vicpara

Your supplier's supplier is most of the time confidential information and part of your secret sauce. When one manages to take an omniscient seat, it's easy to see the flaws in the system. In practice this rarely is true.

Unless you have vast amount of clients and money there are almost no incentives for you to build from ground up your own supply chain. Mid size businesses, when very successful, manage to break away from a 3rd party factory and build their own. That's a massive win. Most of the raw materials will come from downstream providers and the task to get either redundancy or break away from them is going to cost you a lot of money and business margins.

How are you going to return it if all Apple stores are closed due to COVID-19 ?

In app messages, guidance can be helpful, sometimes, when applied in a conscious manner. Great apps don't come with an user guide. Neither should your app.

When to navigate your app requires upfront manual reading you're doing something wrong.

The nice thing about philosophical views is that they don't really matter. Whatever gets the ball rolling in beating the SotA we'll accept it.

In science we shouldn't have to abide by philosophical views. They only hurt. Theorems, proofs and the empirical evidence should fix it. Can you believe there was a time when the world was against Yann LeCun because everyone speculated neural networks don't work for complex scenarios?

Both points of views Sutton's, Brookes' are utter speculations as we cannot generalize or learn anything meaningful from them. Both of them are saying: "Since I don't know for sure how we're going to improve the AI in the long run therefor he's what I suspect the right approach is". They are even looking at the same history of AI is seeing different things. Go figure now.

In mathematics old tricks only get you so far. The hard problems in a particular moment in time can only be overcome by deploying new tricks. Why wouldn't that be the case in the AI space?

Hard coded rules, got us started. Then more computation made the next step. Then we mixed the two. Then we created more purposefully handcrafted architectures such as CNN. Then we manually annotated millions of data points. Then GANs came along to fix some stability issues.

What's the next trick now? Don't worry, since no one knows both authors are just speculating.

Centralised planning will beat democratised decision making if they indeed manage to respond in time to a changing environment. The advancements in tech and communication allows you today to be more effective than ever. Think about global corporations with offices around the world. They are effectively operating under a centralised model and they do it very well.

What China learnt in the past 4 decades was how to manage the beast, not behead the messenger and have an effective planning anchored in true market signals.

Another point worth mentioning is that the Four Tigers are working with a planning and investment horizon of 30-50 years. Since they don't have to justify every four years about what they've been up to, they can be more effective in chasing bigger investments that have a longer-term ROI such as research, education, strategic industrial branches.

Now how do you compete with that?

The nice thing about lobbying is that you only need to spend just the minimum amount that tips the balance. Just like Trump used money and what not in his elections to win just enough votes, where it actually mattered :).

Another cool thing about lobbying is that you can explore the landscape and find the weakest link that gets you what you want. You choose your own target at your own pace and time. Unlike the democratic process that happens only now and then.

Additionally, you can apply pressure in one or multiple points.

Whoever is lobbying not only has resources as in $$$ but also has a bit more time to wait. People die, companies survive for decades or even centuries. You only need to get things 'right' once and then you are set for life.

If it wouldn't work, nobody would use it.

As a citizen, there should be no difference in how my vote is counted when I work for a company, ten or no company. If the company I work for is bankrupt or wealthy that shouldn't matter either. 1 person, 1 vote.

Also, technically, companies also don't really exist. People do. A company, no matter how big should be allowed to fail and die. A human life matters a lot more. Does it? Do we want it to?

Maybe we should start optimising our policies not with respect to GDP or economical growth but with respect to the actual living: humans, animals, fish and even plants.

If we do want companies to vote then let's make it official. But then there are unlimited number of companies we can create.

Let's vote with money than and stop being hypocrites. 1 person with 1M trumps 900k with $1. Whomever has $$$ can vote be it a company, person or dog that inherited the money. At least in this way we know how it works and change our behaviour accordingly but at least let's be honest about it.

You either allow lobbying or ban it. Amazon used a legal process to tip the balance in their favour. The entire lobbying thing does sound to me like a hack in the entire democratic process.

