Another misleading headline. They didn't crack anything. Was there seriously anyone who doubted for one millisecond that that feeling was not somewhere in the brain? Of course it bloody is. The scans didn't reveal anything except a location that shows more activity when the condition occurs, and –suprise, surprise– it's an area known for precisely this.
But did they discover what sets up this association? No. Why these people experience it so strongly? Neither. So no cracking, just "located the area", and even that's surrounded by uncertainty given the experimental conditions.
It's not just for-profit. Where I live, and in neighbouring countries as well, there is a tendency to think that more degrees is better, and at the same time that paying schools and universities according to their output is good. The outcome is that the institutes lower their standards. We have tons of people with BSc and Msc degrees in "Media and Communication Sciences" that can't distinguish an average from a square root.
True. I wrote toy one 20 years ago with the assumption you wouldn't make circular data structures and it was pretty fast. You couldn't do things like (set (f...) (g...)) either, of course. But I couldn't and can't find good use for Lisp-to-C. There are good compilers out there, so why bother going via C?
The fact that you don't call something a program isn't meaningful, is it? It's not a microblog either. Twitter is a company, if you insist on being literal.
> It's like slashdot now lets complete technical retrogrades post here.
What does Twitter have to do with technology? I don't see it. Their "tech" is so humble that even your aunt couldn't possibly be impressed by it.
You're completely right. I can't imagine a single reason to vote for Zuckerberg, whose only motto seems to be "let's see how far we can screw our users today", and Bezos' tech moment is behind us now. Musk has electric cars, vertically landing rockets, and a hyperloop. How cool is that?
First: the humane genome has not been decoded. We've got a string of [AGCT]*, that's it. What it means, we don't know.
Second: neuroscience is the modern name for a combination of cognitive psychology and neurobiology. It is a serious, complex and worthy subject of research, but there are a lot of bad researchers. It's unfortunately easier to get into neuroscience than into physics.
I got my Late 2011 15" model almost maxed out, but it was no longer sufficient. I replaced the memory (now 16GB instead of 4GB) and replaced the hard drive with an SSD. It's slower than new machines, but only for CPU heavy tasks; for the rest it runs very smooth. Having the possibility of replacing some components adds to a machine's value, to me at least.
It's quite likely that there is a shared representation. That's what neural nets do: if you feed train them on similar input/output pairs, they will develop common activation patterns. They would do so regardless of the language, since they don't know which language is being presented.
Humans, OTOH, do know that they're being presented with a different language, and demonstrably do something called "code switching": a cognitive effort to use another language resource. Therefore, in the human brain, the shared connection is supposed to lie outside the language faculty (there are other reasons to assume it, too).
Yup. It might be that Uber drivers avoid certain neighborhoods. Or that people with "African-American sounding names" have a different time schedule which triggers longer waits. Or that... But no, let's cry racism before knowing anything. Because that worked so well for the boy that cried wolf, didn't it?
Sorry, but you're wrong. The remark is about the performance. 79% means nothing without knowing the baseline of an uninformed method. I think you can agree that a coin toss will produce the proper result in 50% of all cases. So if the performance of a system on a binary choice is 50%, it's as good as a coin toss, no matter how it's implemented. Suppose you make a system that always prints "plaintiff wins". Then its performance will be the actual win rate for the plaintiff. If that happens to be 79%, the system's performance is 79% without any knowledge.
How representative the sample set is, is another question all together.
Well, that's an eloquent argument. You don't care about memory management and data synchronization? Fine, go ahead, you can build your console based tic-tac-toe game app without it. No problem.
According to Elon Musk, we must be in a nested simulation: if the odds that we don't live in one is 1 in a billion, why would those odds be any different for our simulators? And then up and up and up, until we reach the point where (1-1/1000000000)^n is acceptably low.
