AMD is no more lucky than ARM, though Intel was ‘unlucky’: Spectre affects Intel, AMD, and ARM alike, while Meltdown Intel CPUs disproportionately (AMD and ARM CPUs have been mostly unaffected by it).
2,952 karma · joined May 3, 2012
One obvious extreme example of this would be no compression at all, but it's easy to imagine much better designs.
For example, imagine I define a spec where I require quality no worse than a lossless 500x500x24bit/frame video stream. If we budget a bit rate higher than is required for the naive raw transmission of those frames, we can first encode the naive frames, then encode the deltas between them (upscaled to full resolution) such that the reconstruction error is minimized while not exceeding any maximum tolerated error per pixel.
With this approach, you are not crippled when facing an adversarial pattern generator of some kind, yet when transmitting regular natural scenes, you can benefit from significant quality increase.
As you suggest though, it's true that generating the most complex patterns possible will reduce any drone's video quality as much the codec's design permits -- however accomplishing this seems much more expensive for relatively little benefit versus other counter-drone approaches.
> Because compression reduces the amount of data that needs to be transmitted, reducing network and battery usage
> Instead of filling the stream and having a constant stream size, you could just code the drone do add random bursts of data
You cannot simultaneously reduce network bandwidth and also increase it. Of course padding with noise increases bandwidth, but it's silly to do that when you could instead be padding it with more bits relevant to the video stream.
The vulnerability here isn't inherent to video compression; it's that the compression rate (and therefore network packet rate) is variable (so as to minimize global size of a video stream). It would not be that difficult to modify an encoder to guarantee fixed bit rate over whatever time chunk you want (depending on how many frames is tolerable to buffer before sending out), then send out those chunks at regular intervals.
And the Steve Jobs of early and mid Apple was definitely not even close to bald: http://www.designbolts.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/steve-...
This just made me wonder if there's any media or perceptive bias against bald people in leadership positions.
It seems Steve Ballmer and Jeff Bezos for example are/were criticized disproportionately more than Elon Musk and Steve Jobs, for example, even though all of these people have plenty of reasons to be disliked.
I'd much rather avoid being in an abusive relationship to begin with: Hence, installing browsers like Brave and using search engines like DuckDuckGo -- where you can opt into breaches of privacy and advertising, rather than hoping for the slim chance of an opt-out at the benevolence of the site/ad company.
Not if I block all ads :D
This news may be tragedy to the ad companies that profit off of blatant and forceful violation of users' privacy, but it is truly wonderful news worthy of celebration to the average web browser.
It sounds like you're saying that when users demand privacy, ad companies will punish them with more a obnoxious ad experience. Can you not see how this is literally an "abusive relationship" between the user and the advertisers?
The degree to which search engines are gamed successfully by adversaries is not the variable I wish to present a strong opinion of here, which may explain your confusion on my position here.
Instead, I just wanted to illustrate the logical connection between an adversarial-defensive ability to rank based on [website loading speed], and the ability to rank sites based on [any other factors]. If you can pull off adversarial defense of the latter, you probably can achieve the former with even less effort.
That said, I do present to you tentatively the claim that most popular search engines do a decently good job at fulfilling their goals, even if those goals are not in alignment with users' goals in many cases.
For example, there are certainly many examples of paid ads given preferential treatment in search results; however I do not believe this constitutes a case of an adversary beating the search engine's metrics. Rather, it is a consensual relationship/contract between the search engine and an advertiser being fulfilled. Whether this contract/relationship is in the best interest of consumers, is another matter altogether, of course.
If this were true, then there would exist no search engines consistently capable of finding content highly relevant to the user's query -- as opposed to just returning promoted content, which according to your premise is always winning the adversarial battle.
Sure, there is an adversarial element, which means there is a constant 'battle' for 'fairness' among results (or whatever your goals are as a search engine). But in reality, search engines as a whole seem to work rather well at finding what we want. Of course results are biased from adversarial pressures (and that's what we're discussing on this thread), but it does seem possible for "benchmarks" to work well in an adversarial environment.
Perhaps a more accurate title would be “Salvaging a broken ‘FLIR One’ to make a thermal vision scope!”
Still a very cool project! Too bad it’s not reproducible at this cost though (this was more affordable than commercial products only because the author managed to buy a broken ‘FLIR One’ cheap on eBay, and salvage the sensor).
That is awesome; I did not realize we were so perfect, so smart, to have it all figured out, and that science is done learning more.
Other tech companies and tech culture in general should take note, and follow suit if they actually care about this issue. Executives and HR statements are nice to hear I suppose, but even better is actual change.
To the little people like us, take note from a different perspective: Watch for which companies are all talk and no action. Take action through which you choose to work for. If you don’t have a choice, do your best within a company to promote positive cultural change.
The countless stories and admissions of former military and intelligence officers blowing the whistle on deep shadow governments always sound so crazy, but the sheer number of them over time is... disturbing. As a skeptic to conspiracy theories, I don’t know what to make of it.
In any case: The pentagon shutting down a new independently started investigation group (in this hypothetical world where alien UFOs exist) would totally make sense, as it would be redundant to the extremely secret programs already in existence and only a liability for possible interference. They also wouldn’t be able to tell them why they’re shutting it down or cutting off funding, because th secrecy level of such a thing would go so much deeper.
It’s hard to believe this has any credibility at all, but if this NYT article is genuine and the claims of real progress made by a small and brief program are real, I don’t know what to think to be honest.
