They're out publishing[1] and out spending everyone else[2], I asked Jack Clack from OpenAI that question a few years ago and he said he didn't really know exactly how far ahead they are, just that more people and more money is being applied in a more organized fashion.
When people bring up scientific advances in China, I am always skeptical.
What percent of Chinese publishing is not fraudulent?
Look at the scale of Fraud across China,
including in Academia:
"The online publication Quartz reported in 2017 that more than 50 percent of all articles retracted by scientific journals worldwide for fake peer reviews were submitted by Chinese authors. ... 55% - The percentage of articles submitted by Chinese authors that were retracted by scientific journals worldwide for fake peer reviews"
"It usually involves authors posing as their own peer reviewers and submitting made-up contact information for the supposed reviewer – a scam that publishers exposed by tracking the email addresses of author and reviewer to the same IP address. This type of fraud is on the rise and more often than not involves Chinese authors.
"In 2015, for instance, Britain-based publisher BioMed Central retracted 43 articles, including 41 from China.
"Later in the same year, Germany’s Springer retracted 64 papers, nearly all from Chinese scholars,
"while the Dutch publishing company Elsevier retracted nine medical science articles written by Chinese researchers.
"In what is said to be the largest single-incident retraction of journal publications in history, Springer Nature in 2017 retracted 107 articles in Tumor Biology published between 2012 and 2016, all of them authored by Chinese scholars from universities in Shanghai." [1]
Note, that doesn't say that 55% of submissions from Chinese authors were retracted. It says that 55% of retractions were from Chinese authors. If 60% of all submissions were from Chinese authors, then actual rate of retraction would be less than average. If say 40% of submissions were from Chinese authors, then the rate of retraction would be just slightly higher.
Just open your eyes and look at reality. TikTok, HarmonyOS, a rapidly advancing space program, and Shenzhen's 100% 5G coverage, and so on, did not come out of Silicon Valley. The writing is on the wall.
They went from making ball point pens in the 1980s to flying a rover Mars in 2021. So what if HarmonyOS is just rebranded Android? They modified it for their own designs, put in a few backdoors and it will achieve its purpose, capitalizing on the work of Westeners. They are standing on the shoulders of giants.
HarmonyOS is absolutely not just rebranded Android. That is total nonsense, and that Ars article is ridiculously bereft of any understanding of HarmonyOS.
HarmonyOS supports multiple kernels including Android/Linux
I open my eyes to data and objective, independent sources, where possible.
And I think the aforementioned findings of fraud in academia have analogs across industries in China-- construction (typically the industry with highest most corrupt activities regardless of nation), food manufacturing, accounting & finance, etc.
Here's an objective, independent source. I am a foreigner in China. Increasingly, robotics designed at my company are designed against Chinese chips because they are cheaper, more available, and therefore present less design risk. Meanwhile, a friend of mine in semiconductor trading just booked about a dozen life fortunes in a single month capitalising on the pain and suffering of conventional electronics producers with foreign BOMs.
Would using a dedicated phone number (sim) that is not shared with any other service protect you from this? Basically nobody besides Google and you would know of this number. In India dual sim phones are very common and I've been thinking of getting a second sim (phone number) for this purpose.
I've started many MOOC's but never finished because I couldn't keep up with watching the videos. Not being able to flip back and forth is really limiting. The only courses[1] I've finished had good quality notes and completely depended on them and avoided the lecture videos.
[1]: Roughgarden's Algorithms part I, Programming Languages by Dan Grossman and Machine Learning by Andrew Ng.
Yes! I find Dan Grossman a good teacher, but his extremely slow speaking rythm drove me mad. I had to fast forward his lectures at max speed, and even then I ended up skipping them entirely.
No disrespect meant for Prof. Grossman. His course was very interesting and, as you said, the course notes were so good the videos were completely redundant.
For the second return to work doesn't the if have to be an expression i.e return the result of evaluating either y or z as the result of the if expression? If the language has if statements like say Javascript then it won't work.
I'm not well versed with reading research papers etc but I have one question. Could it be possible that by simply practicing mindfulness meditation the brain restructured itself via a placebo style effect rather that because of the meditation itself?
For anybody who has access to the paper what did the control group do during the eight weeks?
Not clear what distinction you are trying to make. They practiced mindfulness meditation according to a specific, published plan, and brain anatomy changes were noted. It doesn't seem they are making any claim other than, this series of exercises produce this effect.
The paper doesn't seem to be available, but the abstract at the author's page[0] says "Healthy but stressed individuals are randomized to either a meditation-based stress reduction intervention or health education control intervention."
If the control group were doing nothing for eight weeks, they would expect no change. An expectation of change can illicit substantial differences. That's the placebo effect.
When administering medication and checking for results, the control group is given a sugar pill rather than nothing. If they were given nothing it would not eliminate the placebo effect.
Placebo might be a fair critique if we were talking about people's self-reported stress or well-being. Here we're talking about physical changes in the amygdala.
The brain and nervous system changes based on it's use and function. Look up neoroplasticity. This is nothing new. A placebo could certainly elicit a change within 8 weeks if participants thought it was helping them cope with stress. If you think dancing clockwise in a circle for ten minutes a day will help you, it probably will. That doesn't mean there is anything useful in the practice.
1] The guides section is still on the older design which I'm guessing will be updated later?
2] IMHO on the show gem page the authors/owners section should be moved below licence + versions/runtime-deps sections. The later are more important for first time scanning especially when looking for a new gem.
Great advice. I'd also recommend the Compilers course on Coursera. Although it is already underway, you can take the self paced version. https://www.coursera.org/course/compilers
I don't think that is entirely true. I've met really nice Ruby developers and know many online (twitter/github/irc etc) who are really nice and welcoming and always want to help. Of course there will always be loud and obnoxious people in a programming community but so far I've honestly haven't met a single such person.
