Every point but 3 is utterly false. You made it up.
Every point but 3 is utterly false. You made it up.
2016 seems like a year where far too many awesome people died, but it's just the baby boomer curve.
2017 will be much worse.
(The single period to mark a passing may not be a thing here but it once was, on metafilter)
So a precisely tuned flicker-frequency (40Hz in mice) does great things for brain function and maintenance -- so what deleterious effects do things like CRT monitors, mains-powered fluro/LED lighting etc have on our brains -- given that they're operating "out of sync" with our gamma waves?
Could it be that the increase in dementia/Alzheimer's is related to our exposure to such off-frequency flickering on a very wide scale, thanks to modern technology?
From the synopsis:
"Users can only get one movie per account. Both services offer an extensive list of titles, including this year's Suicide Squad, Bridge Jones's Baby, and Finding Dory among others"
Bridge Jones's Baby? I don't think I've heard of that one (rolls eyes)
I think this is a question of him at heart not being opposed to this idea.
Putting words in his mouth about a Muslim registry takes attention away from legitimate criticism (practicality of a border wall, treatment of women, financial plans, etc.) and therefore works in his favor.
Preface: I voted against Trump.
In the first clip I'm noticing that Trump refers to borders and walls suggesting his mind is in the context of immigration from the south. That would mean his comments about databases refer to immigration in general. Islam isn't referenced until late in the clip, and then by the interviewer rather than Trump. My conclusion: Trump and the interviewer are talking about two different things. It's unclear if the interviewer intended for that to happen. It's also unclear whether some of the interview from before the clip we see would've established a Muslim context to what we see.
In the second clip Trump seems to try to avoid the question. I can interpret that as him being evasive or as him being annoyed at the question. Being annoyed would be understandable if Trump has not proposed a Muslim database. I haven't seen evidence he has. A smarter politician would've taken the opportunity to say "Muslim database? That's horrible idea and I'm against it! Now an immigration database would be handy to have in the unlikely event Canada invades..." if he has not proposed a Muslim database, but I don't think Trump is very smart (see my preface).
So, one problem is that there is not always more data. In my field, we have a surplus of some sorts of data, but other data requires hundreds of thousands of hours of human input, and we only have so much of that to go around. Processing all of that is easy enough, getting more is not.
Also, by "effective", I should have made it clear that I meant "an effective overall solution to the problem", which includes all costs of training a wider, lower-precision network. This includes input data collection, storage and processing, all of the custom software to handle this odd floating point format, including FP16-specific test code and documentation, run time server costs and latency, any increased risks introduced by using code paths in training and , etc.
I'm not saying that I don't believe it's possible, I've just seen absolutely no evidence that this is a significant win in most or even a sizable fraction of cases, or that it represents a "best practice" in the field. Our own experiments have shown a severe degradation in performance when using these nets w/out a complete retraining, the software engineering costs will be nontrivial, and much of the hardware we are forced to run on does not even support this functionality.
As an analog, when we use integer based nets and switch between 16-bit and 8-bit integers, we see an unacceptable level of degradation, even though there is a modest speedup and we can use slightly larger neural nets. I'm very wary of anything with a mantissa much smaller than 16 bits for that reason--those few bits seem to make a significant difference, at least for what we're doing. We're solving a very difficult constrained optimization problem using markov chains in real time, and if the observational features are lower fidelity, the optimization search will run out of time to explore the search space effectively before the result is returned to the rest of the system. It's possible that the sensitivity of our optimization algorithm to input quality is the issue here, not the fundamental usefulness of FP16, but I'm still quite skeptical. If this were a "slam dunk", I'd expect to see it move through the literature in a wave like the Restricted Boltzmann Machine did.
Oh, and thank you for the like (great reading) and the thoughtful reply. Not always easy to find on niche topics online.
It seems like these systems are exploitative by design, even if exploitation wasn't explicitly the goal. They're designed with every possible algorithm and available data to maximize labor output at the lowest possible cost. Individual workers are operating at extreme information asymmetry and against a system which does not negotiate and only offers a take it or leave it choice.
This is by far the best comment I've ever seen regarding this sort of algorithmic labor management.
Normally I'm all for this sort of thing--my company is a client and uses it to handle large bursts of data processing quickly--but the information symmetry argument is a powerful one. Also, there doesn't seem to be a lot of competition in this space, which might otherwise ameliorate a lot of the problems induced by the "take it or leave it" bargaining approach.
The analysis provided by the article is absurd, but yours seems to lead to the inescapable conclusion that some kind of regulation is necessary to prevent blatant exploitation. Maybe just reducing information asymmetry in some way, or requiring transparency in reports available to the public on the website regarding effective wages paid to workers as a fraction of the minimum and average wages of employees in their respective countries. Surely someone can find an answer to this.
How much of all this is just misanthropy.
Plenty of CEOs drinking and operating companies; plenty of sociopaths, too. Such are planning to replace tens of millions of people and crash a good chunk of the planet into depression. I'll be impressed when the CEOs get replaced by AI.
Circuits are by definition the opposite of real world. The Pittsburg taxis have drivers. The Ohio trucks have drivers. And they are crashing plenty; they just are not telling us about it.
Ho ho. A CEO in prison.
The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.