Even more bizarre is how the craft appears totally cold, while there is a warm thermal halo of some kind around the craft, with a pattern very reminiscent of high energy fields.
Auto-update is a consensual agreement with the user. If you use auto-update to deploy something that a vast majority of your users do not want and did not expect, and intentionally so (refusing to roll back a 'mistake'), then you have broken that agreement or moral code.
You cannot use the excuse of "oh well if they don't like it they can uninstall it and use another product" to condone this bait-and-switch behavior. Just because the behavior is legal does not make it moral.
This behavior is absolutely immoral and must be condemned.
Your last two paragraphs sound an awful lot like the book 1984. If you haven’t read it, I recommend you check it out.
If an idea we disagree with is rare or harmless, we often ignore it. If an idea we disagree with is more common and worth refuting, we should respond to it with debate. If all parties involved in a debate are reasonable, consensus is possible. In aggregate, humans are capable of being reasonable, thus society progresses over time (amortized).
Sadly, there is often difficulty reaching consensus immediately — especially with deeply entrenched viewpoints. However, given time, history has proven over and over that truth prevails though patient use of rational argument. It is only through presentation of evidence and calm, rational argument that society progresses.
Other, more heavy-handed means of ideological conquest have more often than not made the world a much worse place. In fact, more than just a few million deaths have resulted from what we could call “non-rational ideological conquest” (which inevitably manifests in progressively more violent ways).
And to respond to your opening sentence, I don’t mean anyone is silenced physically (who does that?), but rather psychologically, culturally, and socially. That’s not a good thing.
Giving everyone a voice is good precisely because it facilitates debate, such that good ideas rise to the surface and bad ideas sink. Silencing voices opposed to your own views may serve you in the short term, but as a principle it’s incredibly dangerous and almost certainly harmful in the long run.
Edit: P.S. This doesn’t mean that bad ideas shouldn’t float down to a point where their advocation questions ones’ rational credibility, nor does it mean we should be entitled to say anything we want (no matter how extreme) without consequence.
For example, if you blurted out “The earth is flat - it’s all a conspiracy!”, most people would shake their heads in pity and keep walking away. But if someone presents evidence or ideas to a claim so extreme, the degree of our interest must be proportionate to the credibility of the evidence and the logical consistency of the argument — not the social stigma attached to the topic. This is a subtle distinction, but so important.
Social stigma can serve perhaps as a caching mechanism of consensus, but it is a tool we must wield with extreme caution.
If you don’t feel safe talking about it publicly, feel free to email me (you can track it down via my account). I wish I didn’t have to say that last sentence, but this is the USA we live in right now.
I agree that positivity is important. Certainly, let us take a moment to genuinely appreciate what they’ve done here to help 100 people!
Now, since this is such a good thing they’ve done on a small scale, let’s scale this kind of help to EVERYONE who is in need! That would be truly awesome.
Oh wait, sorry — it looks like we can’t actually have that problem-solving discussion here, because you shut down the dialog by banning the topic. What you did there — see, that is “objectively a bad thing”.
Seriously though, you cannot really expect people to shut down productive problem-solving discussion, on a forum meant for exactly that. In fact, I believe inspiring discussion and problem solving towards scaling this concept is exactly what Cards Against Humanity wants to happen as a result of this!
I suppose this goes to show that just because the majority of the world has consensus on something non-scientific, does not make it the best decision or mindset.
Thankfully science is mostly immune to political and social biases when done correctly.
Some of it is regional, and some of it will depend on what you do. The best salaries will go to the most valuable roles, so you may need to find out how to develop a specialty to make your work more valuable.
$14/hour is really low. I don’t know what exactly you do, but for most programming that’s below the market rate. If you can give me more info I’d be happy to help with advise where I can.
As to how our companies make so much money? I’m sure it’s very complicated, but just look at the US economy and contrast it to more socialist economies as seen in Europe. The US economy is far from perfect, but for better or for worse, it’s very prosperous.
Not only is it fully legal for a transition team to work with other state leaders, but in fact the Obama administration explicitly stated in no uncertain terms that they don’t have any problem with it:
This video has been going around showing this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2vO3GNexHYI&t=28m25s
Obviously Flynn pleading guilty to lying IS genuine news, but we’ll have to wait and see exactly what it entails. But make no mistake: This news article made TWO huge claims of news events, and you can see them even in the title of the article. One wasn’t just wrong, it bore the exact opposite message of reality (Trump campaign subverting Obama’s authority, vs the incoming Trump administration working with foreign leaders under the direct blessing of the Obama administration).
I’m not here to defend Trump or Flynn or anyone else, except advocate for the apparently crumbling notion of journliastic integrity. It’s sad how little of it remains. If you want to see Trump impeached, by all means we should continue investigating and bring to light facts. But please, it is important to get the facts right.
Obviously they didn’t retract the whole story, and I never said they did. I said they published fake news, and retracted it (the fake part, obviously). They retracted one of the two major claims you can see by just reading the headline.
The entire headline was profoundly misleading. It would be like saying “Orf will testify that Person drove 120 miles per hour on the highway” but omitting the “while shut down for regular traffic and with the permission and guidance of the highway patrol”.
It’s a lie by omission, and to call it anything else is naive. Looking into this further, it turns out the Obama administration in fact directly confirmed they have no problem with this happening during the transition.
I’m not here to defend Trump, but this whole situation of reporting is deeply lacking in journalistic integrity.