After reading more, it seems the novelty is in the two specific schemes that use these techniques to store data with high probability into tables of extremely high load factors with bounded pointer sizes, which are more complex than simple array indices due to having to resolve which fallback table is storing the key-value pair.
One scheme proves tiny pointer size bounds for fixed length tiny pointers. The other proves bounds for variable length pointers.
These are real RNNs, they still depend upon the prior hidden state, it’s just that the gating does not. The basic RNN equation can be parallelized with parallel prefix scan algorithms.
"Take a look at what happened", then three initial shots, "Get down! Get down! Get down!", followed by four rapid shots, all likely from the shooter. Trump ducks after the third initial shot. They sound like "crack---boom" where the "crack" is the bullet passing the microphone and the "boom" is the gunfire arriving later due to speed of sound at distance from the shooter.
Immediately after, there is a three-round burst of automatic fire, then several seconds later there is a single silenced shot ("kill confirmed") all likely secret service.
I'd have to look at the audio waveform to distinguish whether the four rapid shots were the same shooter or return fire from secret service.
It seems like the first 3 and then next 5 (not 4) shots were from the shooter, and there was a single sniper shot returned by secret service immediately after (some echo made it sound like a 3 round burst in the first video), with the final follow up confirmation shot several seconds later.
(Aside). To expand slightly, what robertsdionne is highlighting is the changing usage of this expression. In its original sense, e.g an issue is so important that it is impossible to overstate its importance. It is now increasingly used the other way around.
Old me would have said it’s used wrongly, but this happens all the time with language. Especially things being used in the opposite of their original sense, e.g. inflammable for flammable.
In my mind, "cannot overstate" always meant "impossible to overstate", but I think some people interpret/intend "cannot understate" to mean something like "must not understate". I don't know if that's really what they're thinking, but it is how I make sense of it. I have come to just avoid such constructions.
Edit: reminds me of an ancient SNL skit with Ed Asner in which he's a retiring nuclear engineer and as he heads out the door he says to his incompetent co-workers "Just remember, you can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor".
