dellinspiron

Reddit is kindergarten compared to 4chan.

A real elevator would have stopped at each level.

Privacy is not "inside baseball"

It just calls https://github.com/pdf2htmlEX/pdf2htmlEX on the server.

I think people in the comments are completely missing the point of this work. As I understand it, and take this with a large grain of salt because I haven't read the paper, the idea of Jukebox is to take a certain style of music by a certain musician and have the algorithm sing, karaoke-style, the lyrics that are listed in the examples to the tune of that music. Think of it as a really jazzy version of Google text-to-speech. The lyrics are not written by this algorithm, it's just singing in the style of Sinatra or Lady Gaga some words that have been prewritten. It's fun to listen to and really amazing to watch it read the lyrics and decide where to put emphasis, and where not to - dragging out certain words and letting others be mumbled. Comparing this to something like IBM's rendition of a "Bicycle built for two" showcases how utterly mind-blowing this work is!

Finally, can we stop treating ever single piece of work by neural networks as a "failure" because it isn't GAI? Just because it doesn't "say something about the human experience", doesn't make it bad engineering. It's hilarious how as soon as there's some new AI work done everyone starts wailing, "where's the humanity!"

The US government is wholly unprepared to deal with the wicked smart ingenuity of modern corporations. These inquisitions by congress feel like little children running around picking up sticks after a house has burned down. Give up, you've already lost.

Comparing Rust to Go: > Of course there's a learning curve. Of course there's more concepts involved than just throwing for loops at byte slices and seeing what sticks, like the Go library does. > But the result is a high-performance, reliable and type-safe library. > It's worth it.

(Comparing a function in Rust's sdtlib to Go's:) > Of course there's a learning curve. Of course there's more concepts involved than just throwing for loops at byte slices and seeing what sticks, like the Go library does. > But the result is a high-performance, reliable and type-safe library. > It's worth it.

When I first saw Go, I was blown away. Not by its features, but rather the lack thereof. It seemed like one last "Hail Mary!" from the C programming community to get "back to basics". But, as the author showcases, the time when programming was about manipulating arrays with pointers is, if not behind us, hopefully on its way out.