People should vote not companies.

The legal world is in dark technology ages. Who disrupts this market has definitely a lot to gain.

I have never seen incubation in a large company work out as well as innovating as a startup that is exposed to market forces. Probably they will struggle a lot to get the financing they really want.

Yeah, "the republic" and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship .

But still, it's all rotten. China is doing 50 year ahead planning where the Western world has about 2 after general elections.

You rely on 2-3 middle men to represent your interests as they please.

In democracy you directly vote people not strategies, priorities or bills.

We haven't really seen much variety of democratic governments. It's a classic recipe with the tinies twists. Some ideas: - vote 5 people not 1 - vote plans, programs and bills instead of people - vote priorties : education, health, infrastructure ... subsidies ,military - break down the 4/5 year vote into smaller decisions and more often - curate the list of candidates based on results - you get elected by vote but not achieving the promised plan/ results/growth/GDP/... effects takes you out

VisualStudio Code - I got rid of almost all IDE. I still keep using Intellij though for scala.

Nakhoda - Linklaters | London, UK | Fulltime | ONSITE | www.nakhoda.ai

Nakhoda builds tech solutions to linguistic problems in the legal field. Sometimes using machine learning and NLP.

We hire: Mid-Senior Python Developers - to help us build robust, data processing microservices. ML + NLP scientist - to help us advance our models, data sets and explore new ways to learn legal linguistic data. (http://bit.ly/2SC0o8a) Junior-Mid ReactJS developers - to help us build responsive, productive interfaces to our algorithms. (http://bit.ly/2R42EIk)

Reach out to us at victor.paraschiv@linklaters.com with "HNHIRING" as subject.

Nakhoda (http://nakhoda.ai) | London, UK | Senior NLP Scientist | Fulltime , ONSITE

Nakhoda is a boutique tech start-up backed by the Magic Circle law firm Linklaters. We combine legal expertise and cutting-edge technologies to solve complex legal problems.

We hire senior, ambitious developers that strive to make money by solving hard problems. https://talent.stackoverflow.com/employer/jobs/300905/listin...

Repairs need to be part of the business model to become a priority. Currently, the manufacturers see repairs only as a mandatory service they need to offer as imposed on them by the local law. The market doesn't impose any further requirements on these products. 2 years are just about as far in the future humans can anticipate and foresee things.

Robust design is a feature that doesn't do good to your business. Soviet product design, as laughable it seems to one, was really incredible and produced products that would rarely break and when they do so parts were always available. But in that market model getting rich was never the goal. Quite the contrary!

For example, my grandmother still has a radio that weights 7 kg built in 50s that works despite all things. I can listen to Radio Moscow from my kitchen 2000km away. The antenna is broken and that radio hangs near the cooker, it is already filled with a lot of dust and grease. Just like your extractor fan. That's just one example. Kalashnikov, Russian tanks, cars, soviet home electrical appliances like tvs, washing machines or vacuum cleaners etc. They all work today.

In a capitalist economy only the regulators can impose repairs as a requirement. Most humans are beyond their ability to think critically at what happens in 2-5 years time.

I think it's fair criticism.

The paper explores effects of known models (convolution functions that exist even outside the NN field) without explaining them and doing the math to understand where the error comes from. You could have taken for example the CNN layer and see exactly what it does. Instead they prefer to pass through the network the full signal they expect to recover at the end and the find it works.

Finding sanctuary inside computation and random experimentation against known datasets, without fully explaining what is actually happening on the modelling side should't be acceptable.

The OP is flagging in his post the mental model and attitude towards research. The paper being discussed is just an example that confirms that proper rigour is being replaced by the convenience of either computation or parameter fiddling (human or experimental). None of these are going to take the field too far.

The OP suggests the scientific field should focus on things that matter and change the world in an irreversible way. Provide a theorem or something that can be proved.