As far as I can tell, Have has exactly the same shortcomings as Go, but with a slightly different syntax. I don't care about indentation vs block markers (I prefer begin... end, but there's enough vitriol already), but all Have does is put struct functions inside the struct instead of outside (with the ugly func (s *struct) syntax). Go's approach has an advantage, Have's too, but it's all very cosmetic.
The Go language is indeed limited: I see it as an odd mixture between Java and C, a Java-- if you want: no OOP, no generics, automatic memory management. It does offer easier multi-threading than either. So Go offers a lot of protection against typical C bugs, but performs better than Java. It's therefore a sane choice if you want to write low-level-ish applications, where performance matters, and you don't want to spend dev time doing your own memory management.
Personally, I find Rust very interesting, but it's a bitch when it comes to rewriting old code in it. I would love to do a bigger project in it, though, to get a better feel for it.
It's precisely that: Javascript with type checking and a few features that make programming a bit easier. If you have to write in Javascript, you really owe it to yourself to check it out.
First, you don't, or rather, shouldn't vote for a person based on your interpretation of that person's image, but rather on how you think he or she would represent your views (in this case as a president).
Second: treason? Millions of deaths? You surely must know you're exaggerating.
I have no direct stake in the matter, and I think "HRC" is not to be trusted at all, but did you ever listen to Trump speak? He's got the intelligence of a 14 year old. And the temper too. But there is no other choice, so Hillary it is.
Austria doesn't have a history of large indemnifications. And they could disinherit her or stop paying for her studies. And of course, most people aren't wealthy. I'd say you're most likely wrong.
But some/. editor read that, copied that, possibly discussed that, and hit the publish button without thinking: how can the worst failure rate be lower than the average failure rate?
Slashdot Mirror
For problems involving negative associations, cognitive behavioral therapy can really work.
Another misleading headline. They didn't crack anything. Was there seriously anyone who doubted for one millisecond that that feeling was not somewhere in the brain? Of course it bloody is. The scans didn't reveal anything except a location that shows more activity when the condition occurs, and –suprise, surprise– it's an area known for precisely this.
But did they discover what sets up this association? No. Why these people experience it so strongly? Neither. So no cracking, just "located the area", and even that's surrounded by uncertainty given the experimental conditions.
It's not just for-profit. Where I live, and in neighbouring countries as well, there is a tendency to think that more degrees is better, and at the same time that paying schools and universities according to their output is good. The outcome is that the institutes lower their standards. We have tons of people with BSc and Msc degrees in "Media and Communication Sciences" that can't distinguish an average from a square root.
It might also be a scam, of course.
True. I wrote toy one 20 years ago with the assumption you wouldn't make circular data structures and it was pretty fast. You couldn't do things like (set (f ...) (g ...)) either, of course. But I couldn't and can't find good use for Lisp-to-C. There are good compilers out there, so why bother going via C?
> If you'll re-read my post carefully
It's a rant, not a post. You're overestimating yourself.
The fact that you don't call something a program isn't meaningful, is it? It's not a microblog either. Twitter is a company, if you insist on being literal.
> It's like slashdot now lets complete technical retrogrades post here.
What does Twitter have to do with technology? I don't see it. Their "tech" is so humble that even your aunt couldn't possibly be impressed by it.
You're completely right. I can't imagine a single reason to vote for Zuckerberg, whose only motto seems to be "let's see how far we can screw our users today", and Bezos' tech moment is behind us now. Musk has electric cars, vertically landing rockets, and a hyperloop. How cool is that?
First: the humane genome has not been decoded. We've got a string of [AGCT]*, that's it. What it means, we don't know.
Second: neuroscience is the modern name for a combination of cognitive psychology and neurobiology. It is a serious, complex and worthy subject of research, but there are a lot of bad researchers. It's unfortunately easier to get into neuroscience than into physics.
I got my Late 2011 15" model almost maxed out, but it was no longer sufficient. I replaced the memory (now 16GB instead of 4GB) and replaced the hard drive with an SSD. It's slower than new machines, but only for CPU heavy tasks; for the rest it runs very smooth. Having the possibility of replacing some components adds to a machine's value, to me at least.
