I posted before this comment showed up for me about this, does Capcom even make any games where aside from speedruns and in person competitions that cheating can even really take place easily?

How many games does Capcom even make where cheating/modding would even be a serious issue? Pretty much all of the games I can find from them are either single player, or in person multilayer. In all but pretty much only competitive situations will "cheating" hurt anyone but the people in the same room in those types of cases. I can see an issue if it is competitive online play, or an MMO, or are there some big games I don't, and should, know about?

This idea is pretty much already the very definition of what an autoencoder is supposed to do.

What most are missing is that most PCBs are not used for phones, or PCs, but are in toys, appliances, and other random crap.

At least as it comes to the games with bigger players bases, they will put you into matches with comparable skill levels. The player base for CoD seems to have 100 million active users monthly. Out of that, there will definitely be players currently playing that have a similar skill level. On average, different play styles will even out. With someone who has better reflexes, but is inky using half of their brain, you should be evenly matched with, you will generally be matching with those players, as well as others of similar skill level based on a combination of other attributes.

I agree, I suspect they want to disinfect the handles more than the items inside of the freezers though.

I can see a lot of people who might buy a bunch of germicidal UV bulbs and destroy their eyes and skin from this article though.

Very lucky of you. I know that at least in my case there have been many sources of media and social situations that have either directly or indirectly were sources of potential influence for those two cases. Unless you mean the total amount of influence in each case (not exactly sure how to quantify this) is the same for both cases.

Given that sex is a fairly important topic for a lot of people, I'm certain I've experienced more influencing social pressures for eating pussy than I have against eating insects.

One obvious direct social pressure against eating insects is when a bowl of insects is used as a scary food source for villains or when food transforms into insects as a horror trope. Indirectly simply showing people afraid of insects or placing them in unappetizing situations.

Likewise with eating pussy, I don't think I have to iterate the huge number of situations where sex is referenced in movies, television, or almost any other common every day situation, where eating pussy or doing things very closely related to or leading to it are implied, stated, demonstrated or requested.

I think most people would agree that the influences for eating pussy happen far more regularly than there is for not eating insects generally.

Unless you were somehow raised outside of human society, your preferences would have been heavily influenced by those around you, no matter how much of a "rebel" you may be. I am mostly speculating here and if you can find fault in my reasoning let me know. I suspect the reason our ancestors stopped eating insects is: without the technology to make large enough containers that they couldn't escape and how much easier it is to keep track of a few much larger animals and plants. If we go back before domestication, I would suspect it was also easier to hunt one or two large animals than it was for us to harvest a bunch of insects, at least after developing weapons with which to kill said larger beasts with relative ease.

Honestly, the comparison of percentage success is of minimal concern here. What I'm more curious about is, what are their testing methodologies. Did they record someone and play the corresponding queries at the same volume and distance from each of the products' microphones while keeping the acoustics the same?

If they didn't then this test should be taken with a serious grain of salt, since enunciation and environment could be the biggest contributor to the differences.

Currently the D-Wave device is able to beat a few classical algorithms, but if multiple algorithms are used in combination, then there is no contest. https://www.dwavesys.com/sites...

And the device has been shown to demonstrate some qualities in simulating quantum materials https://www.dwavesys.com/sites...

There are some solvers that make use of the D-Wave's limited connectivity (which will improve in the near future) like the HFS solver. These will become less effective as the connectivity improves

Overall, there may be a chance there isn't any single problem that a properly designe algorithm couldn't solve in an equivalent time with decently fast hardware.

Sounds more like someone who doesn't understand that computer science isn't a degree in programming. It's a degree in the theory of programming, not in programming itself. So, to say that it's bad that a computer science teacher doesn't know how to code means nothing bad about them if they know the theory. Pretty much the only reason CS majors learn to code is to implement the theoretical algorithms and structures in a way that is concrete.

Depending on the institution many of the CS departments came directly out of the mathematics Department. Which is one big reason why many of them are highly math oriented.

Isn't the system nearly identical to the automated calling/automated systems that are in place in many businesses at the moment just on a significantly more personalised level? I understand there may be some confusion if the person on the other end doesn't know they're talking with an AI and it may be worrying if the call is recorded (really, how do the wire tapping laws work when one party isn't a human but is speaking on behalf of one, or better yet, if both parties are machines?).

Duplex, and other systems like it that will most definitely be developed, are just an extension of what businesses are using in their calling centres already.

Do hate to say this, but it is possible to get a statistically significant result from a sample that is a small percentage of a population. It's not a matter of the percentage size of the population that the sample is, but the number of elements in the sample. The confidence in the measurements decrease as the inverse square root of the number of elements in the sample. It doesn't matter if the sample is 1% or 0.0001% of the population (of course as the sample size converges to the population size the sample indicates the true values of the population). So, we can still make statistically significant conclusions from the data we have right now.

It may be a clone of openworm.org.