Usually Machine Learning systems have Precision measure, or relevance measure, if the rating they produce is greyscale. The article doesn't seem to mention in how many cases how close was system to predict the personalities.
Also, the system needs, to be scalable, a classifier to judge the qualities of shared posts on which likes were made. The error of this classifier would act as a multiplier to the overall accuracy of system.
They mostly explain the recall of the system, which is _slightly_ better than random pick (0.5). There is a lot of invention needed in this area.
Now, Why does this remind me of recent Vimana - flying planes discovered by indians 5 Bazillion years ago theory?
The problem with such people are, they are just proposing hypotheses without any proof, clues or observation in nature. This is no theorem, conjecture or (even good enough to be called as) a law. We call such people as "shekhchilli" in Hindi (pronounced Sheik-Chilly, or daydreamers in English). Is the current article a news for geeks or vomit for them.
If they wanted to look for life/ water, could they have gone to higher latitudes (near the polar region, where the water has just begun to freeze) there and worked on finding liquid water, and as we know, water has life, so it would be easier to find it there.
Can you explain your answer plz? What I understand that a particular energy light is able to break a particular protein, so more energy than this should be easily breaking up the same protein.
I guess the particular radiation is causing blindness in insects and that cripples them to die.
I was discussing this with my prof. He said- "after industrial revolution, people feared that the machines would take over humans, but they were wrong, as machines don't have intelligence. Now people believe that the intelligent machines would take over. It's not possible because they don't have emotions. In a way, they can not compute on their own to co-operate and compete with each other. That's the basic reason why they won't win over humans."
... were a bit pain for writing machine learning code. R simplified it, but only to an extent where the file size wasn't too big. Java and C# still provide the best solution when it comes to solving big data problems. Also, Hive / Pig is the best one to work on distributed clusters.
Many other things which would change how we'd be living, not mentioned in article:
1. Machine Learning: machines now learn to do magic tricks, phones would soon learn what you read and adjust according to it. Spy bots, which would work on ant colony optimizations. unmanned war machines.
2. Extraterrestrial habitats - on mars and other planets
3. Habitats on water - cities floating on oceans
4. materials which can change shape on their own - without mechanical devices - because of their own crystal lattice structures
5. Collective Intelligence - ask questions, get answers in almost / actual realtime with information of humanity collected in a huge corpus.
6. Solar energy - next thing which would render the powerhouses useless
I think the article was a sensationalist clickbait.
i'm sure if you met me, you'd have advised them opposite. i used to award -100% (yes, negative of full marks) to cheaters. they'd get 0 when they'd score 100% next time.
In fact, I have observed, while teaching a group of B Techs, M Techs and PhDs at Indian Institute of Technology (my alma mater as well), that when something is taught like a story, with a mathematical interpretation to that, people feel friendlier to the subject, never forget it (and even if they do, they are ready to re-read the text book, because they are confident due to their first encounter, that the subject was beautiful).
In fact, i had created a lots of one liners, jokes, and stories around most of the subjects like algorithms, theory of computation, machine learning, physics and mathematics. I found the courses then were fun to deliver, and people never walked out of the lectures, boosting my morale.
It's never fruitful to keep harping how intelligent / beautiful someone is. It's not their achievement! Talent, effort, hard work, diligence, sincerity, muscle etc are traits which are earned over the years. these should be appreciated so that people may grow.
Disclaimer: when someone accomplishes something by using their intelligence or similar such traits, that should be praised, definitely, as that is an effort.
i'm surprised the author never mentioned cobol, fortran, ada, haskell etc? also there are no numbers to back his claim that users are dwindling away...
1. Lightning partially passes through the body, because body gives a lot of resistance to the charge. Remaining charge flows through air to the ground.
2. it looked to me as if the frontal lobe of the person in story was affected. Frontal lobe is associated with such changes in personality
The headline-- black holes don't exist-- is at odds with the actual article.
The article doesn't say the mathematicians said that black holes don't exist: it says they showed black holes aren't formed by the collapse of massive stars. Black holes such as the ones at the nuclei of galaxies may very well be formed by other processes.
--even if it were true that black holes don't exist, by the way, it doesn't solve the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity with quantum mechanics. At best it would solve the black hole information paradox; but since it still incorporates Hawking radiation in the solution, it doesn't even solve that.
This article talks about this only: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars...
However, Formation of blackholes are of 2 types, one- uncharged blackholes and the others are charged ones. uncharged ones are formed by either excess of energy at a single point, or heavy density of mass constrained to live in a small volume.
Here's my understanding of the article:
In organic chemistry- molecules often have asymmetric shape. Even though their chemical composition is same, their selection of "which bond" about the carbon atom causes "twisted" molecules. So there can exist isomers of compounds (like glucose has, and particularly called as anomer). You can imagine the twisted molecule as a fat roll of putty twisted. So, some parts of putty will be observable from outside (exposed) and some, not that exposed.
In most of the reactions, one reactant comes near the other reactant to give/ take electron. But to come near that electron rich area (called reaction site), you need that area to be exposed. If the area is not exposed, no reaction would happen there. However, if the reaction happens, and the site is not well exposed (hence less room to accommodate a big fat molecule of reactant, then the bond (if made) will be very weak. A slight collision with anything- (forget an electron) even 5 photons will cause the reaction to happen, and the molecule to dissociate. ( a similar reaction happens in our eyes when as less as 5 photons hit our eyes and supply the energy to one stereo-isomer (cis on 11th carbon to be exact) retinal to convert to all trans retinal) Here's a wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Because of this twisting in proteins (Also known as a primary structure of protein), reaction sites are created, but are obfuscated because of secondary, and tertiary structure (too many amino acid units (group of arranged atoms), and their repeated patterns make a protein). Now, whenever a stabler structure is to be made, they can happen in one stable shape in space. for the other isomer, it wouldn't be stable, because of weak bond and less room.