It's quite likely that there is a shared representation. That's what neural nets do: if you feed train them on similar input/output pairs, they will develop common activation patterns. They would do so regardless of the language, since they don't know which language is being presented.
Humans, OTOH, do know that they're being presented with a different language, and demonstrably do something called "code switching": a cognitive effort to use another language resource. Therefore, in the human brain, the shared connection is supposed to lie outside the language faculty (there are other reasons to assume it, too).
Yup. It might be that Uber drivers avoid certain neighborhoods. Or that people with "African-American sounding names" have a different time schedule which triggers longer waits. Or that ... But no, let's cry racism before knowing anything. Because that worked so well for the boy that cried wolf, didn't it?
Sorry, but you're wrong. The remark is about the performance. 79% means nothing without knowing the baseline of an uninformed method. I think you can agree that a coin toss will produce the proper result in 50% of all cases. So if the performance of a system on a binary choice is 50%, it's as good as a coin toss, no matter how it's implemented. Suppose you make a system that always prints "plaintiff wins". Then its performance will be the actual win rate for the plaintiff. If that happens to be 79%, the system's performance is 79% without any knowledge.
How representative the sample set is, is another question all together.
BTW, the actual numbers for 2015 are
Refused: 2930
Granted: 3433
Denied: 588
Total: 6951
So granted is 85% of all cases. So a system just printing "granted" will perform better (if refused is left out of consideration).
Don't forget data races.
Well, that's an eloquent argument. You don't care about memory management and data synchronization? Fine, go ahead, you can build your console based tic-tac-toe game app without it. No problem.
This is what you can expect in a country where money is considered free speech.
According to Elon Musk, we must be in a nested simulation: if the odds that we don't live in one is 1 in a billion, why would those odds be any different for our simulators? And then up and up and up, until we reach the point where (1-1/1000000000)^n is acceptably low.
What ever made him say such a stupid thing?
As far as I can tell, Have has exactly the same shortcomings as Go, but with a slightly different syntax. I don't care about indentation vs block markers (I prefer begin ... end, but there's enough vitriol already), but all Have does is put struct functions inside the struct instead of outside (with the ugly func (s *struct) syntax). Go's approach has an advantage, Have's too, but it's all very cosmetic.
The Go language is indeed limited: I see it as an odd mixture between Java and C, a Java-- if you want: no OOP, no generics, automatic memory management. It does offer easier multi-threading than either. So Go offers a lot of protection against typical C bugs, but performs better than Java. It's therefore a sane choice if you want to write low-level-ish applications, where performance matters, and you don't want to spend dev time doing your own memory management.
Personally, I find Rust very interesting, but it's a bitch when it comes to rewriting old code in it. I would love to do a bigger project in it, though, to get a better feel for it.
It's precisely that: Javascript with type checking and a few features that make programming a bit easier. If you have to write in Javascript, you really owe it to yourself to check it out.
That's such a polarized view.
First, you don't, or rather, shouldn't vote for a person based on your interpretation of that person's image, but rather on how you think he or she would represent your views (in this case as a president).
Second: treason? Millions of deaths? You surely must know you're exaggerating.
Proven crimes are petty. And Trump isn't corrupt? Haha. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I have no direct stake in the matter, and I think "HRC" is not to be trusted at all, but did you ever listen to Trump speak? He's got the intelligence of a 14 year old. And the temper too. But there is no other choice, so Hillary it is.
Austria doesn't have a history of large indemnifications. And they could disinherit her or stop paying for her studies. And of course, most people aren't wealthy. I'd say you're most likely wrong.
How can you get modded insightful? Please read the verdict. It implies nothing of the kind.
But some /. editor read that, copied that, possibly discussed that, and hit the publish button without thinking: how can the worst failure rate be lower than the average failure rate?