Comments don't require emotions. I've been coding a long time and even before any kind of training it was obvious to me that my comments should be logical.
I was writing them for future me when I had to maintain something, emotions and swear words don't actually help communicate what is trying to be communicated so why would anyone put them in there? It strikes me as very illogical and not very smart or effective.
I was in high school in 1983 and watched as my dad introduced IBM PC's into their work place (I worked at the software company in the same building doing midrange stuff). The PC was filling a massive gap in the business world. Previously stuff was on the mainframe and/or midrange, or by hand.
If Amiga wanted to "win", they should have identified what the business world needed and marketed towards that. That's what all of those other wildly successful companies did, they provided products that met the needs of business.
he indicated there was a lot of fault to go around, not just Uber:
1 - The Arizona DOT made that road too wide, it took too long for the pedestrian to reach the other side safely
2 - CO2 pollution due to inefficient human drivers probably reduced atmospheric visibility
3 - The bike manufacturer for not having some sort of automatic lighting system built in
and many others
Ya, I don't see the problem, we'll just engineer humans that are a "super-intelligent shade of the colour blue", that should work pretty well on Jupiter.
The dendrites perform complex non-linear computations prior to forwarding signals to the main cell body (achieved via local/regional spiking forward and backward throughout the dendrites) that scientists are just now discovering and trying to figure out.
In addition, glial cells manage the synapse activity (see tripartite synapse) and regional groups of neuron, you can't ignore that functionality.
It's a good point. Scientists now understand that the synapse (new term is tripartite synapse) is managed and controlled by the glial cell surrounding the synapse. A network of neurons without the functionality of the glial cells managing the activity in the synapses and the flow of information will not really behave correctly.
First, scientists need to understand what one single neuron does to be able to simulate. Current understanding is that a single neuron is actually more like an entire neural network due to all of the non-linear calcs performed by the 10,000 dendrites (not just sum, it's more complex with local/regional spiking, forward and backward, all kinds of stuff).
Secondly, scientists will need to figure out what exactly glial cells are doing, they control the synapse and manage the action, detecting and releasing neurotransmitters, glialtransmitters, chemical and electrical gradiant controlling more regional sections, etc.
Minsky pushed the idea that multi-layer neural networks were a dead end, missing the fact that a multi-layer neural network is a universal function approximator.
Neural networks are suited for a broad range of problems that symbolic methods are not. Ultimately we will probably end up with a combination of neural + symbolic to achieve real AI. But to even harness the advanced methods that symbolic is well suited for requires that foundation of being able to deal with messy data, categorization and pattern matching first.
"A neuron is much simpler than a cpu" - I don't think you're up to speed on the complexity and adaptability of function within one single neuron.
A neuron performs localized non-linear computations with spiking forward and backward throughout it's 10,000 dendrites, it's not a simple "sum". In addition, the long term state of synapses are maintained due to epigenetic changes in the dna, the neuron is managing all of those synaptic weights. Scientists don't fully understand the function of even one type of neuron (there are many many types).
A single neuron is a very complex thing, probably similar to or more complex than a cpu.
Anyone who is paying attention knows that X6Delta has been superseded by Extreme-CEO-As-Dev (TM) for instantaneous ROI and complete company adaptability.
Completely agree. While process can be valuable, the most important ingredient is having good people (smart+experienced) that regularly collaborate to review+adjust to keep the project on track.
Articles like the one in the summary are written as if these methods are new but they're not new. In my experience with enterprise projects (35 years), smart people naturally identify good approaches to problems. There is a continuum of approaches and smart people align specific aspects of projects with the methodology that makes sense, frequently combining them on the same project.
For example, I'm at the tail end of a complex multi-year project involving a facility with multiple vendors systems connected together and interfacing with material handling equipment and various types of user devices (voice control, rf, pc, etc.).
There are aspects of this project where it was most cost effective and efficient to be waterfall, the solution was known in advance and the cost of iterating through changes with multiple vendors systems software and hardware was much higher than up front design.
Other aspects of the project were more localized, but again the solution was known in advance so iterating through many areas with design then build was the right choice.
