midjji

No one ever believed it was. A more appropriate response would be the think of the children simpsons image.

While every sample they provide is suspiciously similar to the human version,(indicating overtraining, either on the samples or on a single voice), where I would have expected a different if still human quality voice from a fully functional system, this tech is coming, and soon. And when it does, voice acting will no longer prevent videogames from having complex stories, and we will find out if the industry is still capable of making them. Looking forward to it :)

I always find it fascinating that one of the few things so badly designed that they just have to be a scam, is actually real .gov stuff.

And because changing your sexual preferences is notoriously easy, women can just do that...

"Free"

I almost wish my org knew enough to make such policies.

So blacklist intel compiler in favor or GCC and CLANG, seems entirely reasonable!

AMD still has horrible software, compare cuda to whatever crap AMD thinks you should use. Truth is its even hard to say what their alternative is, not to mention how horribly poorly they support what is, or at least should be their second if not most important/lucrative target.

There are very specific conditions for this to hold, mostly that the incorrect sample is surrounded by correct ones, and that the model is small enough or the error vanishingly rare. Notably the reference you gave also shows horrendous generalization performance, so its really just showing how easy it is to overparametrize. Input errors can be accounted for to some extent, but also under specific circumstances, eg.

https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_CVPR_2020/html/Eldesok...

Deep learning requires very well curated and balanced datasets, at best if your test data is also poorly curated and similarly unbalanced that might hide that it isn't working from you.

Having worked with otherwise decent Swedish public healthcare systems, I can't tell you if its as bad, just that it is absolutely awful. I would never think to try and use anything they provided as basis for a dataset.

Deep learning has great potential in medicine, in particular in radiology and tissue classification. Creating the datasets from scratch will take decades of careful deliberate highly costly effort however, and the current crap hospitals call records is utterly useless. It will truly have to be a bottom up approach, and in the process systematic studies to actually verify a lot of bullshit medical ideas will also have to be done. Basic questions like how many kinds of tissues are there have very dubious answers which are known to be coarse approximations, and some diseases are specifically deviation from the approximations. Its probably not quite as bad as linguistics where, but its really bad. Once datasets with millions of people followed and tested regularly throughout their lives for the specific purpose of generating the dataset, are available for training, it will be quite good. Shame we wont live to see it.

Thankfully someone figured out that quad should be in C++ a while back, unfortunately they didnt figure out that the next few dozen should be too... the arbitrary precision stuff is an alternative in theory, and would be if any of the hundreds of half completed projects to convert unintelligeble, and unmaintainable, unclear, etc, C to the in this specific case extremely much better C++ interfaces was complete.

Not your fault, most cancers, and in particular breastcancer are entirely unaffected by all forms of healthy living.

It would be nice if we did, but while this would likely lower cancer slightly, I dont think it would come anywhere close to eliminating it. I think cancer is mostly a tradeoff for auto immune diseases and adaptation speed. A immune system good enough to prevent them, would also kill most all, and prevent any deviation from its template. This is particularly likely for the kinds of cancers which hit before 40.

In general, I think both the op, and this post vastly underestimates how little people actions affect the probability of cancer. Sure you can lower them slightly, but I have never seen anything indicating you can drop the odds of cancer more than 10% by clean living and pristine environments. Highly specific issues like very high radiation does concretely increase the odd's, but its barely noticeable outside of old school radiology nurses, or nuclear accidents. Things like a heavy tobacco habit does increase the odds substantially and significantly above baseline, but most people who smoke daily for a few years are still far more likely to die of something else. We can also infer that microplastics is less carcinogenous than tobacco due to its prevalence and negligible increase in cancer. Not saying its safe, just worth remembering that most cancer is better through of as bad luck, and very unlikely to be the persons fault. Basically cancer isnt anything you can expect that healthy habits, healthy food, or pristine environments could have fixed.

In the astonishingly rich biosphere there are exceptions to everything though, impossibly improbable things which had eons to occur. Concretely, we have yet to design a single antibiotic, geneditor or new trait, instead we find them. I care very little about the downsides for humans caused by pollution and global warming, but the loss of information which comes with damaging the biosphere is incomprehensible. In other words, I'm all for fixing both, but not at the expense of the biosphere. Fortunately, nuclear is a perfectly good alternative.

