That is what is done with writing research papers these days: pay sufficient lip service to the notion of science to get published, and if errors turn up, just ignore them. Increases rate of publications significantly, and that's what people get paid for these days.
As Richard Horton put in his essay (What is medicine's 5-sigma), 'As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”'. There is pressure for 'measurable progress'. This has a number of nasty side effects. Things which do not lead directly to publishable results fall by the wayside, and things which serve no other purpose than to potentially explain desirable results as experimental errors, again, offer little which would result in 'measurable progress'. More and more, career scientists are being forced to chase jobs and funding, and to either produce what will yield future funding, or find a new career. Somebody who takes three times as long to produce less remarkable results, and at greater financial cost, will most likely struggle for work. Somebody who does enough to get published, and gets twice as much published in the same time, and costing less, will appear to be better to financial pen-pushers. This places a negative pressure on standards.
Doing the maths, that works out at a continuous average of 3.4KW, which is slightly more than a single 13A socket in the UK. If we multiply by 3 (an overcompensation) assuming that those 30,000 KWh are collected during 8 hours of each day, that is still only enough to simultaneously run 3 kettles.
If real people use it for real photos only, then practicality limits the amount of data to well within what Amazon can handle, and means users don't need to care about limits.
Ultimately, maths, despite its abstract nature, is a human endeavour practised by humans. Humans have emotions. They like fun, joy, beauty etc. and dislike boredom. Once somebody dislikes maths, forcing them to learn can make them dislike it a lot, and quickly. Thus the fun and joy part are of critical importance. Knowing the territory where the child is exploring, and being able to guide them gently, but let them explore, is important.
Some books like Ian Stewart's 'Cabinet of curiosities' and suchlike, and Knuth's surreal numbers are worth _you_ having, and having a look through, so as to have ideas and exposition lying around for in future (assuming the child stays interested in maths). Likewise, fractals and fractal generators are worth having handy. For me, (back in the early 90s), the curiosity sparked by the brief history in the fractint documentation did a lot to lead me to do maths at uni.
In short, cultivating a child's interest in maths, science and computers is a long process, and it is worth thinking a long way ahead. And for as long as possible, being a fellow traveller who knows the road a few steps ahead is a good thing.
The only issue with the quote is 'just'. Any recursive process is a feedback loop, feeding the state at stage n as input to produce the state at stage n+1. Likewise, any dynamical system is 'just' a feedback loop, the state at time t being input to a set of rules that determine the state at time t+dt (before you do the limiting stuff, though you can use nonstandard analysis to avoid issues with dt being infinitely small).
Something as complex as consciousness would surely be impossible in the absence of feedback loops.
One of my favourite applications of CGI is in the Les Miserables movie. You'll struggle to spot it, but the actors sing with clip on microphones, so that the performance can be captured in one take, with long, medium and close cameras and microphones. Visible microphones were then airbrushed out. (This, at least, is what the Sound on Sound article on it said.) The trouble with CGi is that, what is the state of the art 10 years ago is within reach of a hobbyist today. But non-CGI special effects that take great effort still take great effort.
Think before you type... 10^1=10 has TWO digits, and ONE zero _after_ the 1. 10^2 =100 has THREE digits, and TWO zeros _after_ the 1. So 10^48 has 49 digits, and in base 10 has a 1 followed by 48 digits. But yes, so big we don't have a sensible 'giga' or 'mega' adjective even for the base10 logarithm...
Out of curiosity, I decided to see how long it would take to overflow. Looping 2^24 times took 7.5 seconds on my laptop, indicating overflowing the 32bit ref would take about 1/2 hour. (That works out at 2.3m syscall's per second.)
How can you you make hardware that will automatically backdoor an arbitrary software crypto implementation that has no backdoors. Sure this would make it harder to use conversations in games on PS4 and XBOX1 as a means of talking in secret, but that is about it.
Thus, thinking from a logical perspective, it makes sense to assume, by default, that we are being spied upon, that GCHQ, MI5, Mi6, NSA, CIA etc are snooping on all our internet transmissions, that all ISPs and tech companies are in cahoots with the intelligence services, and that the reason there's 'no evidence' is because of explicit legislation banning the dissemination of such evidence. Suddenly paranoia, delusions and conspiracy theories start to become sensible, rational and logical.
Any nontrivial programming exercise involves problem solving. Faced with a particular recurring problem, a programmer will learn methods to solve it. There are many choices. Most programmers, after having learned a small collection of 'good enough' solutions to common problems will continue to use them whenever 'good enough is good enough', the time and effort of relearning seeming unproductive.
This is no different, conceptually, than in sports when certain sportspeople play in a discernible style. Nobody is perfectly uniformly good at all aspects of a discipline. (It would be interesting to see if one could take a list of statistics from tennis matches and use them to identify the players.)
To those brought up on the 'meet the requirements, then you're done' ethos, it probably doesn't make sense. I guess here the aim is for the programmers to challenge themselves, and each other. By having a ridiculously low bar, you can ensure you produce at least one thing which 'qualifies' with ease. Thus there is no risk of not being able to produce anything good enough: the negative feedback one gets from fear of failure can be a real obstacle to learning and creativity sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Many CBT practitioners teach or advise mindfulness, though.
I can just imagine reading a paper concluding the above, with a footnote reading 'this research was part sponsored by Kenco and Carlsberg'...
That is what is done with writing research papers these days: pay sufficient lip service to the notion of science to get published, and if errors turn up, just ignore them. Increases rate of publications significantly, and that's what people get paid for these days.
And finding out which forum websites don't mangle them...
How long would it take to discover 3 unichar sequences like ðY'©ðY'ðY'© and ðY'ðY'ðY'?
