The question then: Is there sufficient first-mover advantage that a far-minded company setting up a datacenter there now could reap the benefits when there is money to be made?
361 karma · joined February 18, 2011
On a per month basis:
* 11.67 k$ in pretax earning
* 7.85 k$ in posttax earning
* 4.85 k$ in savings
* In order, maxing out Roth IRA, then Roth 401k, then non-tax-advantaged brokerage account
* 3 k$ in spending
* 1 k$ in rent + utilities (I live in a dump with 3 roommates)
* 400 $ on food
* 300 $ on transportation
* 1300 $ on miscellany (entertainment, clothes, travel)
The Bengali script is (mostly) an abugida. Ie, consonants have an inherent vowel (/ɔ/ in the case of Bengali), which can be overriden with a diacritic representing a different vowel. To write /t/ in Bengali, you combine the character for /tɔ/, "ত", with the "vowel silencing diacritic" to remove the /ɔ/, " ্". As it happens, for "ত", the addition of the diacritic changes the shape considerably more than it usually does, but it's a perfectly legitimate to suggest the resulting character is still a composition of the other two (for a more typical composition, see "ঢ "+" ্" = "ঢ্").
As it happens, the same character ("ৎ") is also used for /tjɔ/ as in the "tya" of "aditya". Which suggests having a dedicated code point for the character could make sense. But Unicode isn't being completely nutso here.
An example (pronouns almost never qualify as "heavy"):
Good:
• Please set him up
Weird sounding:
• *Please set up him
This isn't a prescriptivist argument about language itself, it's an argument about a spelling convention (One which is arguably more accurately descriptive of the usage of the words.). Your dictionary link, by spelling "set up" as separate words when used as a verb, agrees with the author.
It's possible that language changes will result in "set up" becoming a fixed, atomic phrase, at which point writing it as one word would make sense. But since both"I'm going to set up the computer" and "I'm going to set the computer up" still sound perfectly natural to my ears as a native speaker, I don't think we've yet reached that point.
(Diagnostic experiment: Is there a significant subset of "cups" that a naive neural network would always fail to include or only include when also including a significant subset of non-"cups"?)
Ie, what humans view as "intelligence" isn't actually an emergent property of the right set of rules. Rather, it's a massive and hopelessly self-intersecting set of ad-hoc solutions and special casing all jumbled together over millions of years of evolution, producing something that looks general, but only because we're looking at it from within itself. An easy example: Having a computer identify all images of a thing called a "cup". That's an arbitrary category that has no definition reducible to actual physical properties. What makes something a "cup"? A human saying it is one.
For something to look like "full, general AI" to humans, we'd need to either: Build something that replicates all that specialized hyper-meta-spaghetti-code mental processing of ours to a level of fidelity that's beyond both our current understanding of our brain's structure and the level of complexity tenable by human computer science. Or leave out those evolutionarily-discovered "optimization circuits" and require far, far more processing power than we'll have access to for a good, long time.
This is really a more general point, but why do more sites not use StackOverflow's system, wherein you can use the site provisionally, with your identity being tracked by a cookie, and the user can choose to convert to something with a bit more persistence later.