a collaborative problem-solving effort. Negotiators who frame a conflict as “winner takes all” will have a harder time than negotiators who believe it is possible for everyone to “win.”
Negotiators will be more or less willing to accept certain proposals when they adopt a short-term versus a longterm lens, or when the offer appears better versus worse than what they initially expected. As we discuss the power of framing throughout this section, we will pay particular attention to how objectively identical proposals and options can be reframed to make them more attractive to the other side. Paying attention not just to the substance of what is being negotiated, but also the lens through which parties are evaluating their options, can sometimes help break seemingly impossible deadlocks.
Control the frame of the negotiation. The frame that takes hold will shape how negotiators make decisions, evaluate options, and decide what is acceptable.

THE IMPORTANCE OF HELPING THE OTHER SIDE BACK DOWN

The problems that negotiators face in early stages of deal making can be quite different from the problems they face as talks progress. One critical difference relates to the reasons why someone stubbornly insists on making demands that you cannot possibly meet. When this happens early in a negotiation, it is usually a sign that you have failed to set appropriate expectations for what is possible.

This can lead the other side to ask for the impossible—that is, to demand concessions that are true deal breakers for you. This is why it is a good idea to educate the other side at the outset about the limits of what you can offer and about the areas where you have more or less flexibility. Negotiators often fail to do this in the false belief that the other side is well-enough informed about the parameters of the negotiation, or because they are worried that discussing any limitations or constraints will raise doubts about their value as a partner. There may also be insufficient trust, making it harder for either side to believe that the other is genuinely so constrained, or that there is truly so little room for movement.

When people are initially deadlocked over incompatible positions, it usually means that their aspirations are unrealistic and there is simply not enough value on the table to meet them. If both sides want more than 50% of the pot, you have a serious problem, and the sooner you realize that it has nothing do with poor math skills, the better off you will be. This was undoubtedly the case in the NFL. The same problem frequently surfaces in diplomatic negotiations and business disputes.

But at some point in the process, perhaps after weeks of interaction, or months of trust building, or years of impasse, one or both parties may come to the conclusion that their earlier demands are not possible, and that major concessions will be needed to avoid a truly disastrous outcome. When that day comes, you may find that people are still unwilling to lower their demands. Now, you no longer have an education or trust problem to solve. The problem is how to get the other side to admit that they initially asked for more than was reasonable, and to back down and accept what is actually possible. The problem is all the worse when the other side will have to back down publicly, because they have committed to aggressive positions in front of others (e.g., their constituents or the media).

In my experience, it is often relatively easier to get people to understand that they have overreached and that their demands are impossible to meet; it is a lot harder to get them to acknowledge this and change course. This was the problem that the NFL negotiators faced—and ultimately solved.
Convincing the other party that they will have to concede or withdraw from initial positions is not enough. You have to make it easier for them to back down.

NEGOTIATE STYLE AND STRUCTURE, NOT JUST THE SUBSTANCE

When the NFL negotiations were deadlocked, either side could have tried to make the deal more attractive to the other by reducing their own revenue demands. But this would have been a costly concession. As the solution they reached shows, you do not always have to throw money at the problem to move things along. Sometimes, wise concessions on style and structure can solve the problem more cheaply than costly concessions on substance. In this case, the three-buckets solution seems to have helped the parties accept a deal that did not seem palatable with a one-bucket structure, even though the objective value of the deal was almost identical. Negotiators who are mindful of style and structure are better positioned to overcome resistance, avoid impasse, and achieve better outcomes.

Wise concessions on style and structure can help solve a problem more cheaply than costly concessions on substance.

In the next chapter, we take a closer look at the various ways in which framing can help break deadlock without using money or muscle. In doing so, we derive more principles for resolving conflict of all kinds. We also devote particular attention to two factors that were at play in the NFL negotiations and that can make deadlocks especially difficult to break.

First, there is the audience problem. The other side may be concerned not just with what they get from you, but also with how others will judge their acceptance of your offer.

Second, there is the zero-sum problem. In a zerosum situation the amount that one side gains must precisely equal what the other side loses. When people are stuck negotiating over only one divisive issue, and there are no other interests involved, it becomes hard for them to make concessions without feeling they have lost and the other side has won. Let’s see how these issues might be tackled.

Saturday, March 26, 2022

Effects of Marketing in Africa on Top 20 Countries in terms of Page Views

Uganda:

Kenya:

Top 20 Locations:

Friday, March 25, 2022

The Firing at Mobileum (Jun 2018)

Index of Journals

I though I was going to write about the Dunnhumby Interview but it turned to be a completely different story about an incident that happened around the same time.

THE DUNNHUMBY REJECTION: It was my first serious interview for a data science job.

I have been working since 2013 but even to this date I cannot say what are the telltale signs of getting a pink slip, getting fired, being relieved from the job or starting of a separation process, or telltale signs of getting off boarded.