As Richard Horton put in his essay (What is medicine's 5-sigma), 'As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”'. There is pressure for 'measurable progress'. This has a number of nasty side effects. Things which do not lead directly to publishable results fall by the wayside, and things which serve no other purpose than to potentially explain desirable results as experimental errors, again, offer little which would result in 'measurable progress'. More and more, career scientists are being forced to chase jobs and funding, and to either produce what will yield future funding, or find a new career. Somebody who takes three times as long to produce less remarkable results, and at greater financial cost, will most likely struggle for work. Somebody who does enough to get published, and gets twice as much published in the same time, and costing less, will appear to be better to financial pen-pushers. This places a negative pressure on standards.
We need inexpensive reliable testers for usb cables. Basically a box where you plug the cables in and it does the various electrical tests.
Doing the maths, that works out at a continuous average of 3.4KW, which is slightly more than a single 13A socket in the UK. If we multiply by 3 (an overcompensation) assuming that those 30,000 KWh are collected during 8 hours of each day, that is still only enough to simultaneously run 3 kettles.
If real people use it for real photos only, then practicality limits the amount of data to well within what Amazon can handle, and means users don't need to care about limits.
When you see names like the +4+, you start to wonder whether Morgan was founded by time travelling Lisp hackers.
The public hotspot and private network will be separate (though whether it gets a separate IP is another thing). Your secret stash is safe.
Given how cheap you can get smartphones from China these days, get one of those, and try stuff out on that, rather than your main phone.
The content they're trying to block isn't exactly interactive. Latency is no problem: you just need bandwidth.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/31/
Some thoughts:
Ultimately, maths, despite its abstract nature, is a human endeavour practised by humans. Humans have emotions. They like fun, joy, beauty etc. and dislike boredom. Once somebody dislikes maths, forcing them to learn can make them dislike it a lot, and quickly. Thus the fun and joy part are of critical importance. Knowing the territory where the child is exploring, and being able to guide them gently, but let them explore, is important.
Some books like Ian Stewart's 'Cabinet of curiosities' and suchlike, and Knuth's surreal numbers are worth _you_ having, and having a look through, so as to have ideas and exposition lying around for in future (assuming the child stays interested in maths). Likewise, fractals and fractal generators are worth having handy. For me, (back in the early 90s), the curiosity sparked by the brief history in the fractint documentation did a lot to lead me to do maths at uni.
In short, cultivating a child's interest in maths, science and computers is a long process, and it is worth thinking a long way ahead. And for as long as possible, being a fellow traveller who knows the road a few steps ahead is a good thing.
The only issue with the quote is 'just'. Any recursive process is a feedback loop, feeding the state at stage n as input to produce the state at stage n+1. Likewise, any dynamical system is 'just' a feedback loop, the state at time t being input to a set of rules that determine the state at time t+dt (before you do the limiting stuff, though you can use nonstandard analysis to avoid issues with dt being infinitely small).
Something as complex as consciousness would surely be impossible in the absence of feedback loops.
One of my favourite applications of CGI is in the Les Miserables movie. You'll struggle to spot it, but the actors sing with clip on microphones, so that the performance can be captured in one take, with long, medium and close cameras and microphones. Visible microphones were then airbrushed out. (This, at least, is what the Sound on Sound article on it said.) The trouble with CGi is that, what is the state of the art 10 years ago is within reach of a hobbyist today. But non-CGI special effects that take great effort still take great effort.
Think before you type... 10^1=10 has TWO digits, and ONE zero _after_ the 1. 10^2 =100 has THREE digits, and TWO zeros _after_ the 1. So 10^48 has 49 digits, and in base 10 has a 1 followed by 48 digits. But yes, so big we don't have a sensible 'giga' or 'mega' adjective even for the base10 logarithm...
Out of curiosity, I decided to see how long it would take to overflow. Looping 2^24 times took 7.5 seconds on my laptop, indicating overflowing the 32bit ref would take about 1/2 hour. (That works out at 2.3m syscall's per second.)
Next to my usual ubuntu studio setup, I find win10 closeto unusable. Windows has got worse since win2k, and continues to do so.
They appear to be copying the business model of the 'free naughty video' sites, but with software instead.
How can you you make hardware that will automatically backdoor an arbitrary software crypto implementation that has no backdoors. Sure this would make it harder to use conversations in games on PS4 and XBOX1 as a means of talking in secret, but that is about it.
Thus, thinking from a logical perspective, it makes sense to assume, by default, that we are being spied upon, that GCHQ, MI5, Mi6, NSA, CIA etc are snooping on all our internet transmissions, that all ISPs and tech companies are in cahoots with the intelligence services, and that the reason there's 'no evidence' is because of explicit legislation banning the dissemination of such evidence. Suddenly paranoia, delusions and conspiracy theories start to become sensible, rational and logical.
Any nontrivial programming exercise involves problem solving. Faced with a particular recurring problem, a programmer will learn methods to solve it. There are many choices. Most programmers, after having learned a small collection of 'good enough' solutions to common problems will continue to use them whenever 'good enough is good enough', the time and effort of relearning seeming unproductive.
This is no different, conceptually, than in sports when certain sportspeople play in a discernible style. Nobody is perfectly uniformly good at all aspects of a discipline. (It would be interesting to see if one could take a list of statistics from tennis matches and use them to identify the players.)
To those brought up on the 'meet the requirements, then you're done' ethos, it probably doesn't make sense. I guess here the aim is for the programmers to challenge themselves, and each other. By having a ridiculously low bar, you can ensure you produce at least one thing which 'qualifies' with ease. Thus there is no risk of not being able to produce anything good enough: the negative feedback one gets from fear of failure can be a real obstacle to learning and creativity sometimes.