breezest

Can't reproduce. My friend sends me a link to Signal but it works.

I did not work in the hottest topics in Machine Learning (and not in computer vision) as I cannot find rooms for innovation. I did publish several papers in 2nd-tier conferences and submit papers to journals. Near the end of my graduation, I started to find jobs in the industry. I have been shocked when I saw some employers will target authors who published in these big conferences even for non-research positions. (It sounds like discrimination.) I always wonder if my research profile will meet their requirements.

It seems like you are talking about publishing research work in book chapter rather than peer reviewed articles.

A book usually covers a selected topic in depth and in a coherent manner. This is particular useful for graduate students. Besides, some book authors also invite their friends to give comments. The impact of a book can be as rigorous and significant as journal articles.

Political knowledge from Taiwan is still a part of the human knowledge. I cannot see why the Foundation's application should to be rejected by such a weak argument.

By showing that almost no recruiter check the GitHub repos cannot tell if such contributions make a candidate stand out.

If someone has tangible contributions through GitHub, they probably write that down in the resume. The interviewers may check their claims either during interview or on GitHub before/after the interview.

The problem is that if a candidate performs moderately well in the interview (e.g. coding interview), while he/she has made many contributions through GitHub, should the interviewer recommend the candidate? My belief is that most interviewers will not take the risk or take the responsibility for a potentially wrong hire.

This is similar to the presumption of innocence. You can believe someone acts in good faith initially. Yet, if they don't, you should turn against them immediately to protect yourself.

Isn't it better for Mozilla to "sell" some projects to other tech or foundations rather than keeping them internally and let them wither away?

These big tech are using Rust as a feature to promote their cloud business. They will/morally should help sustain the ecosystem.

Thanks for sharing!

How often will the clients find you again to do the follow-up work, e.g. new software feature requests, for the previous projects? If you refuse the requests, will this undermine the business relationship?

Nowadays, many books cover the elementary mathematics in machine learning. After I learnt these elementary topics, any good suggestions for computational learning theory?

The goal is ambitious. I have similar ideas in my mind but do not have a team to complete the details.

Why can't Torch utilize more threads in CPU cores? Taken from the article itself: "both of them cannot run normally when threads usage is set to be bigger than the number of CPU cores on desktop CPU." Do the authors set up the system correctly?

You're right that Torch is faster than TensorFlow in RNN. But Torch is slower than TesnorFlow in AlexNet and ResNet. There is a set of benchmarks for many DL approaches as found in https://github.com/soumith/convnet-benchmarks

I wonder why Torch is so slow. But, the authors did not provide the configuration of each tool in the paper or on the web.

I heard a similar work done by the students in Chinese University university of Hong Kong. But they make their own gloves, which cost about $75. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=y&p...

I will wait and let the mathematicians review the proof.

The concept is great but the equipment must be very expensive.

It seems multi-national company may make money by providing a private room to enjoy the 'holoportation service'.

Biases arise if people are allowed to cite other papers even when the publications are made anonymous. The importance of a paper can be estimated from their citations. For example, an important work cites another ground-breaking work. Besides, novel research idea and topic is rare and serves as a signature to the authors and their affiliations. Because researchers often verbally share their research results with others (through the internet), every people will recognize them and their works finally.

My feeling is that as long as the whole open system makes scientific progress, and suppresses malicious or false scientific results, it is fine.