The lady was walking the bike at the edge of a light cone. The inner cam was actually filming in IR. Uber cars have IR cameras, LIDAR and an also multiple radar sensors.

My guess is that the algorithms have never met a person crossing the street with a bicycle during night time so they just ignored it or considered it to be a glitch.

You can have to approaches regarding labeling driving situations. Either you label with positive tags the situations where the car needs to react. Or you label with positive tags the normal situations when the car does nothing.

Depending on the two approaches you can have a car that kills pedestrians that appear in weird circumstances. I also bet a pedestrian that ducks in the middle of a lane would 100% be killed by a car. Or two people having sex while standing in the middle of a lane.

The other situation you have cars avoiding invisible obstacles that may appear due to some aberrations from sensors (which are far from perfect).

Jealousy is generally related to human feelings. "feeling or showing a resentful suspicion that one's partner is attracted to or involved with someone else."

It is mostly incorrectly used by people to depict envy. Also it became also a cool factor. "Your trip to Jamaica makes me jealous". Huh ? Envy is about "a feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else's possessions, qualities, or luck."

So you are actually envious. So stop being resentful at someone's luck or connections :)

Language design goes hand in hand with compiler's design. No wonder we have so many languages being born every year. Different mix of ideas being tried in each of them or forgotten lessons being rediscovered.

Just taking a look at what D, Rust, Lisp and Scala proposes will give one the chance to ask crucial questions about what are the implication of that guarantee, pros, cons and how it will all work out.

It's a good article. Indeed, compiling a programming language is such a complex job that is frankly quickly dismissed and taken for granted. My view is that learning and writing a simple compiler will make most of developers on notch better. The very least you'll understand why parsing HTML or XML with regex is such a bad idea :)

Another golden resource is the Dragon book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compilers:_Principles,_Techniq...

I don't think these issues have anything to do with AI but 100% with humans. AI is used everywhere where money is to be made. Let's take ads.

Why do we allow ads to happen all over the place (TV, radio, internet, magazines)? Because they feel stupid, harmless, how else can we sell products, etc? Well, then when a ML system is serving you ads, it's doing it so at the right time and will target you with the bang on content so that you buy exactly what it's needed. For eg. modern ML algos can pick up in which mood and mental state you are (out of 27 different states) by looking at how you read content online, what you read, how many tabs you open or how related the pages you visit are <yes, all cookie(-pool) based>. I know this because I build these things. It works incredibly well. It finds your weak spot, your passion, your habits, your indulgences and makes sure you're always tempted. It can tell more about yourself in a split second than you can think in an hour about who you really are. That bullshit you tell yourself about you doesn't matter because you are the rat the ML algo is baiting you until you bite.

The problem is not that the AI is selling to the diabetic more cupcakes, the alcoholic booze and hipsters new gadgets like no other salesman. The idea of advertising is perverted itself from skin till bone marrow. How can you allow that to be done to the people? And we think this is how things are? OMFG.. AI is just a tool.

WMD are another dead stupid idea only humans could come up with. Me country builds insane big weapons that can whack entire cities in split second just because it can & has more money & and we were first & we won the war & no reason. It also tries to make sure nobody can build it (like Iran) so they all kneel and kiss the ring.

AI kind of levels the field. It's just a bigger nuclear bomb. My is bigger than yours taken to the next level. And that's just the beginning. AI makes it game on for more players than we like it to be. And it's not just AI (which is just math run by computers), it's mathematics, human genome research, physics, nuclear physics...all STEM subjects. You can come up with a weapon from any mix of these.

There are only two ways out of it.

The humanity dies or we learn how to all work together, chill our entitlement and find our common values regardless of religion, money, skin colour, gender or part of the world. A fart made in any part of the world can kill people everywhere.

If humanity is to turn against itself because countries or corporations play a retarded game in AI/ pharma/ nuclear/fill_in_the_blank .. this only only accelerates a bit the process but the result will be the same.

