iraphael

But the people who are supposed to define what's good for the reader are the editors. They show the system what they think is good by either reverting edits or not, so by saying "this edit is likely to be reverted", the AI is saying "based on input from all editors, this edit may not be good for the users".

Effectively, those are the same thing, unless you want to create a hard definition of "good for the users". But that's going around the editors, and taking their opinion of "good" out of the equation, which IMO is a very bad idea.

The downloads page on swift.org has links though.

NLP has been on my watchlist for a semester now. No word on when future sessions will happen. I'm about to give up on that and just watch the old videos. Too bad I won't get the assignments :/

Sort of, technically, no state needs more than 20 moves to be solved (but finding that optimal solution is kinda hard for humans). So while luck can play a part (i.e.: you may get a configuration that only requires three moves), it's much more a matter of skill to find those 15, 20, 23 moves.

http://www.cube20.org/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF2J39Xny4Q

How is this any different than navigating to FOX or CNN's facebook page, liking it, and setting the notifications to "All Posts"?

I don't know how much this matters, but an issue similar to this had been raised here: https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/issues/120

The responses seem to show that the way you implement things can make a big difference in runtime. Perhaps the scripts used for benchmarking can be further optimized?

That said, the lack of in-place operations might be surprising (although it has been said that they are coming)

> There was also an article a few years ago that talked about how they have super computers that aggregate all your data thats available about you and make estimates on when you would need something or have a life event. Its evidently crazy accurate at approximating when you would say get married, buy a car, buy a house, and very good at predicting your shopping habits.

Dear Facebook overlords, when will I meet the girl I'll marry?

Seriously, has anyone tried this?

The problem is not the people working at NASA wanting to make bank. It's the people overseeing those people realizing that there is a possibility to make bank, then pressuring the people working at NASA to do research to make bank. That's the change I fear.

But I wanted to respond to a different thing you said in the first comment:

> why not try to commercialize existing NASA technologies

I never said commercialization of the technologies is a bad thing. In fact, I'm all for it. But it has to be done in a way that doesn't break what's already being done right.

Yes, but what about the people in charge of those people? Once they see that some research is more profitable than others, what's stopping them from going to NASA people and demanding more profitable research? At what point does NASA lose its focus in its mission?

I'm all in favor of Startup NASA. I'm merely asking for things to be done in a way that doesn't mess with what's being done right already.

Exactly. If commercialization is done in way that does not distract from the principles of the research, it is great. But to achieve that, the incentives must be right. With Startup NASA, what is the incentive for NASA to keep doing moonshot-like projects, when they can make bank by investing only in profitable-in-the-near-future research? If the incentive is there, I am glad startup NASA exists. If not, I fear that Startup NASA will turn NASA into just another lab that has lost its focus.

If there is a separation between the knowledge creation and the commercialization, I'm all for this model of funding science. However, the problem starts when NASA becomes a lab that creates patents with the intent of licensing them. In this scenario, NASA will stop focusing on advancement of knowledge and become focused on creating the kind of knowledge that will sell.

If you are as confused as I was and, like me, you came to the comments first instead of reading the page, I got you fam: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/265340/horsechat-horsechat-h...

I'm not sure monetary value is the only type of value college can (or should) provide.

What would be the advantages of using one over the other. I'm in the process of refactoring/improving a web game (connwars.com) I made a while ago and I was planning on using canvas, but I don't know if svg would work better.

'TeMPOraL :) is the smiley part of it or am I doing it wrong?

I want to ask you a question but I don't want you to take it as sarcasm. It is a genuine question.

How is locking content behind paywalls not exactly the same as closing the web? I don't think there will be a point when all content will be available for free, but if paywalls are the norm, then how is that web still considered free and open?

I don't have a solution for what would be a perfect model, but I don't think paywalling is the answer.

And yes, if news providers have to rely on ads, they will eventually converge into clickbaity buzzfeed. I don't think that is the solution either.

I think we still have to find a good balance that works for everyone. But just because ads don't work, doens't mean paywalling works. That's what I meant with my comment above.

It's also part of the reason I don't plan on ever buying their subscription. (The other reason being I disagree with the model and believe in a free open internet)

This seems obviously correlated with the gaming side of MS. But I wonder if this acquisition is also related to MS's latest ventures into VR/AR, something that a lot of big companies seem to be doing right now. I hope Havok makes HoloLens a great product because I want that thing on my face.

I don't know if this encompasses all of the CfS projects, but the reddit links to this: https://github.com/SandersForPresident

So at least some of the work is open source

> I have a whole folder of these.

PLEASE SHARE I WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR LAUGHTER

This is really interesting. One of the most interesting parts is the progressive decoding/responsive images. http://flif.info/example.php (go to the bottom of the page).

Basically, the last example shows that, if you want a scaled version of the image, you can simply stop decompressing. No need for multiple image files. Just create one with very high quality and decompress until you get the quality you want and scale it down with html.

edit: more info on the responsive side of FLIF: http://flif.info/responsive.php

> the patent describes (...) routine tasks that could be performed by a human.

Is this a good way of defining when a patent is invalid? Isn't everything (i.e.: all computations) technically tasks that could be performed by humans alone given enough time?

For how much can I expect to get a Nexus 5 (last year's model)?

Youtube also faces a big challenge with incentives IMO. Obviously discoverability of videos matter. But depending on how the decision to feature a video is made, Youtube can (and has) incentivized content creators to change their content to fit that box. It's the reason why most videos in my front page are click bait, with really obnoxious thumbnails, and a lot of times with all caps titles.

Here's a video by a youtuber about all this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm-Jjvqu3U4

I believe the idea of moving towards a more AI/ML based recommendation system is interesting because it frees Youtube from the burden of defining what is worthy of being featured (and featuring everything that's relevant to each particular user). In a way it could democratize content discovery. But I don't see it working as well as it could be.

I have a feeling that Youtube may want to be able to promote certain youtube "stars" because, let's be real, they are the ones driving revenue. But I chose to believe a world where content discovery is more fair is possible.

I will say that this has less to do with the shitty way subscription works nowadays. The idea behind that is: if users want to follow certain creators, they should be able to. Moving that towards a AI/ML system seems just inefficient at achieving that goal. I don't know the rationale behind the decision here.

True. And I applaud the effort. I just think that, in most cases, they won't work with you in this area. So when telling developers to take a stand, we should also prepare them for what is most likely going to happen when they do.

How does this work when companies have an "open" culture (aka: every employee has access to most of the codebase)? Wouldn't that meant a side project you are working on is, indirectly, a...

> Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer?

>they will work with you

Not so sure about that... Tech giants have the advantage of being able to pick from the best applicants out there. In the same way you could say "having these clauses is a deal breaker for me", it's very easy for them to say "NOT having them is a deal breaker for US".

The difference is that if you refuse the offer, you still have to find a jobs elsewhere (and I suspect that most giants will have the same clauses by default). But if they refuse the offer, there is already someone being interviewed that will accept the clauses.

Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I think that unless these clauses are deal breakers for most developers out there, then this practice will continue to be done.

Which is why great teams are formed by people who can see how their work will impact a greater goal, and can internalize that goal as being their own.

I'm interested in learning more about the research ladder (and how it's different to the SWE ladder) at Google.

So I found this: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c...

If anyone has other interesting resources about the general employee structure at Google/other big companies, please reply :)

It seems like you're saying that Technology has passed the "Second Watershed".

http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/IllichTools.html

"Watershed (figurative definition, as used by Illich): A point in the historical process when a particular “tool” creates a quantum shift in society, like the sudden application of gravity feeding water into a terrain basin (literal watershed)."[0]

[0] http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=...