(Hi Larabee)
1,101 karma · joined January 24, 2018
Saul Griffith + Otherlab estimate that electrifying the US will reduce the total energy needs by 50+% as a result of reduced waste (among other reasons).
I agree 100% with this, but how can this question be studied of this research to develop these systems doesn't go forward? You earlier characterized the FastMRI research as, in your view, "actually very dangerous." As I see it, the research here is potentially extremely valuable, and the danger comes not from the research, but from somebody deciding to deploy it without considering these questions. Typically the road from research program to wide deployment is quite long, and I disagree that we should discourage the research because of potential flaws in the productization process. (Unless there is ill will on the part of the researchers, which I'm assuming there is not).
If the scanning process has a sensitivity of 99.999%, and the next stage in the signal chain has a sensitivity of 50%, and we consider what happens if the MRI sensitivity drops to 99.9%, that's well in the noise in terms of diagnostic value. Use some of the extra money freed up by doing the MRI 10x faster to pay a radiologist to look at the scan for 10% longer, and perhaps the net accuracy has improved.
What is unacceptable about this kind of holistic reasoning about the system? High performing systems are frequently not composed of perfect components.
1. If an MRI can be done 10x faster with the same results except in exceptionally rare cases, might that not still be a win? Order of magnitude reduction in time may translate to substantial reduction in cost and increase opportunity for applications. It seems like it is worth considering whether these benefits might be worth compromising the accuracy of the imaging.
2. How accurate are radiologists at diagnosing / detecting these rare abnormalities that validation might miss? If radiologists are actually pretty mediocre at this, might it be OK to make the scan slightly imperfect if the next stage (the human) is already very imperfect?
It works pretty much as designed.
"Radar" absolutely can.
What can't differentiate between these things is the radar in Teslas that was intended for use in adaptive cruise control. There are any number of not insanely expensive radars that could do this job perfectly fine. Tesla just decided to go "full self driving" with this rather bad radar because "humans can do it with vision only!!!1!!!1!"
And yet loads of people employed by companies work on open source software, write blogs, work on their own stuff, etc and companies don't seem to get involved. So what's the situation here? Is it something like companies legally may be able to assert ownership over work down by employees of their own volition on their own time with their own equipment, but mostly choose not to bother with it?
Assume I have an "ordinary" contract in the USA. Would I need to worry about this if I wanted to write stuff on a blog, assuming it isn't directly related to work I do?
(I understand that if it really matters I should talk to a lawyer, and will not interpret any responses as legal advice, etc. I'm just curious if other professional employers worry about this or just quietly do their own thing)
Is this method more accurate than Kahan summation? And if so, is it worth the extra cost of sorting?
Lots of things that people say in opposition to vaccines is true, or at least has some basis in fact. Polio vaccines decades ago were contaminated with sv40, which does have the potential to cause tumors. (So there is "vaccines cause cancer!") There is also probably a real link between Guillain-Barre and vaccines, but there is also a link between any infection and Guillain-Barre, do with a vaccine you essne tidally keep the risk of that very rare syndrome and lose the risk of infection.
Vaccines are not risk-free, they just have such incredibly high value that the incredibly low risk is completely worth it.
> if we ban them, what are we banning them for?
"We" are not banning them. GoFundMe is.
Call it whatever you like. "Subverting public health," maybe.
Roughly speaking, ray tra in techniques are variations on the concept of tracing a ray from the camera back into the screen and seeing where is ends up. The different variations distinguish themselves by what happens at a ray intersection. Classical ray tracing will spawn a shadow ray towards light source. Path tracing will stochastically sample some distribution of ray directions (usually based on a combination of light locations and material properties) in order to do Monte Carlo integration of the rendering equation. There are other variations.
Ray tracing (w/ only shadow rays) doesn't give you global illumination. Path tracing (this work) does.
RV32I is nothing close to RV64IMAFDQCPBS. It seems like all the fragmentation standards are made to avoid packaged up as a "standard" to make sure everything under the sun can use risc-v.
(see also usb-c)
It's a balance though, right?
Programmable shading took off because lots of people wanted the better shading that it enabled (at the cost of lower framerates/resolution). So it seems plausible that people might again choose quality improvements through raytracing over framerates/resolution (especially as 4k 120fps becomes more achievable).
> I see no proof of this anywhere.
Huh. I see proof in your comment.
> UMULH
separate? Check.
> UMULH has 1/4 and 6
expensive (relative to MUL)? Check.
It is extremely unlikely that the pilots were trying to work through the checklist. More likely they simply did not know what to do.
And fwiw, real wage growth doesn't look that great. It has actually been negative for the last few months.
I don't think "standing up to dictatorships" is a very strong argument for this administration.