Hate to be a grammar nazi but you really can't say that, you mean "2nd biggerest". The root of the word is old british, but the cardinal extension is derived from hobbitish.
Yup. I didn't get much time to play it over the past year, but now that my schedule is finally calming down Civ 5 is proving to be a bit moorish. I need to beat it a few more times on Vanilla before I get the two expansions.
The problem would be that the equation models net population growth i.e. births - deaths. When resource limits are reached the birth rate does not drift down gracefully of its own accord. Lots of people die as the system reaches a new equilibrium. Typical methods are wars over resources, famine from lack of resources or widespread disease due to a lack of resources to treat them. As the equation is only a model (an approximation) it does not cover the difference between hitting hard resource limits softly, or sharply. There is of course no natural reason that resource starvation would not kill off the entire population, as a barren lifeless world is also an equilibrium.
It seems quite obvious from the summary that what they propose is not arbitrage - it is fraud. It's caught by the rule that you state, but more generally they are using a single ticket to make two journeys. In the case of the two hypothetical commuters crossing the city they are both paying for 1/2 journey and then it is being made twice. That is not a price difference between two assets, it is double-spending.
I've been here about 11 years and this will make me leave. Screw whether or not it looks nice - this new interface is functionally broken. I can't see what selection of comments has been loaded or not loaded. There is no indication of parts of the tree that are not shown. The load more button gives no feedback about where it is inserting comments, or how many.
If I wanted to see a flashy rendering of the headlines with no context then I would read the site over RSS. If I wanted to see some random selection of the comments instead of (an outline) of the whole tree then I would just ask somebody else to read slashdot and give me a badly organised summary of their interpretation of the daily feeling of slashdot.
This interface does not work on a mobile device. It does not work on a desktop. It does not work. The final insult is that I had to switch to classic to post, because that doesn't work properly on the new interface either. Complete shite. So this is how slashdot died.
Perhaps, but what did occur on every system was the most horrifically jarring texture popping. Looking away from a surface and then looking back (without changing position) was enough to flush the texture and have it reloaded so it takes a second or two to hit maximum resolution. That is a terrible way to handle texturing.
Our eyes are most sensitive to motion. Geometry-pop is bad because a few pixels change in a way that is inconsistent with the model. Texture-pop means that lots of pixels change in a way that is inconsistent with the model - the motion does not map onto motion in the virtual world. This is the worst possible choice for immersion and it completely ruined Rage.
Megatexturing is really just a big exercise in caching. The optimisation problem is to not to minimise distortion in the projected image (i.e maximise the resolution of each texture on each frame), the problem is to minimise change in the projected image. This implies that if somebody walks closer to an object then the transition of textures should be as smooth as possible.
In summary, the idea behind megatexturing is cool (unique textures everywhere), but the implementation of it in Rage is just about the worst possible.
I think that I tried that. Going from (very fuzzy) memory there was a problem with the combo to switch. It was some like not being able to reliably press both keys at once with a single thumb so needing to use both fingers in the far left. Or something like that.
My main motivation for the phone was a physical qwerty keyboard. But I would say now that when the keys are that small there is no benefit over a touch screen keyboard. There is an advantage to a touchscreen keyboard though: mode switches to alternate sets of glyphs are easier to use.
Yes, exactly. For natural language it wasn't too bad, but for code it was painful. Being able to remap all of the punctuation (preferably with a mode-switch button on the touch screen) would have solved a lot of the issues.
No. I can't speak for the GP but I was definitely in the target demographic and the n900 was shit. I've been a programmer for about 30 years, my normal environment is vim and a shell. The keyboard and screen size on the n900 were too compromised to make it an effective or productive environment. During the couple of years that I had it I took in on holiday once and spent two weeks on a beach trying to write code on it. After I got back I rewrote the two weeks of coding in about an hour. Trying to code on a hunt and peck thumb board that required escapes for most punctuation symbols was a waste of time.
Since then I've been very happy with an iPhone 4 as the touchscreen keyboard is equally effective / ineffective as the hardware keyboard. My next foray into a portable coding environment will be a glass competitor with better specs, a unix environment and some kind of twiddled interface although I am hoping the myo armband pans out.
By splitting object-recognition into two cases...
