They give the full proper citation for referencing the work:
@inproceedings{reda2022film,
title = {FILM: Frame Interpolation for Large Motion},
author = {Fitsum Reda and Janne Kontkanen and Eric Tabellion and Deqing Sun and Caroline Pantofaru and Brian Curless},
booktitle = {European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)},
year = {2022}
}
I wonder about airship based (inland) cruises. The cruise industry is on the order of $20b annual and I could imagine a similar experience by air, going no where fast, and opening up a very unique tourism experience to very different types of places.
I did exactly this. I'm doing some frontend work where I only have basic knowledge and there was a small feature that was a nice to have. When I originally wrote my own solution, it didn't work. So I took my failed solution and out it into Chat GPT and went back and fourth a few times. It also didn't provide solutions that worked after trying them. So I started asking about alternative solutions and eventually that sparked a new idea I could ask about. That ended up working.
Probably a 5 min conversation with a frontend dev would have gotten me that answer faster, but that isn't something I have access to at the moment. And it was far enough down my priority list that it probably would have stayed unimplemented for a long time. With the back and forth with ChatGPT I got there in maybe 30 minutes of playing around. So a direct solution - for sure not. But better than my alternatives, I think so.
$100M offers by Alex Hormozi. The writing itself isn't all that polished, but the content is great. It's been very useful in thinking through my own business positioning and offerings.
Apologies - let me try and be more clear. The user loads a local movie into the browser, and the browser then processes locally with ffmpeg. The movie started on the client and stays there. If it is less than 2GB then no problems. If it is larger then it hits this limitation. (I am taking the results from ffmpeg and sending those server side, but those results are always << 2GB and therefore no issues).
Maybe the suggestion is to only load < 2GB into ffmpeg in the browser? I could see how that would work for the 1st chunk. But the 2nd one and beyond would not be valid.
I'm using this in a current project and it really is great to be able to do things in the browser that would otherwise require a nontrivial native client. One limitation I'd like to figure out how to get around is the 2GB file size limit. According to the docs, this is a WebAssembly limitation? It's not hard to find videos that cross that size.
I went looking at the published paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258900422...) and it says on pg3: "this specific type of plantarflexion because
the relatively high soleus electromyography (EMG) on-time (i.e., soleus activation) coincided with upward angular motion of the ankle". The supplementary materials show EMG and range of motion graphs.
A bit of googling says plantar flexion is the same muscle movement needed for pushing the accelerator pedal while driving or ballet dancers standing on their toes.
My guess (not my field of expertise) is the muscle is activated strongly in isolation (the toe pushing down motion) and inducing a large range of motion. So it's not raising the heel so much as pushing the toe down.
While knowing who the authors are can cause bias, hiding behind anonymization (as a reviewer) can as well. I think publishing the reviews (and who reviews) would help a lot (some fields do this). Science is really a dialog. The authors are putting forth part of the dialog and the reviewers are reflecting on it and giving their opinions. Hopefully publishing names next to reviews would minimize crappy reviews (often by the most senior folks). However the other problem is there are not enough qualified reviewers to go around and I could see many opting out of putting their name next to a review. But, we're likely better off.
There also often isn't a clear cut line between "good" and "bad". Almost all papers have flaws and putting those out in the open for others to improve upon, or at least acknowledge, would help move humanities knowledge forward.
The field(s) I'm in use double blind and it's broken for a host of other reasons. It's really hard to build off a string of work for example. Students (eg the ones writing papers) are often bad at the anonymization requirements. On the other side, the reviewers can often form an opinion on likely authors (whether correct or not). And then up one level (at the editorial / program committee level) that anonymization goes away since they need to check for reviewer conflicts, etc.
Design for manufacturing is a big thing in many industries - consumer electronics, auto, etc. It does not seem to really exist for (residential) construction. There are some broad constraints by material sizes, but it seems that in practice so much needs to be figured out and fit along the way.
Yes. And the author provides both a cite for an academic publication as well as one from popular media. (And it's not exactly new either - the paper was published in 97).
This is an interesting set of options as it points towards a couple different things. One is the technical infrastructure needed to host the blog (and several comments here are discussing that).
