Besides, anyone here who can honestly say he never did the "magic" thing, i.e. delete a line and retype it only to have it suddenly work for no good reason whatsoever?
I dare say that most programmers would simply delete the offending line and retype it once everything that does actually make sense has been tried.
Black magic. Do it. I get the candles, Fred brings the voodoo doll, you can start chanting.
It's not black magic at all! It happens all the time with my students: they copy/paste some code from the pdf containing the exercises and then scream for help as the compiler complains. Truth is, they pasted some non-printable characters. When I tell them what happened, that they should never copy/paste code for whatever reason, erase the faulty lines and advise them to type their own version, they almost always seem so disappointed. It's amazing how the young people can be lazy...
Not really. You should read mainly 2 books: "The elements of statistical learning" by Hastie and Tibshirani, and "the nature of statistical learning theory" by Vapnik. That would clear all the fuzzy things you have with ML. ML can be described as the study of inference producing algorithms based on empirical data. Or in more simple terms: you have a bunch of observations and you want to use them to predict something.
Examples: you have the past transactions of market shares, and you want to predict the future transactions (regression). Or you have a bunch of biological and chemical measurements and you want to predict if it corresponds to a specific disease (classification). Or you measure some socio-economic data (salary, diplomas, etc) and you want to infer the probability of doing a terrorist attack (density estimation).
As you can see these are examples that are well defined with algorithms you can identify. Now, what probably disturbs you is the fundamental difference with the other types of science. In physics, you make the hypothesis of a model, which gives you a bunch of equations, and you use these equations to predict the future. In ML, you fit the model on past observations so as to minimize the errors it will produce on future observation. There are no hypotheses, and ML isn't an explanatory science (well, they can be hypotheses and results can explain things, but that's secondary). The whole point is just to build algorithms that produce sufficiently good inferences given a fair amount of observations. That's why we are talking of "data science", because the core of the thing is fitted on available data. Sometimes the output model is impossible to interpret (kernel SVM for example), it only has a useful prediction value.
There's also a Goldilocks size for functions: functions too long are a pain to decipher, and it's easy to get lost between calls when all functions are too short. The same applies for OOP with the trade off between one Godzilla class and the Lasagna of too many classes.
I wonder how much this can be automated. Seriously, I bet it's fairly easy to program a software that takes a picture at night or of the sun and guess where you are.
Maybe I'm getting old, but all these stories about uber remind me a lot of the fuss about napster back in the 2000's. And these where probably the same as everytime a new disruptive technology appears.
Now, get over it. With the ability to instantaneously have a decentralized communication between someone needing a service and someone providing a service, all hopes of regulation are dead. Labor laws are dead, they've been rendered obsolete by the massively connected world. Uber is centralized, so you can punch the company. What will you do when a decentralized equivalent service comes up?
Well, in absence of scientific evidence, if you just read the thing and have to decide between: - The guy made it up to fit his political agenda - The guy got it from a superpowered entity
Honestly, there's no way you can find the later simpler and more plausible. Especially after reading that part where men are allowed to marry up to four wives except the prophet who could marry as many as he wanted...
But it is always cool to have scientific evidence when you can get ones.
1 Make sure I'll never run out of money by doing basic investments. 2 Found my own research lab using the ROI of 1 and have fun doing research without the burden of finding funds for it. 3 No need for 3.
At the lab, we replaced centos on our cluster with ubuntu, and almost none of my colleagues are running ubuntu on their laptop (I'm running debian - if that counts). The motivation was that gcc was so fucking old it didn't had half the C++11 functionalities we're using. We could have gone for debian testing or sid, but it's not something you want to do on a cluster that's going to run month long simulations...
Frankly, I think ubuntu server is the best choice today if you need a compromise between stability and bleeding edge. That probably more why it has all the market.
I don't know. There is a part of me that says "yeah this is a bubble that's going to burst soon", and another part that says "wait, you've never seen that much improvement on such complex tasks before". Probably the future is in between, and parts of the deep conv nets are here to stay, while some others parts will rapidly be forgotten. But frankly, I don't know, which is a bit scary.
That is what will happen: Some scare top notch industrialized cities containing the few 1% and our robotic overlords, advancing technology and so on, while the remaining 99% will live outside like barbaric tribes of a preindustrial age.
Making beautiful interfaces is a very valuable skill, of course. But it still isn't programming. It's like you're making a list of top flowers and you rank tomatoes 6 in that list. That doesn't make any sense.
It takes like 40 minutes to charge a Tesla 80% of the way. That's a stop-off at KFC to eat while you use the charger in the car park.
You would really stop 3 times at KFC during a 1000km travel? I mean, It's not a joke about Americans, but...
Plus, there is no charger in the car park right now, and there won't be before sufficient numbers of ecars are on the road. But they won't be that many ecars on the road before you can charge them in the car park. Chicken and egg problem, you see.