While Elizer certainly didn't invent the thing, just read the references he cites. He was right that its a pain in the ass to build and that pretty much all solutions available are no where near bright enough despite claiming otherwise. Expense and heat, which is really just more expense, aren't the only issues though. Assuming the premise that its good for health, another issue is that we do not know if the health effects require us to match the spectrum. Notably the reliable research on the topic I have read have always used number of hours outdoors in sunlight, not some contraption. He thinks it worked for his wife, but someone depressed is very likely to support their loved ones delusions that their personal effortful attempt to help worked, and if that loved one is persistent and persuasive, often delude themselves into thinking that. Either way, it would be a single sample. Research is very much needed, and building such a rig is a fun project and a great way to learn exactly how much effect your house control systems really allow.

I think part of it is overhead and parts of it is cultural, basically people dont think people who are looking for part time work are serious about that work, or that they already have some other job. Buddy of mine has been wanting to work part time for more than a decade, getting shitty jobs and ofting having to switch, or accept jobs that were full time etc. But after his first kid employeers were suddenly much more willing to take someone part time, its kinda the effective case for new parents anyways, and no one wondered about if he had a second job anymore. I dont think thats why hes had two kids in a row, but he seems very happy with it. Its not really a long term solution, and studies have long shown that kids, in particular with you as a primary caregiver, has along term negative effect on career and salary, but so does part time work. And it might be a long term solution if your kid has extra needs. Though just saying that is probably alot healthier than munchhausen by proxy^^

All for(auto x:xs){L} does is:

{ iter= xs.begin(); while(iter++ != xs.end()){L} } Not exactly hard to see what happens. In particular as iter is typically just a raw pointer.

Regardless of if you use one or the other you must answer the question, Should I take locks, etc.

With the macro you also have the concern that if any of the headers you include happens to change order of inclusions, the macro called may change without being noticeable. That is a harder problem.

Its notable that the main improvement over gnu98 C to C11 essentially templates, if a worse version of it with better compile time performance.

If they switched to c++17, and banned everything from throw and RTTI to the standard library, they would still get for each, auto, and templates and inheritance which does not have to be emulated in C.

Not wrong, but its a feature, rather than a problem.

C++(17+) template based metaprogramming far more powerful and generic than what you can do in eg rust. Converting eg a rust or go or python, or julia, etc library into c++ is pretty straightforward, just use appropriate overloads, and a few template tricks, and you can mostly copy the code directly. But copying between these, or from c++ is much harder.

The solution is to learn one approach suitable for the problem you have right now, then widen over time. The many languages of c++ as you describe is less of a problem, the problem is that some approaches are deeply and fundamentally flawed, but still in common use.

Is there a single such which you cannot disable by compiler flags?

One alternative is to just write a C code generator, which lets you mix C and some sensible language, eg. python. Then use that to generate the code which is then sent to gcc.

Its not too clever for its own good, its programmers that are too clever for C, and desperately need basic features, and its the only way to get them unless you switch language.

Its also surreally poorly designed, encouraging worse habits than C itself. Avoiding definition collisions and lack of namespaces alone make it horrific for any moderate sized project and up. Combine that with the near complete lack of static analysis tools, and its a recipe for disaster.

You are making the rather optimistic assumption that here is a single definition of the macro. There are likely dozens, most of which share a name and randomly overwrite each other, others share the name but are subtly different. Macros are a truly terrible way to metaprogram. In my experience, if you spot one in a code base and can remove it, you have removed a bug you never knew you had, you spot one and change it, you have broken more things than you will ever know.

I have, and you are right. But after a few years I used that wisdom to conclude I prefer a low average with a few severe lows and rare few extreme highs. The latter are great, but mostly it just makes me feel more alive, instead of like some monk serenely walking towards oblivion.

Yeah it does not need to be python, I dropped emacs lisp due to (pain), never liked bash, or perl. Java like in matlab isnt nice either, too damned verbose. Ruby might work, most webstuff is great at showing stuff, but I havent tried it.