A: Atomic shapes
B: Collections of shapes... you have not proven that algorithms cannot perform object-recognition. You still need to show that one of the cases cannot be performed by an algorithm. As case A is trivial, and case B is what this algorithm does your argument falls apart. Collections of shapes can be recognised by probability of occurrence. There is no need for interactivity, simply enough video to reduce the impact of outliers.
Because university means "a group of people acting as one body", while universe means "everything". The root word meaning "by one" was used in the later case to mean an entire revolution of time.
Better terminology for this theory would be "islands of causality". But scientists tend to be shit at naming things so instead they will overload a sadly overused term instead.
But they are not trying to predict the success of authors, they are trying to predict the success of works. Predicting the output of any author would be difficulty, modelling human creativity and all that jazz. But predicting the success of a work is simple(-ish) machine learning. Build a learning bias for style-features in the text and throw an optimisation at it.
For the second part - when do styles of literature experience sudden extreme changes in popularity? I've seen slow changes that peak suddenly due to shifts in demographics, but never sudden changes. Could you provide an example?
Taleb's point was that you can see patterns in past behavior that don't necessarily indicate future performance. He even used literary work as one of his first examples.
No, it really wasn't. His point was that the phenomena that we encounter are modeled by two very different types of distribution. In one kind the past is a good predictor of the future because deviations from the norm don't happen. In the other kind the past is a poor predictor of the future because although deviations from the norm don't happen regularly, when they do the impact of the deviation is immense.
Unlikely. Their comparison is the outcome of a popularity contest, which in the terminology that Taleb used is an inhabitant of Mediocrastan. The distribution is relatively smooth as it involves the average opinion of a large population.
If you want to appeal to the floating voters then you need to acknowledge that it is only half a solution: present yourself as the reasonable middle ground candidate, willing to compromise on an engineered super-plague apocalypse.
Slashdot Mirror
Hate to be a grammar nazi but you really can't say that, you mean "2nd biggerest". The root of the word is old british, but the cardinal extension is derived from hobbitish.
Yup. I didn't get much time to play it over the past year, but now that my schedule is finally calming down Civ 5 is proving to be a bit moorish. I need to beat it a few more times on Vanilla before I get the two expansions.
I found it highly improbable that an article on that topic could be boring. It explained to me in laborious detail why I was wrong.
The problem would be that the equation models net population growth i.e. births - deaths. When resource limits are reached the birth rate does not drift down gracefully of its own accord. Lots of people die as the system reaches a new equilibrium. Typical methods are wars over resources, famine from lack of resources or widespread disease due to a lack of resources to treat them. As the equation is only a model (an approximation) it does not cover the difference between hitting hard resource limits softly, or sharply. There is of course no natural reason that resource starvation would not kill off the entire population, as a barren lifeless world is also an equilibrium.
It seems quite obvious from the summary that what they propose is not arbitrage - it is fraud. It's caught by the rule that you state, but more generally they are using a single ticket to make two journeys. In the case of the two hypothetical commuters crossing the city they are both paying for 1/2 journey and then it is being made twice. That is not a price difference between two assets, it is double-spending.
I've been here about 11 years and this will make me leave. Screw whether or not it looks nice - this new interface is functionally broken. I can't see what selection of comments has been loaded or not loaded. There is no indication of parts of the tree that are not shown. The load more button gives no feedback about where it is inserting comments, or how many.
If I wanted to see a flashy rendering of the headlines with no context then I would read the site over RSS. If I wanted to see some random selection of the comments instead of (an outline) of the whole tree then I would just ask somebody else to read slashdot and give me a badly organised summary of their interpretation of the daily feeling of slashdot.
This interface does not work on a mobile device. It does not work on a desktop. It does not work. The final insult is that I had to switch to classic to post, because that doesn't work properly on the new interface either. Complete shite. So this is how slashdot died.
Very insightful comment. Thanks for the reference, I'll look up the paper. It sounds interesting.
Perhaps, but what did occur on every system was the most horrifically jarring texture popping. Looking away from a surface and then looking back (without changing position) was enough to flush the texture and have it reloaded so it takes a second or two to hit maximum resolution. That is a terrible way to handle texturing.
Our eyes are most sensitive to motion. Geometry-pop is bad because a few pixels change in a way that is inconsistent with the model. Texture-pop means that lots of pixels change in a way that is inconsistent with the model - the motion does not map onto motion in the virtual world. This is the worst possible choice for immersion and it completely ruined Rage.