Again, this works in the US with big suburbs where everyone has a parking lot with an electric outlet. In other countries (like good old Europe), where most people live in apartments and there is just no way you can plug your car at night, it doesn't work. It is just impossible until you can refill your car in 5 minutes like with gasoline...
Oh, and many Europeans travel 1000+km on a single streak with their cars on holidays. Again, if the cars you want to sell have to wait 2 times 4 hours to refill in such travel, you're not going to sell many of them.
Ecars are good for commuters that live in houses. There are not many of them outside the US.
It makes me think of Big Planet by the late Jack Vance. Of course this one is real and heavier, and the plot in big planet novels comes from the lighter density of the planet. But hey, these were fun stories. It's kinda sad we'll never be able to see another world.
The real problem is that the leisure society we all dream about isn't compatible with 7+ billion people. Why? Because the earth is too small to account for all resources exploitation necessary to perform these luxury automations.
Do you understand the concept of "resources"? Of course the earth is large enough to have 7 billions biped mammals roughly 6 feet high. Densely compacted, it could even fit in less than that. Sustaining their energy consumption is a completely different story.
How much space do you think it takes to allow you to change your phone every 4 months or to take the plane to see your mom on holidays? Do you still think the earth is big enough to sustain the energy requirement of 7 billion people living in the leisure society?
No, I'm suggesting, on a rather well-established basis, that computation alone is insufficient. This is all assuming that the mind is a product of the brain. Whatever the brain does to cause consciousness, it can not be by mere computation alone.
I don't know why you find this so troubling.
Please define consciousness. And please don't define it as "something that cannot be computed" as it would be defeating your point.
If your definition is "the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world", then you have to prove it is not computable. Is a cat conscious? A cat doesn't recognize itself in the mirror, so is it aware of itself? If the cat is not conscious, what is the mathematical difference between the brain of a cat and ours, where is the thing that make them not equivalent (in computation theory)? If the cat is conscious, is a lizard conscious then? And after the lizard, a worm, etc. All of these are examples of increasingly complex computation machines.
You are just a machine, get over it, it doesn't take away the beauty of what you can do with your mind.
Slashdot Mirror
GBI doesn't work without demographic control. There are too few people to want both of them.
Besides, anyone here who can honestly say he never did the "magic" thing, i.e. delete a line and retype it only to have it suddenly work for no good reason whatsoever?
I dare say that most programmers would simply delete the offending line and retype it once everything that does actually make sense has been tried.
Black magic. Do it. I get the candles, Fred brings the voodoo doll, you can start chanting.
It's not black magic at all! It happens all the time with my students: they copy/paste some code from the pdf containing the exercises and then scream for help as the compiler complains. Truth is, they pasted some non-printable characters. When I tell them what happened, that they should never copy/paste code for whatever reason, erase the faulty lines and advise them to type their own version, they almost always seem so disappointed. It's amazing how the young people can be lazy...
Not really. You should read mainly 2 books: "The elements of statistical learning" by Hastie and Tibshirani, and "the nature of statistical learning theory" by Vapnik. That would clear all the fuzzy things you have with ML. ML can be described as the study of inference producing algorithms based on empirical data. Or in more simple terms: you have a bunch of observations and you want to use them to predict something.
Examples: you have the past transactions of market shares, and you want to predict the future transactions (regression). Or you have a bunch of biological and chemical measurements and you want to predict if it corresponds to a specific disease (classification). Or you measure some socio-economic data (salary, diplomas, etc) and you want to infer the probability of doing a terrorist attack (density estimation).
As you can see these are examples that are well defined with algorithms you can identify. Now, what probably disturbs you is the fundamental difference with the other types of science. In physics, you make the hypothesis of a model, which gives you a bunch of equations, and you use these equations to predict the future. In ML, you fit the model on past observations so as to minimize the errors it will produce on future observation. There are no hypotheses, and ML isn't an explanatory science (well, they can be hypotheses and results can explain things, but that's secondary). The whole point is just to build algorithms that produce sufficiently good inferences given a fair amount of observations. That's why we are talking of "data science", because the core of the thing is fitted on available data. Sometimes the output model is impossible to interpret (kernel SVM for example), it only has a useful prediction value.
Nice ones.
There's also a Goldilocks size for functions: functions too long are a pain to decipher, and it's easy to get lost between calls when all functions are too short. The same applies for OOP with the trade off between one Godzilla class and the Lasagna of too many classes.
I wonder how much this can be automated. Seriously, I bet it's fairly easy to program a software that takes a picture at night or of the sun and guess where you are.
Which is so complicated to do that it won't work. Like p2p illegal file sharing.
Maybe I'm getting old, but all these stories about uber remind me a lot of the fuss about napster back in the 2000's. And these where probably the same as everytime a new disruptive technology appears.
Now, get over it. With the ability to instantaneously have a decentralized communication between someone needing a service and someone providing a service, all hopes of regulation are dead. Labor laws are dead, they've been rendered obsolete by the massively connected world. Uber is centralized, so you can punch the company. What will you do when a decentralized equivalent service comes up?