There were also some areas where the solution was not known in advance. These areas took a more agile approach of smaller design+build, test the theory with users and equipment and continue iterating. These areas remain open and in process because we understand the limits of our knowledge, we know we will adjust these areas within the first few days of go live and probably for the 12 months after.
She was able to shave 2 minutes off orientation by smartly positioning herself near the door for a quick exit the minute it was officially complete.
On her laptop, she arranged common icons within a "hot zone" allowing for minimal mouse movement when firing up each app, probably saved a cumulative 48 seconds by day two.
For restroom "scenarios", there were additional optimization but those remain private.
Bottom line: in just 2 days, she was able to accomplish what most people do in 2.0017248 days.
I'm noticing some similarities to that other "IT" from the movies:
1 - Both IT's have a crazy clown interface
2 - Both IT's make the townspeople lives miserable (although in fairness, only one of them loses your data)
There is also nothing constructive about emotional outbursts. Calm, unbiased, pragmatic, methodical and limited emotions is (in my experience) the most productive environment, by far.
I've read through research regarding different types of testing and the ability to spot bugs. In general, the more complete/end to end/integrated the test was, the more likely to find bugs. Unit testing, which is typically very isolated, was around the 30% mark while visual code inspection (surprisingly) and end to end testing were up around 70%.
Without reviewing this type of research, it's easy to assume that unit testing could be good enough or close to good enough, in reality it's one of the least valuable/effective methods of identifying bugs, so over-reliance on it will result in lower quality code.
Yes, because everyone should know how to connect their Ecobee thermostat to their Lightwave RF Space Heater.
My manager at work told me to work on some stupid project integrating SAP with our DC conveyor system, but I said "dude, that's whack, if we're not kicking out some serious recipes on IFTTT then we're getting left behind!"
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to take it one step further: No buttons, no input boxes, just a simple white background.
42?
You've set the bar pretty low. Nobody watches prime time TV anymore other than grandma and grandpa.
Comments don't require emotions. I've been coding a long time and even before any kind of training it was obvious to me that my comments should be logical.
I was writing them for future me when I had to maintain something, emotions and swear words don't actually help communicate what is trying to be communicated so why would anyone put them in there? It strikes me as very illogical and not very smart or effective.
I was in high school in 1983 and watched as my dad introduced IBM PC's into their work place (I worked at the software company in the same building doing midrange stuff). The PC was filling a massive gap in the business world. Previously stuff was on the mainframe and/or midrange, or by hand.
If Amiga wanted to "win", they should have identified what the business world needed and marketed towards that. That's what all of those other wildly successful companies did, they provided products that met the needs of business.
Ghost Town
he indicated there was a lot of fault to go around, not just Uber:
1 - The Arizona DOT made that road too wide, it took too long for the pedestrian to reach the other side safely
2 - CO2 pollution due to inefficient human drivers probably reduced atmospheric visibility
3 - The bike manufacturer for not having some sort of automatic lighting system built in
and many others
Ya, I don't see the problem, we'll just engineer humans that are a "super-intelligent shade of the colour blue", that should work pretty well on Jupiter.
Some of the researchers still felt it was too cold in the office and would prefer to bump up the thermostat a little more
Authors conclusion: yes, we still need wheels
The dendrites perform complex non-linear computations prior to forwarding signals to the main cell body (achieved via local/regional spiking forward and backward throughout the dendrites) that scientists are just now discovering and trying to figure out.
In addition, glial cells manage the synapse activity (see tripartite synapse) and regional groups of neuron, you can't ignore that functionality.
It's a good point. Scientists now understand that the synapse (new term is tripartite synapse) is managed and controlled by the glial cell surrounding the synapse. A network of neurons without the functionality of the glial cells managing the activity in the synapses and the flow of information will not really behave correctly.
First, scientists need to understand what one single neuron does to be able to simulate. Current understanding is that a single neuron is actually more like an entire neural network due to all of the non-linear calcs performed by the 10,000 dendrites (not just sum, it's more complex with local/regional spiking, forward and backward, all kinds of stuff).
