Super Munchers, Outnumbered, Operation Neptune, Wild Science Arcade, and Mario Teaches Typing
blowmp blowmp Da-da-daah! POW! :)
1,091 karma · joined February 13, 2024
Start now and keep moving, the future is promised to no one.
blowmp blowmp Da-da-daah! POW! :)
From the text's website[0], there's also a free-to-use online version: https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?d=deep_learning_ebook&u=cmb32...
The graphical tables are nice, too: https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=29.7687&lon=-9...
For grocery shopping lists, I simply take the first two letters of each ingredient and try and make a nonsense (yet pronounceable) word out of it. The more strange / fantastic, the better, as it seems to be more memorable that way.
OK, so like email with a "show only new messages" filter.
> more and more costly over time
If it's tolerable to have false positives (potentially showing a user a post that they have seen before), a Bloom filter [0] might be a good match.
If you use this structure as an index to record which posts the user has seen, then it might return a post the user has already seen before (it may answer the question "is this post ID in the set?" incorrectly), but it can for sure return a post the user has not seen before (in that it will answer "is this post ID definitely not in the set?" correctly).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filter
(Edited for clarity.)
"artificial intelligence" => "counterfeit consciousness" / "man-made brainpower" / "fake knowledge"
"mean square error" => "mean square blunder"
"sensitive data" => "touchy information"
"signal to noise" => "flag to clamor"
"breast cancer" => "bosom peril"
"big data" => "huge information"
"ant colony" => "underground creepy crawly region"
"Navier-Stokes" => "Navier-Stocks"
"NP-hard" => "NP-difficult"
"end-users" => "stop-customers"
"phising attack" => "phishing assault"
"emission of CO2" => "excretion of CO2"
"deep learning" => "profound education"
"decision tree" => "choice bush"
"system failure" => "framework disappointment"
"real time" => "genuine time"
"fuzzy logic" => "feathery rationale"
"child nodes" => "tyke hubs"
"state-of-the-art" => "United States of America-of-the-cleverness"
"directional (graph) axes" => "directional tomahawks"
"magic mushrooms" => "wizardry mushrooms"
"max pooling" => "Georgia home boy pooling" (!?)
"malicious parties" => "compromising get-togethers"
1. Outthinking (a better strategy, a shortcut)
2. Pure Effort (working longer, intensity)
3. Opportunistic (positioning yourself to take advantage of change)
4. Consistency (doing average things for longer)
5. Focus (saying no to distractions)
Each of these requires a different type of hard work.”
I agree that messing with child development is a dangerous game, and adding LLMs into the mix raises my eyebrows a bit (especially when kids may not have the common sense to not eat rocks or put glue on a pizza [0]). But in this case, the teacher is still in the loop (for now).
Assuming Microsoft keeps its word and does not transfer learning material back to their servers, can we be reasonably certain that this isn't another CAPTCHA reverse-training exercise?
I'd be interested to see how teachers can use this as a high-speed curation tool. If I were a teacher though, I'd be cautious that in delegating some of the work to a machine, the imaginative/synthesizing part of my brain is now going to go soft (and personally, I'd protect that aspect of my thinking at all costs).
You can certainly patent it.
"In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a “design patent” protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171)."
Or both, similar to Skype's supernode model?
How Zoom manages to do this in a client-server fashion and is still financially solvent is also a question I've had for a while, but like others say, discounts on the transport and peering arrangements will be a key part in making those economics work, as compression and storage are relatively solved problems here.
According to NOAA Space Weather Scales [1], the effects of those events, their levels, and the corresponding hazards (including biological risks for the "S" category) are listed.
It is unclear to me what "high-flying" and "high latitudes" mean in these cases, and I would think that they would depend on the severity and location of the space weather event.
[0] https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/communities/space-weather-enthusia...
[1] https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/NOAAsca...
- Power systems: Possible widespread voltage control problems and some protective systems will mistakenly trip out key assets from the grid.
- Spacecraft operations: May experience surface charging and tracking problems, corrections may be needed for orientation problems.
- Other systems: Induced pipeline currents affect preventive measures, HF radio propagation sporadic, satellite navigation degraded for hours, low-frequency radio navigation disrupted, and aurora has been seen as low as Alabama and northern California (typically 45° geomagnetic lat.).
This is exactly what the WEI (Web Environment Integrity)[0] specification sought to achieve, but at the browser level.
That alleged reading list given to Carmack by Sutskever is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40297984
Reminds me of some of the best software developers I've worked with had (seemingly) unrelated backgrounds: law, music, and even archaeology!