Well, in absence of scientific evidence, if you just read the thing and have to decide between:
- The guy made it up to fit his political agenda
- The guy got it from a superpowered entity
Honestly, there's no way you can find the later simpler and more plausible. Especially after reading that part where men are allowed to marry up to four wives except the prophet who could marry as many as he wanted...
But it is always cool to have scientific evidence when you can get ones.
1 Make sure I'll never run out of money by doing basic investments.
2 Found my own research lab using the ROI of 1 and have fun doing research without the burden of finding funds for it.
3 No need for 3.
Notch, if you want to try, send a PM ;)
At the lab, we replaced centos on our cluster with ubuntu, and almost none of my colleagues are running ubuntu on their laptop (I'm running debian - if that counts). The motivation was that gcc was so fucking old it didn't had half the C++11 functionalities we're using. We could have gone for debian testing or sid, but it's not something you want to do on a cluster that's going to run month long simulations...
Frankly, I think ubuntu server is the best choice today if you need a compromise between stability and bleeding edge. That probably more why it has all the market.
I don't know. There is a part of me that says "yeah this is a bubble that's going to burst soon", and another part that says "wait, you've never seen that much improvement on such complex tasks before". Probably the future is in between, and parts of the deep conv nets are here to stay, while some others parts will rapidly be forgotten. But frankly, I don't know, which is a bit scary.
That is what will happen: Some scare top notch industrialized cities containing the few 1% and our robotic overlords, advancing technology and so on, while the remaining 99% will live outside like barbaric tribes of a preindustrial age.
You should read "To Live Forever" by Jack Vance.
Making beautiful interfaces is a very valuable skill, of course. But it still isn't programming. It's like you're making a list of top flowers and you rank tomatoes 6 in that list. That doesn't make any sense.
If it is about programming, then why are CSS and HTML along the list? These are rendering languages...
It takes like 40 minutes to charge a Tesla 80% of the way. That's a stop-off at KFC to eat while you use the charger in the car park.
You would really stop 3 times at KFC during a 1000km travel? I mean, It's not a joke about Americans, but...
Plus, there is no charger in the car park right now, and there won't be before sufficient numbers of ecars are on the road. But they won't be that many ecars on the road before you can charge them in the car park. Chicken and egg problem, you see.
Again, this works in the US with big suburbs where everyone has a parking lot with an electric outlet. In other countries (like good old Europe), where most people live in apartments and there is just no way you can plug your car at night, it doesn't work. It is just impossible until you can refill your car in 5 minutes like with gasoline...
Oh, and many Europeans travel 1000+km on a single streak with their cars on holidays. Again, if the cars you want to sell have to wait 2 times 4 hours to refill in such travel, you're not going to sell many of them.
Ecars are good for commuters that live in houses. There are not many of them outside the US.
Fix that for you.
Exactly my thoughts also. Intensive computation and using a spreadsheet? You're doing it wrong.
It makes me think of Big Planet by the late Jack Vance. Of course this one is real and heavier, and the plot in big planet novels comes from the lighter density of the planet. But hey, these were fun stories. It's kinda sad we'll never be able to see another world.
'It's nice to talk to you' was translated as 'It's f*cking nice to f*ck you,'
Seems the damn thing is actually translating what's in your mind instead of what your saying...
It was to avoid her destroying our spacecrafts as proportionate response to demoting her from the planetary status.
Did your "fuck you" opinion on Nvidia changed lately? (and why)
There wasn't a decent unix-like kernel, you wrote one which ultimately became the most used.
There wasn't a decent version control software, you wrote one which ultimately became the most love.
Do you think we already have a decent init system, or do you have plan to write one that will ultimately settle the world on that hot topic?
Malthusian Nonsense. You could fit the entire world's population in New Zealand.
http://www.fastcoexist.com/301...
Do you understand the concept of "resources"? Of course the earth is large enough to have 7 billions biped mammals roughly 6 feet high. Densely compacted, it could even fit in less than that. Sustaining their energy consumption is a completely different story.
You should check that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
How much space do you think it takes to allow you to change your phone every 4 months or to take the plane to see your mom on holidays? Do you still think the earth is big enough to sustain the energy requirement of 7 billion people living in the leisure society?
No, I'm suggesting, on a rather well-established basis, that computation alone is insufficient. This is all assuming that the mind is a product of the brain. Whatever the brain does to cause consciousness, it can not be by mere computation alone.
I don't know why you find this so troubling.
Please define consciousness. And please don't define it as "something that cannot be computed" as it would be defeating your point.
If your definition is "the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world", then you have to prove it is not computable. Is a cat conscious? A cat doesn't recognize itself in the mirror, so is it aware of itself? If the cat is not conscious, what is the mathematical difference between the brain of a cat and ours, where is the thing that make them not equivalent (in computation theory)? If the cat is conscious, is a lizard conscious then? And after the lizard, a worm, etc. All of these are examples of increasingly complex computation machines.
You are just a machine, get over it, it doesn't take away the beauty of what you can do with your mind.