Another key difference is discoverability of the blog/content. Something like LinkedIn leverages the platform so the post gets in front of people (however how that happens is outside your control). A self hosted website does not have any direct way to attract/retain the audience (you need a way to get inbound traffic, and then a way to get people to keep coming back). To me, this part seems like the more challenging bit relative to the tech stack and I'm curious what other perspectives folks have here.
To throw in my 2c (having worked at Tesla before) - I don't think it is either of these directly. Clearly no one is clairvoyant, however Elon is not one to take the status quo as an answer (eg his first principles mantra). And making a ton of incremental improvements over and over (especially in industries that tend to be risk averse to any changes) can result in huge improvements over time. And it's not like he is directly involved with those improvements. But there is a culture of no BS and fix things if you see it broken, get rid of as much bureaucracy as possible, etc. So if he can instill those cultural values he doesn't need to be directly involved. And if something goes wrong, it can also change on a dime, and go a different direction.
He totally is a sales guy. But his is clearly wicked smart. He has also had a good deal of self made success rather early in life. Beyond that, he also has a rather interesting perspective - not that interesting is enough to warrant following of course. I'd suggest watching the podcasts he did not too long ago with Graham Stephan. I'm not sure I'd follow what he says, but his perspectives are thought provoking.
Agree with the others - find the email address and ask. Especially if the lead author is a student / post doc, they are usually very excited to help. Profs often have an overflowing inbox and might be more hit or miss.
The RA is great. I've been playing around with Roam in org mode recently, and have been feeling it (or a modern version) might be really useful there as well.
I've had a similar conversation with my agent in the past, and the answer was to create a bidding war. Once you have one real offer you can go back and counter to all of the others to see if they'll go up, and then rinse and repeat. That isn't a story too hard to sell.
The other thing about this one is that it was fixed up, so it could have been a flip. However I didn't go track down the real estate records to know for sure.
It looks like they way under priced it on purpose. Zillow shows comps over the past year in the same neighborhood: 2.19M, 2.6M, 2.3M, 2.19M, 2.52M. This one is a bit smaller, but expecting a sale in that range given the other sales is not noteworthy. (The article calls this out at the end: "the median sales price of a single-family home in Sunnyvale is $2.375 million" and this one is $2.68M)
How much help did Nokia have from the EU?? Sure it was very Finnish, but not clear the EU helped. And it wasn't MS, it was Nokia itself in the face of Apple. I worked at Nokia and saw it first hand.
I'm going to miss my Pebble when it finally dies. Still wearing my Kickstarter Pebble Time. One thing it did well was be a watch first, as opposed to a small phone on your wrist. Depending on your needs/expectations those are very different wearable experiences. Sure the nice OLED is great, but clearly that comes at the cost of battery life. This is especially notable if you use to wear dumb watches.
Several years ago I did some research (published paper here: http://kentlyons.net/pubs/dumbwatch-iswc15.pdf) and one of the findings I thought was interesting was there were 3 groups of people that implied different battery needs. One seemed similar to what you describe: people that took their watch off at night (so could charge it then). Another group wore their watch 24/7. And the final group which I wasn't expecting, but made sense in retrospect, was people that only wore their watch when out of the house. When they got home they'd take it off like setting down their keys.
For almost any paper I read, before I pick it up, I know there were statistically significant findings. Those results were not predefined. Instead they are part of the academic review process that filters out null results. That same process (depending on the field) also rewards novelty or all sorts of other things. It's very much a human process.
"Being boxed in" - I think this is the crux of the point. It is being defensive with respect to the current position. Good design might need to consider the legacy, but rarely should be constrained by it. However in many situations an org can't really make these decisions and it takes a senior executive to own the decision that might cause near term blow back, but also enable escaping the local optima to a better one.
Too soon for whom or for what? This is not explicitly stated and it seems much of the discussion is based on different assumptions. Too soon to make good shows? Too soon for you? Too soon for Netflix? All of those likely lead to different answers.
It seems quite possible that optimizing for Netflix's interests might leave some dissatisfied. But it is hard to call that cancelling too soon if it lets them get to their overall objectives.
An interesting question is if Netflix themselves in optimizing for the short term reward are penalizing themselves in the long term? That is much harder to know.