Let's ditch advertising, pharmaceuticals, OTC, bogus pills created without any fundamentals, weapon industries and all other nonsense industries or acts focused on massive profit at the cost of humanity. Let's ditch all kinds of waste and put people first for once. Let's ditch olympics where we try to prove that my country has it bigger than yours.

Let's invest in education and health, inclusive societies where everyone works hard to solve humanity's tough problems.

We keep building bigger guns but we as a society didn't grow much in empathy, inclusiveness or respect for the planet or other countries.

People are killing people not AI. A machine gun is the safest thing in the world. No single machine gun on this universe loaded itself and started firing precisely to people or animals.

Probably the best thing that can happen to this planet is to have humans vanish while there are still trees and animals around.

or find out yourself here: https://builtwith.com/?https%3a%2f%2fwww.gatesnotes.com%2f

I'd love to use F# in production on a Linux/Mac OS environment. I find the tooling to be problematic and quite hacky on these platforms. In the same time the library ecosystem around manipulating PDF/Word/XLSX documents, CPU/GPU math accelerated libraries, machine learning, stats, charts and DB connectors are not that mature and production ready. If you just stay withing the F# and .NET core library ecosystem then it's fine. I'd need more support for the ecosystem to be able to fully switch from scala to F# for production. I'm so looking forward to having Microsoft get the full .NET to Linux.

This is one I particularly liked. Age of Empires networking inner workings:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131503/1500_archers_on...

Google App Engine is rubbish compared to most of other PaaS or SaaS providers. Rubbish because of the unreliable infrastructure (instances that get quickly out of sync), slow reads and writes, memory footprint your instances are allowed to have so that Google scales better and their API usability.

I really doubt they will be able to come up with something meaningful.

I'm happy to see what happens in China because hopes are that this is a worst case bound for what is going to happen in UK when secure connections will become outlawed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption_ban_proposal_in_the...

The time for offline was bazillion years ago. They just try to convince us they are innovating / incubating with their billion of dollars?

Coding is not a spectator sport. Just write code. C# is powered by an amazing CLR. .NET Framework has very comprehensive and highly optimised libraries. For most of the simple tasks you don't need any external libraries.

You don't have to bother fighting dependencies hell.

MSDN is an almost exhaustive documentation, proper documentation, for most of all available methods and objects inside .NET Framework in all available languages.

Visual Studio is years ahead most of the IDE in terms of productivity tools, speed, integrations with other tools, plugins and debugging.

Just write some more code.

All algorithms are interesting depending on the problem you are trying to solve.

I'd really love to have a C implementation of distributed SVD computation for large matrices.

Why would someone do that? To what end? Why isn't anyone re-writing Redis in assembler to have it kick ass like pros? Can you write Windows in rust?

*Larry Page said: “By improving urban technology, it’s possible to significantly improve the lives of billions of people around the world. With Sidewalk, we want to supercharge existing efforts in areas such as housing, energy, transportation and government to solve real problems that city-dwellers face every day. Every time I talk with Dan I feel an amazing sense of opportunity because of his passion for all the ways technology can help transform cities to be more livable, flexible and vibrant. And when you combine that with his experience as an investor, in NYC government, and as CEO of the large information company Bloomberg LP, I can’t imagine a better person to lead these efforts.”

Let's get serious. This initiative is not about toilets, smart flushing and homeless.

I'm fine with it as long as I don't have to have anything always connected to internet, sync data in the cloud and be forced to agree/manage/monitor gazillions of privacy changes, terms and conditions where companies decide to update and change their data protection acts, the ways the share, store and manipulate my data.

Maybe we should firmly keep big technology companies, already in tune with the NSA friends, get closer to our families and private lives. The last thing I'd want is Google, Bloomberg, IBM, Facebook and Cisco circulating all my activities (toilet flushes including) for the sake of my children, future nephews and my neighbours to NSA, have my own cars or my own house lock me out because Palantir discovered about my passion for Moroccan tea or my kid flies a Chinese quadcopter in the backyard.