Not for nothing but Ben did you read the article? He's not even discussing most of what you mention. He is simply taking his learning and applying it. You seem to be going off on a tangent about advanced applications where he is obviously just learning about how these things work and not trying to teach a method or suggesting that he has discovered anything significant..
To the author: I liked the article. A simple, concise read.
In Ben's defense: The original article declares random forest a "winner" over neural networks. Ben's comment is a cautionary note that this result only applies to a specific class of problems.
This was a nice post, but it's reasonable to warn users not to overgeneralize the algorithm comparison.
Comments
Not for nothing but Ben did you read the article? He's not even discussing most of what you mention. He is simply taking his learning and applying it. You seem to be going off on a tangent about advanced applications where he is obviously just learning about how these things work and not trying to teach a method or suggesting that he has discovered anything significant..
To the author: I liked the article. A simple, concise read.
In Ben's defense: The original article declares random forest a "winner" over neural networks. Ben's comment is a cautionary note that this result only applies to a specific class of problems.
This was a nice post, but it's reasonable to warn users not to overgeneralize the algorithm comparison.
He just shared some insights, he didn't critique anything and he's a Kaggler and published researcher so I don't get why he is getting downvoted.