Secondly, scientists will need to figure out what exactly glial cells are doing, they control the synapse and manage the action, detecting and releasing neurotransmitters, glialtransmitters, chemical and electrical gradiant controlling more regional sections, etc.
Minsky pushed the idea that multi-layer neural networks were a dead end, missing the fact that a multi-layer neural network is a universal function approximator.
Neural networks are suited for a broad range of problems that symbolic methods are not. Ultimately we will probably end up with a combination of neural + symbolic to achieve real AI. But to even harness the advanced methods that symbolic is well suited for requires that foundation of being able to deal with messy data, categorization and pattern matching first.
"A neuron is much simpler than a cpu" - I don't think you're up to speed on the complexity and adaptability of function within one single neuron.
A neuron performs localized non-linear computations with spiking forward and backward throughout it's 10,000 dendrites, it's not a simple "sum". In addition, the long term state of synapses are maintained due to epigenetic changes in the dna, the neuron is managing all of those synaptic weights. Scientists don't fully understand the function of even one type of neuron (there are many many types).
A single neuron is a very complex thing, probably similar to or more complex than a cpu.
Anyone who is paying attention knows that X6Delta has been superseded by Extreme-CEO-As-Dev (TM) for instantaneous ROI and complete company adaptability.
Completely agree. While process can be valuable, the most important ingredient is having good people (smart+experienced) that regularly collaborate to review+adjust to keep the project on track.
Articles like the one in the summary are written as if these methods are new but they're not new. In my experience with enterprise projects (35 years), smart people naturally identify good approaches to problems. There is a continuum of approaches and smart people align specific aspects of projects with the methodology that makes sense, frequently combining them on the same project.
For example, I'm at the tail end of a complex multi-year project involving a facility with multiple vendors systems connected together and interfacing with material handling equipment and various types of user devices (voice control, rf, pc, etc.).
There are aspects of this project where it was most cost effective and efficient to be waterfall, the solution was known in advance and the cost of iterating through changes with multiple vendors systems software and hardware was much higher than up front design.
Other aspects of the project were more localized, but again the solution was known in advance so iterating through many areas with design then build was the right choice.
There were also some areas where the solution was not known in advance. These areas took a more agile approach of smaller design+build, test the theory with users and equipment and continue iterating. These areas remain open and in process because we understand the limits of our knowledge, we know we will adjust these areas within the first few days of go live and probably for the 12 months after.
"60 percent of the time, it works every time"
She was able to shave 2 minutes off orientation by smartly positioning herself near the door for a quick exit the minute it was officially complete.
On her laptop, she arranged common icons within a "hot zone" allowing for minimal mouse movement when firing up each app, probably saved a cumulative 48 seconds by day two.
For restroom "scenarios", there were additional optimization but those remain private.
Bottom line: in just 2 days, she was able to accomplish what most people do in 2.0017248 days.
I'm noticing some similarities to that other "IT" from the movies:
1 - Both IT's have a crazy clown interface
2 - Both IT's make the townspeople lives miserable (although in fairness, only one of them loses your data)
There is also nothing constructive about emotional outbursts. Calm, unbiased, pragmatic, methodical and limited emotions is (in my experience) the most productive environment, by far.
I've read through research regarding different types of testing and the ability to spot bugs. In general, the more complete/end to end/integrated the test was, the more likely to find bugs. Unit testing, which is typically very isolated, was around the 30% mark while visual code inspection (surprisingly) and end to end testing were up around 70%.
Without reviewing this type of research, it's easy to assume that unit testing could be good enough or close to good enough, in reality it's one of the least valuable/effective methods of identifying bugs, so over-reliance on it will result in lower quality code.
Yes, because everyone should know how to connect their Ecobee thermostat to their Lightwave RF Space Heater.
My manager at work told me to work on some stupid project integrating SAP with our DC conveyor system, but I said "dude, that's whack, if we're not kicking out some serious recipes on IFTTT then we're getting left behind!"
What's Google+?
Yes but I think these employees realize Windows wasn't actually helping the DoD, it was making their job harder, so it was ok.