Atto's default key bindings match Emacs, which is about as standard as you get for non-modal editing keys in older Unix traditions.
1,759 karma · joined February 7, 2011
Lead developer, LensKit recommender toolkit.
Ph.D, University of Minnesota.
Specifying identify files for specific hosts, using bastion hosts (ProxyJump), etc. For example, my laptop SSH config detects when I'm not on my university network or VPN and adds a ProxyJump through the department bastion host, but connects directly when I'm on the network. Configurations like that break when software makes too many assumptions about how ssh is configured.
Not perfect, but pretty good when uv isn't enough for a project or deployment scenario.
But you can have the best of both worlds with https://dtplyr.tidyverse.org/, using data.table's performance improvements with dplyr syntax.
This could be abstracted by libraries (e.g. a method in Qt to open a URL in the system browser automatically gets the token) so each application doesn't need to be updated separately, or possibly even OS services.
It isn't perfect, because there's no way to know that the browser isn't using the token to request focus for something else, but maintaining and validating chain of custody for focus across applications is exactly the problem it looks like they are working on solving.
This specific solicitation — CISE Core Programs — has a 2-proposal-per-year limit. However, that only applies to this solicitation, and only counts proposals submitted to this solicitation. CISE Core Programs is an important CS funding mechanism, but there are quite a few other funding vehicles within CISE (Robust Intelligence, RETTL, SATC, and many more, including CAREER). Each has its own limits, that generally don't count or count against the Core Programs limit.
If this existed, I might not have found the need to make my little Hyperstatic library (https://jsr.io/@mdekstrand/hyperstatic).
I don't think AI advancements will cause a problem for the value of the degree (or rather, if they do, then it wasn't a very good MS degree). The value of formal university CS education done well, at both BS and MS levels, is learning skills in a context that integrates those skills into a knowledge framework that transcends any particular technology and hopefully outlasts several trend changes. The specific ML algorithms you would learn in an ML-focused MS will likely be out-off-date soon; the training on problem formulation, data preparation, fundamental limits of learning, and the theory of how ML works will not only outlast many technology shifts, but give you a good framework for navigating those shifts and integrating new advances into your knowledge.
There are likely many programs that would not provide this kind of foundation. But in understanding in general the value of an MS, this is how I would advise a student to think about it. (and on MS vs BS, BS usually provides some opportunity for specialization but is very much a generalist degree; an MS provides more opportunity for specialization and credentialing on that specialization.)
- Brand new templates (introduced about 5 years ago, the LaTeX template has had multiple updates per year since then)
- Workflow that makes use of the source (or possibly codes the source embeds in the PDF, but you have to provide LaTeX source to ACM these days)
- Papers now render in both PDF and HTML (and the HTML looks quite good), this started showing up within the last 1-2 years
- Papers are archived in an XML-based format (something called JITS, I do not know details) to facilitate rendering to PDF, HTML, ePub, and other formats not yet devised
From the linked article, ACM's publication costs are $10.9M, not $33.7M.
One of the ACM's major publication initiatives over the last 3-5 years has been an overhaul of their publication templates and publication workflow, to ensure greater consistency in publication formatting, improve accessibility, and archive publications in more future-proof formats. There are also the ongoing costs of creating and indexing metadata (ACM tracks more metadata than arXiv, including resolved citations), preservation (ACM buys failsafe perpetual access services from Portico, arXiv has mirrors at other university libraries).
Should it cost $10.9M? I am not sure. Does it cost a lot more than what arXiv does? Yes.
For a costing exercise: the service ACM buys from Portico is archival and republication. If ACM goes insolvent, Portico flips on their archive and the content remains available. How would you price this service, knowing that when it is actually needed, it's because your customer can no longer pay bills, and you now need to take up their hosting (and all related costs) for approximately forever with no further revenue? I think a network of university libraries would be a more cost-effective way to provide this service, but it's the kind of thing that people working on publication and archival professionally think about, and that factors into the cost of professional archival-level publication.
(I cannot speak to IEEE.)
I think it's harder to detect network mounts in a way that wouldn't have a bunch of false positives on Linux.
When reCAPTCHA was created, the alternative was CAPTCHA, which tried to impede bots but did not generate any social benefit. This was the genius of the original reCAPTCHA concept: the time taken to 'confirm humanity' could be channeled into the socially-useful endeavor of digitizing books. Capture some of the heat emissions of impeding bots for a useful purpose, rather than letting it all go to waste.
Now, yes, Google is using it to train their self-driving car AI, and there's a bunch else happening in it to connect to Google's surveillance apparatus. There's much to legitimately criticize there. I personally don't view training Google's proprietary AI as the same kind of intrinsically altruistic purpose as digitizing the world's pre-digital books.
But putting the entire concept on blast with erroneous history that can be corrected with about 60 seconds on Wikipedia doesn't help the argument at all.
It isn't impossible - bandits are seeing adoption in medical trials to avoid precisely the problem discussed - but the standard experiment design and analysis techniques you learn in a decent college statistics class or introductory statistics text no longer apply. That's one of the beauties of A/B testing: while it does require substantial thought to do well, the basic statistics of the setup are very well-understood at this point.
Long story short, to control spam, you basically have 2 options:
1. Control who can send messages 2. Inspect message content 3. Impose costs
Signal and WhatsApp chose (1). E-mail (and probably any federated protocol) requires (2) or (3), and there is no universally-adopted (3) for e-mail.
But it's easy to overlook important costs in the publication system. One, as others have observed, is editors (and some administrative staff). Their value is certainly up for debate; I have had colleagues ascribe significantly more value to them than some of the other comments here.
Another, though, is archival and continuity of access. The publisher I am most familiar with is the ACM; they have contracts with archivers in place so that should they go insolvent or otherwise be unable to continue providing access to the published papers, these firms will take their archives live so the work remains accessible. By the very nature of the business, the fees they collect now need to be sufficient to keep the work accessible in perpetuity with no further payment.
As with other societies, ACM's journal revenue also goes to fund conference development, outreach and advocacy activities, student grants, etc.
There is a lot of rent-seeking in scholarly publishing, even (in my opinion) from scholarly societies. I personally believe that many of our needs could be better met by investing the funds we currently spend on commercial publishing in university libraries and rehoming the scholarly publishing enterprise there. However, sustainable open access is not as simple as just running a web server.
Last I knew, Windows does not like to let you enable this mode in a machine with removable RAM that don't have compensating security features.
I also think the CI service, which GitHub doesn't provide, is a higher-risk environment for this kind of thing. GitHub settings pages don't production deploy keys.
My institution's in-state tuition + fees are about $9K/year. The TX state university I taught at for two years was similar.
THEOREMS (the language of correct proofs) is in P; given a correct proof (possibly restricted to being in first-order logic), it can be verified in polynomial time. In the first-order logic case, all you have to do is read the proof from beginning to end and verify that each statement follows from either an axiom or an already-established statement. This is done entirely syntactically, requiring no knowledge of the underlying mathematics.
However, to do this requires formalizing the entire proof in machine-checkable format, which is a substantial undertaking even for relatively simple proofs and will likely take far longer than polynomial time.
Implementing a 'what friends do I have on this service?' feature is one thing. Retaining that data and feeding it in to the recommender is very likely to cause this kind of problem.