My understanding is, the slow moving electrons hit the molecules in one of the reaction sites too obscure for regular ones, and this imparted the energy. It's a similar thing like UV rays or very strong electromagnetic radiations do. In case of electrons, when they come, they bring charge, which may throw the poor molecule off balance, and cause breaking due to the imbalance in electrical forces.
Slashdot Mirror
what was that supposed to mean?
Also, the system needs, to be scalable, a classifier to judge the qualities of shared posts on which likes were made. The error of this classifier would act as a multiplier to the overall accuracy of system.
They mostly explain the recall of the system, which is _slightly_ better than random pick (0.5). There is a lot of invention needed in this area.
The problem with such people are, they are just proposing hypotheses without any proof, clues or observation in nature. This is no theorem, conjecture or (even good enough to be called as) a law. We call such people as "shekhchilli" in Hindi (pronounced Sheik-Chilly, or daydreamers in English). Is the current article a news for geeks or vomit for them.
With the unshaven fat man in red and white on the ship
If they wanted to look for life/ water, could they have gone to higher latitudes (near the polar region, where the water has just begun to freeze) there and worked on finding liquid water, and as we know, water has life, so it would be easier to find it there.
Really Lenovo, is it that complicated to make a proper adapter?
Can you explain your answer plz? What I understand that a particular energy light is able to break a particular protein, so more energy than this should be easily breaking up the same protein. I guess the particular radiation is causing blindness in insects and that cripples them to die.
Did you mean chopping the "onion"?
I was discussing this with my prof. He said- "after industrial revolution, people feared that the machines would take over humans, but they were wrong, as machines don't have intelligence. Now people believe that the intelligent machines would take over. It's not possible because they don't have emotions. In a way, they can not compute on their own to co-operate and compete with each other. That's the basic reason why they won't win over humans."
There's part of brain to feel fear of anything. switch that part off too, and you make humans dangerous species.
... were a bit pain for writing machine learning code. R simplified it, but only to an extent where the file size wasn't too big. Java and C# still provide the best solution when it comes to solving big data problems. Also, Hive / Pig is the best one to work on distributed clusters.
Because then, we'd find many to threaten earth!
I think the article was a sensationalist clickbait.
it's a variant of theorem proving and relation finding exercise in prolog / horn's clause
i believe it would also explain why gas giants are all far away from sun too
i'm sure if you met me, you'd have advised them opposite. i used to award -100% (yes, negative of full marks) to cheaters. they'd get 0 when they'd score 100% next time.
In fact, i had created a lots of one liners, jokes, and stories around most of the subjects like algorithms, theory of computation, machine learning, physics and mathematics. I found the courses then were fun to deliver, and people never walked out of the lectures, boosting my morale.
Disclaimer: when someone accomplishes something by using their intelligence or similar such traits, that should be praised, definitely, as that is an effort.
i'm surprised the author never mentioned cobol, fortran, ada, haskell etc? also there are no numbers to back his claim that users are dwindling away...
if they allowed downloading their directoy, it'd help NLP and machine learning engineers.
2. it looked to me as if the frontal lobe of the person in story was affected. Frontal lobe is associated with such changes in personality
The headline-- black holes don't exist-- is at odds with the actual article.
The article doesn't say the mathematicians said that black holes don't exist: it says they showed black holes aren't formed by the collapse of massive stars. Black holes such as the ones at the nuclei of galaxies may very well be formed by other processes.
--even if it were true that black holes don't exist, by the way, it doesn't solve the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity with quantum mechanics. At best it would solve the black hole information paradox; but since it still incorporates Hawking radiation in the solution, it doesn't even solve that.
This article talks about this only: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars... However, Formation of blackholes are of 2 types, one- uncharged blackholes and the others are charged ones. uncharged ones are formed by either excess of energy at a single point, or heavy density of mass constrained to live in a small volume.
Here's my understanding of the article: In organic chemistry- molecules often have asymmetric shape. Even though their chemical composition is same, their selection of "which bond" about the carbon atom causes "twisted" molecules. So there can exist isomers of compounds (like glucose has, and particularly called as anomer). You can imagine the twisted molecule as a fat roll of putty twisted. So, some parts of putty will be observable from outside (exposed) and some, not that exposed.
In most of the reactions, one reactant comes near the other reactant to give/ take electron. But to come near that electron rich area (called reaction site), you need that area to be exposed. If the area is not exposed, no reaction would happen there. However, if the reaction happens, and the site is not well exposed (hence less room to accommodate a big fat molecule of reactant, then the bond (if made) will be very weak. A slight collision with anything- (forget an electron) even 5 photons will cause the reaction to happen, and the molecule to dissociate. ( a similar reaction happens in our eyes when as less as 5 photons hit our eyes and supply the energy to one stereo-isomer (cis on 11th carbon to be exact) retinal to convert to all trans retinal) Here's a wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Because of this twisting in proteins (Also known as a primary structure of protein), reaction sites are created, but are obfuscated because of secondary, and tertiary structure (too many amino acid units (group of arranged atoms), and their repeated patterns make a protein). Now, whenever a stabler structure is to be made, they can happen in one stable shape in space. for the other isomer, it wouldn't be stable, because of weak bond and less room.
My understanding is, the slow moving electrons hit the molecules in one of the reaction sites too obscure for regular ones, and this imparted the energy. It's a similar thing like UV rays or very strong electromagnetic radiations do. In case of electrons, when they come, they bring charge, which may throw the poor molecule off balance, and cause breaking due to the imbalance in electrical forces.