The first, foremost, palpable sign that you will be fired is that company starts reducing the dependency on you.

% Have you been asked to give KT (Knowledge Transfer)?

% Have you been not getting attention in calls and meetings?

% Have you been asked to work on low priority tasks?

% Have you been asked to work on trivial stuff?

% Has your reporting manager been changed to lower ranking employee?

....

The SECOND telltale sign that you will be fired soon is if you have been given a task to do in which you badly faltered or failed at least once in your employment history.
A related sign to first and second sign is the tacit lowering of your status in the company.
Like passing of comments by your team lead or manager of the sorts:
Turn around, bent down, pants down.

And:
Can a manager hit an employee at workplace with a shoe?
All of this was happening with me at Mobileum.
After this was roughly when I had seriously started taking my preparation for data science job interviews.

The hardest part about knowing whether or not you will be fired is to detect lying or deceitful behaviour by the people higher up your corporate ladder.
Here is a disclosure:
I always thought that Chandrashekhar Marathe (the Vice President) was an honest, straightforward man. I was wrong. After I had been relieved from the job, I was still in denial and I called Shekhar to ask him a few things like why was I fired, what can I do to get back in the job, and etc.

The information he divulged during this phone call was that Shekhar had known about the firing long back. More than that, he was the signatory approver of it.
He told me that he got the same feedback from all three managers I had worked with:
Dinesh Sawant
Rupesh Patodi, and
Prashant Saxena

The feedback was in three parts:
1) I was not sitting on seat but other people's desk or meeting rooms.

2) I was giving huge time expectations for every task.

3) My timings of coming in the office and leaving the office were very erratic and unusual.

Although everything looks crystal clear in the hindsight but back then when I was in the exit meeting with the HR director and Prashant Saxena that I had to submit my resignation letter before 5 PM, I was shocked to the level speechlessness and then in phase of denial for a long time post that day.

Thank you for reading.
See you in the next post.

Thursday, March 24, 2022

Twinkle Twinkle Little Star (With Prince and Piyush) 20220324

Machine Learning and Weka Interview (5 Questions)

Q1:
Topic: Naïve Bayes Classifier

A patient goes to see a doctor. The doctor performs a test with 99% reliability - that is, 99% of people who are sick test positive and 99% of the healthy people test negative. The doctor knows that only 1 percent of the people in the country are sick. Now the question is: if the test comes out positive, is the probability of the patient actually being sick 99%?

Q2:
Topic: Naïve Bayes Classifier

We have two classes: “spam” and “ham” (not spam).

Training Data:

Class: Ham
D1: “good.”
D2: “very good.”

Class: Spam 
D3: “bad.”
D4: “very bad.”
D5: “very bad, very bad.”

Test Data:
Identify the class for the following document:
D6: “good? bad! very bad!”

Q3:
Topic: Apriori Algorithm

TID : items_bought
T1 : { M,O,N,K,E,Y } 
T2 : { D,O,N,K,E,Y }
T3 : { M,A,K,E }
T4 : { M,U,C,K,Y }
T5 : { C,O,O,K,I,E }

Let minimum support = 60%
And minimum confidence = 80%
Find all frequent item sets using Apriori.


Q4:
Topic: Decision Tree Induction

Create the decision tree for the following data:

Outlook,Temperature,Humidity,Wind,Play Tennis
Sunny,Hot,High,Weak,No
Sunny,Hot,High,Strong,No
Overcast,Hot,High,Weak,Yes
Rain,Mild,High,Weak,Yes
Rain,Cool,Normal,Weak,Yes
Rain,Cool,Normal,Strong,No
Overcast,Cool,Normal,Strong,Yes
Sunny,Mild,High,Weak,No
Sunny,Cool,Normal,Weak,Yes
Rain,Mild,Normal,Weak,Yes
Sunny,Mild,Normal,Strong,Yes
Overcast,Mild,High,Strong,Yes
Overcast,Hot,Normal,Weak,Yes
Rain,Mild,High,Strong,No

Q5:
For Iris Flower dataset, show the correlation plots for each pair of attributes.

Iris dataset comes in ARFF format alongside Weka tool.

Wednesday, March 23, 2022

Twinkle Twinkle Little Star by Prince and Piyush (20220323)

Twinkle, twinkle, little star!
How I wonder what you are!
Up above the world so high,
Like a diamond in the sky.  

When the blazing sun is gone,
When he nothing shines upon,
Then you show your little light,
Twinkle, twinkle, all the night.  

Then the traveller in the dark,
Thanks you for your tiny spark,
He could not see which way to go,
If you did not twinkle so.  

In the dark blue sky you keep,
And often through my curtains peep,
For you never shut your eye,
Till the sun is in the sky. 

It's your bright and tiny spark,
Lights the traveller in the dark,
Though I know not what you are,
Twinkle, twinkle, little star.