Megatexturing is really just a big exercise in caching. The optimisation problem is to not to minimise distortion in the projected image (i.e maximise the resolution of each texture on each frame), the problem is to minimise change in the projected image. This implies that if somebody walks closer to an object then the transition of textures should be as smooth as possible.
In summary, the idea behind megatexturing is cool (unique textures everywhere), but the implementation of it in Rage is just about the worst possible.
You know that you would and there is no point pretending otherwise.
So... am I the only one that thinks the NSA version sounds like the better option? Smaller, newer runtime, other bufixes. Sounds like an upgrade.
I think that I tried that. Going from (very fuzzy) memory there was a problem with the combo to switch. It was some like not being able to reliably press both keys at once with a single thumb so needing to use both fingers in the far left. Or something like that.
My main motivation for the phone was a physical qwerty keyboard. But I would say now that when the keys are that small there is no benefit over a touch screen keyboard. There is an advantage to a touchscreen keyboard though: mode switches to alternate sets of glyphs are easier to use.
Yes, exactly. For natural language it wasn't too bad, but for code it was painful. Being able to remap all of the punctuation (preferably with a mode-switch button on the touch screen) would have solved a lot of the issues.
No. I can't speak for the GP but I was definitely in the target demographic and the n900 was shit.
I've been a programmer for about 30 years, my normal environment is vim and a shell. The keyboard and screen size on the n900 were too compromised to make it an effective or productive environment. During the couple of years that I had it I took in on holiday once and spent two weeks on a beach trying to write code on it. After I got back I rewrote the two weeks of coding in about an hour. Trying to code on a hunt and peck thumb board that required escapes for most punctuation symbols was a waste of time.
Since then I've been very happy with an iPhone 4 as the touchscreen keyboard is equally effective / ineffective as the hardware keyboard. My next foray into a portable coding environment will be a glass competitor with better specs, a unix environment and some kind of twiddled interface although I am hoping the myo armband pans out.
Your logic is flawed.
By splitting object-recognition into two cases... ... you have not proven that algorithms cannot perform object-recognition. You still need to show that one of the cases cannot be performed by an algorithm. As case A is trivial, and case B is what this algorithm does your argument falls apart. Collections of shapes can be recognised by probability of occurrence. There is no need for interactivity, simply enough video to reduce the impact of outliers.
A: Atomic shapes
B: Collections of shapes
Because university means "a group of people acting as one body", while universe means "everything". The root word meaning "by one" was used in the later case to mean an entire revolution of time.
Better terminology for this theory would be "islands of causality". But scientists tend to be shit at naming things so instead they will overload a sadly overused term instead.
True (to the first part).
But they are not trying to predict the success of authors, they are trying to predict the success of works. Predicting the output of any author would be difficulty, modelling human creativity and all that jazz. But predicting the success of a work is simple(-ish) machine learning. Build a learning bias for style-features in the text and throw an optimisation at it.
For the second part - when do styles of literature experience sudden extreme changes in popularity? I've seen slow changes that peak suddenly due to shifts in demographics, but never sudden changes. Could you provide an example?
No, it really wasn't. His point was that the phenomena that we encounter are modeled by two very different types of distribution. In one kind the past is a good predictor of the future because deviations from the norm don't happen. In the other kind the past is a poor predictor of the future because although deviations from the norm don't happen regularly, when they do the impact of the deviation is immense.
Popularity contests are of the former kind.
Unlikely. Their comparison is the outcome of a popularity contest, which in the terminology that Taleb used is an inhabitant of Mediocrastan. The distribution is relatively smooth as it involves the average opinion of a large population.
I don't really want to know if he had a weak heart or was just quite authoritarian over his daughter...
And that somewhere else was probably also slashdot.
Mmmmmm, dirty non-linear plots. Who's a nasty little exponential function...
No we don't.
Primality testing is easy - the problem is in P. Approximate methods for finding primes are very efficient. Exact checking is rarely used.
Modern security protocols rely on the problem of factoring a number into primes being difficult. Or on inverting exponentiation within a prime field.
If you want to appeal to the floating voters then you need to acknowledge that it is only half a solution: present yourself as the reasonable middle ground candidate, willing to compromise on an engineered super-plague apocalypse.
That is something differnent, each document is a vector and each word is a dimension.
Dat cat was good to roll with, yo?