The generic variant would be to make it modular and replaceable, but that would be a mistake, I would much rather have a tool good at a specific subset of jobs than a config heavy tool which is medicore at all. Perhaps advanced search and replace fits that, but I think its a fundamental aspect of editing.

Thats a good idea!

Oh and dont forget that just because the documentation says it uses a specific regex syntax, that does not mean its correctly implemented. It gets worse when an application examples specify a specific syntax but what happens in the background is that it will use the default reg exp engine, which can be system or enviroment specified.

Yeah cashless is the way to go, but I dont think the problem is as big as it seems. People are also becoming digital nomads, and while citizenships for pay, and more importantly the digital identities that come with them, are still kind of expensive, long term I expect it will become cheaper and more common.

This also directly solves the issue of op. Cryptocurrencies are a stop gap solution to this, but known transaction histories and inherently poor fraud prevention make them poor digital cash replacements. Today Ecuador is shilling bitcoin, but imagine if they instead sold tier 2 citizenships, no taxes no welfare type, with new and independent identities. Pay 5000$ and get a new identity and passport, along with an account in one of our many banks, or which can be used to set up an account in an international bank. Sure you wont get to share credit scores with your main identity... Various international laws mean it wont be called exactly this, perhaps its a fee for the creation of a minimum accounting requirement corporation with hidden controller instead (and trying to prevent these is already ongoing but it does not work), but it does not matter in practice. As long as it satisfies the conditions of being able to make transactions easily, has a dispute mechanism with centralized authority with the self serving interest to remain independent, etc.

I'd wager that the majority of identity thefts arent performed in order to steal money from that identity or ever even cause any damage to the original identity. They are performed in order to get around travel and work restrictions. Lets say you are from ukraine or belarus, now getting a work visa equivalent to germany or france is kindof a pain in the ass, in particular doing so quickly, but buying a stolen passport from e.g. rumania isnt hard, and all you are doing is setting up a single french debit account in that name and working under that identity. Odds are that kind of thing gets discovered 30 years latter when the original identity realizes they are getting a small pension from some job in france they never had. But why would they care.

Massively expanded surveillance states could prevent this, but while that will be the case in china, places like the usa are just to discoordinated, and the eu is actively working against it to the point both google and facebook are no longer asking. How can we make our ads better, but rather how can we keep ad quality with much less information per user.

Neat, Though it does make me wonder if a python parser wont soon become standard in editors. Its just too damned convenient for many things, sure you might be able to come up with a regexp search and replace that does the same thing, but odds are it will take longer than coding a few loops. BASH sucked far too much, and C++ and most languages lacked the convenient filesystem libs required, but python just works and is easy to read and modify. The downsides of python, like the atrocious speed and low maintainability dont matter for scripts you will use just once.

There is no doubt in my mind that happiness predicts and causes success. A simple predictor of long term success for everywhere I have worked is mean loud laughs - whining.

An old psych study claims that one year after some great or terrible event, winning the lottery, or breaking your back. People are roughly as happy on average as they were before the event. It makes sense in many ways, happiness does not seem to change much over life. To me it looks like happiness is regulated towards some fix point. This is often cited as a reason not to despair, which is nice, but for someone like me it is horrifying. Much like with weight, there is no reason to assume that you are being regulated towards a healthy state.

I am successful by most metrics, but I am so despite being miserable, and well aware of it. But it is also a question of what kinds of tasks I focus on, positivity and natural happiness is extremely important for most sales people, and beneficial for teamwork, especially high stress teamwork. But less so for solitary independent work like research, and too much positivity seems to make people easier to scam, and I would prefer a cynic as responsible for it sec (not that I have ever seen one that wasn't). Happiness has a wide range of other positive effects too, but it is difficult to decorrelate, and if I was optimistic Id say something like teamwork and sales are easy to measure, so anything which is positively correlated with work productivity will be biased due to selection bias. If I was pessimistic I think Id just say yeah its probably true, but hey, the world isn't fair, and while I am miserable, at least I'm not stupid, and I would not want those two reversed.