Will neuromorphic chips ever go main stream amongst AI practitioners? The neurons on these chips are spiking, which is a whole different paradigm what is currently used in neural networks? These chips are however a thousandfold more efficient.
In the 1910s, propagandists would send push-surveys that included a question "(who else/what other organisation) do you know who should get this survey?" in order to map out socio-political graphs and plan their campaigns.
HREFs sound like much less manual work.
Edit: > ...able to find similarities even among websites that Marginalia doesn't index
Yeah, I joined LinkedIn specifically because even without my input it was way too good at figuring out my actual social graph. With my input, it no longer is :)
So from I understand only companies that can pay 100k can make their employees sign non-compete, and keep this big firm’s technology secret, whereas a startup that cannot pay 100k, its tech can be openly shared.. … ………..
I had one of these and wore it every day. Interestingly, one day I wore it to work and my co worker said it was a favorite amongst terrorists. He said that Bin Laden, himself, sports one. I thought he was joking, but later that afternoon, I did some quick research online. He was not lying. Apparently, it is a favorite because it is extremely cheap and easily modifiable to set off remote bombs.
It was more likely a favorite because, in addition to being cheap, reliable, and sturdy, it is extremely common and easily available. The same model has been produced since 1989, and millions are produced every year. They're everywhere. It's apparently consistently the #1 top selling watch on Amazon, and the first result for "digital watch".
Possession of an F-91W being used as evidence of being a terrorist trained in bomb-making for purposes of detention at Guantanamo Bay was highlighted as something ridiculous because of how common the watches are. There's ample evidence that al Qaeda bomb-makers were quite fond of the watch, yes. But as prisoners at Guantanamo pointed out, apparently in vain, many guards there wore the same watch. It's just that common.
I'm wearing a W-800H since quite a while, and it feels like an updated F91W. Strap doesn't break, improved lighting, 4 buttons instead of 3 so that you can adjust it in the dark, better date display, and still light, cheap and reliable. Highly recommended.
The guy doesn’t know much DL, has recently learned it, and is simply hyped. Its that classic curve of how much you think you know vs how much you do, and all the excitement that comes with knowing little.
For the love of anything sacred, can you please point me to a resource that explains all possible operations with “dx” and their conceptual meaning.
Like, I get “dx”, but I cannot put my finger to it!!! This might be because the Precise Definition of the Limit phrases it as “x approaches a”; it is as though we are “sent” to the land of dx, but not told what it is as an atomic concept!
I am not entirely sure what the above commenter means that dx is rigorously defined in "infinitesimal calculus" because I don't know what they necessarily mean by "infinitesimal calculus". As far as I am aware, there is standard calculus, non-standard analysis by Robinson, and smooth infinitesimal analysis that uses intuitionistic logic. The three are very different. dx has no meaning in standard calculus. It is simply there for notation. It is given meaning by the theory of smooth manifolds and differential forms. In that setting, differentials such as dx are given explicit meaning: they are functions that operate on tangent vectors. For example, apply dx to the unit vector d/dx + d/dy to get dx(d/dx+ d/dy) = d/dx(x) + d/dy(x) = 1 + 0 = 1.
Sure it does. There is no need to know about smooth manifolds or differential forms to understand the differential of a function of one variable at a point and the meaning of dy = f’(x)dx.
dy = f'(x)dx is just a definition for notional convenience, primarily employed when doing u or u-v substitution. My point is that dx in single variable calculus is notation. It is not an intrinsic object. dx is an intrinsic object as a differential form on a smooth manifold. Of course, the real line R is a 1-manifold, so dx does have that meaning, but you need to understand what a differential form is to know that.
One doesn't necessarily need the full generality of smooth manifolds though. Harold Edwards' Advanced Calculus: A Differential Forms Approach and Advanced Calculus: A Geometric View teach differential forms for Euclidean manifolds.
Any introductory calculus book worth the paper it’s printed on would gladly tell you that the differential of the function y = x at a point x0 is nothing more than x - x0 and that you do not have to think about it as something that is “infinitely small” or anything equally mysterious. (Some would even go as far as saying that “the differential of a function of one variable is a linear map of the increment of the argument.”) So, with dx = x - x0, you can do with it anything you want, even divide by it (assuming that dx stays non-zero).
"Look at this child. She will die, unless you donate now" - an identified life. Humans are very sensitive to these.
"If we fund this drug, outlook for patients who get this type of cancer (Z cases per year) will improve from 50% to 80% survival over 5 years" - These are "more predictable" statistical lives. We don't know exactly who will be saved but we think we have a good handle on how many people it will be.
"If we don't put this control in the plant, we believe there's a 0.1% chance of an accident per year, which could cause up to 100,000 deaths in the surrounding area" - these are "less predictable" statistical lives. We know the impact is large, but we don't _really_ know how large. We know the probability is quite low, but we don't have an exact figure for that, either.
Numerically, if 100 people were dropping dead next to the plant per year that would be a pretty big deal, but instead this (in spherical cow terms) identical issue remains on the risk register, for now. Most likely, no one will come to any harm.
My intuition is that decision makers feel the risk (to them) of being blamed for unlikely events is quite low. The odds of a given tail risk manifesting during any given leader's tenure are also correspondingly low. The main exception seems to be terrorism; political leaders seem to be very sensitive to that.
Sometimes I think human risk estimates are primarily driven by how easily we can imagine the risk occurring to us, and the vividness of that imagining.
Most people seem to prefer the very diffuse but predictable risk of particulate emissions from coal plants over the minute but less predictable tail risk of a nuclear plant next door (i.e, the exact opposite preference to that described in the paper).
IMHO this can largely be explained at a population level by the fact that there are lots of movies about reactor meltdowns, but (as far as I know) no movies which show a particle emitted from a coal plant entering a person's lungs and their ensuing battle with cancer.
