junkcollector

https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05703 is the best one which is explained in these blog posts http://www.primaryobjects.com/2013/01/27/using-artificial-in...

Nobody would have accused Brainfuck of being a good language but it turns out that its radical simplicity works well for integrating with optimization algorithms for creating self-programming AIs. It's all about a niche, except INTERCAL, you're right about INTERCAL.

Sure, you're making a mistake that is very common around HN. You're conflating technology and programming. If you wanted to study chemistry and be a chemical engineer, Houston is absolutely where you would be flocking to instead of SF. I think the next big tech market is going to be medical and genetics which means Minneapolis and Boston are the places to be watching.

The way I see it though, the limitations of CI implants are primarily driven by the internal electrode interface that limits the number of available frequencies to the person. This isn't something that any of the "big tech" companies are positioned to innovate in. I'd be more interested if Hewlett Packard got involved because they actually have a significant and successful micro/nanotech group.

Hearing aids though could be ripe for disruption by improved computational power and large supply chain leverage. So it will be a matter of whether or not Apple/Google/ back off once they meet the intractable reality of regulatory compliance in a limited market a la their infrastructure plans.

I think it's most likely that they will buy up those medical companies for expertise, then spin off the medical device manufacturing into a new separate company or otherwise sell it off but keep the key engineers to roll into other random consumer products that are less regulated and more profitable. This is what Google has more or less done with robotics after buying basically every major robotics research company in the US a few years back.

Dallas specifically has a sizeable and vibrant Armenian community in the northern suburbs which also have very good schools and are affordable when compared to anywhere in Cali. North of Dallas is also a significant tech hub.

When I got my Surface Pro way back when, I had some similar issues. I had to update the drivers for the screen and pen to the official Wacom release instead of the Microsoft release and afterwards it ran amazingly well. It was so nice that I've been eyeing one of those absurdly expensive drafting table style Wacom setups for my desktop ever since even thought I could never justify the price. I've considered upgrading the Surface Pro as well for a larger screen and lighter body, but the Pro 2 does all my normal tasks (mostly matlab and putty) really well and the fact that the pen is now sold separate deeply offends me.

It actually depends on the nature of your ground at both ends of the cable. The book by Ott, pictured but not referenced in the article, had a whole chapter on the subject if I remember correctly.

Also copper tape is wonderful but it will also cut the hell out of you so wear gloves.

Child care at least has an intrinsic value that will create wage equilibrium because it directly frees up someone else's time for high value labor. It should track closely to the income of the people you are serving, and it mostly does even in the US. This is ignoring the educational and social benefits that good childcare services can create which act as a future labor multiplier.

The mistake you are making there is assuming that those improvements add any value to the landlord or property. They don't. That $20,000 grease trap is an anchor that the next tenant has to have pulled out at great expense. They probably want different lighting so the electrical will have to be redone as well.

In any commercial property I have ever dealt with the tenant is responsible for any renovations because every tenant is looking to outfit the space differently. If the market is heavily in the favor of the renters at the time, I have seen landlords offer discounts on the rent to help cover certain renovations, typically expanded electrical service and the like, but even that has it's limits as landlords typically have costs associated with ownership they need to cover out of the rent.

The line is just awkwardly worded English, which is understandable because its his second language. What it means is that there is little loss in the "honey comb circuit" which then implies that it is the path of least resistance between the electrodes.

Shadowgraphy is a method of measuring distortion or flow in a fluid by shining a light through it and photographing the shadow. Very useful in studying heat, shockwaves, and turbulence.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowgraph

Penn State did a lot of pioneering work in and with this technique.

This is in fact what the Sawstop does because if you use the wrong material it will engage and destroy your very expensive saw blades. This is one of the (many) reasons why SawStops aren't more popular and why they are in fact removable. So really, the sawstop is like Rust in that you can do what you want when it considers it dangerous by embedding c code, but it requires you to put in an annoying level of effort.

Sorry, edited a bit for clarity after thinking some more about it.

The kernel of a filter would be it's impulse response, which is what you convolve by to get the filter response. That's where the sloppy terminology comes from. A kernel though does not need to be a filter.

A kernel is a function whose product maps a point in one domain onto another domain. For example, the Fourier transform has a kernel of e^jwt. The integral (or sum if discrete) of these products over the function is the transform because it maps the entire function into it's new space. A filter is a function typically defined as having product behavior in the frequency(transformed) domain, which is equivalent to convolution in the time(original) domain. A window is a function that has product behavior in the time(original) domain, and thus convolution behavior in the frequency(transformed) domain.

Particularly in linear algebra (matrix math), if something is a kernel function, there are certain mathematical implications.

Another confusing bit here is that the convolution they are performing to project the original function (the larger image matrix) onto the smaller one isn't a proper convolution, it has a hidden window function in the way the operation is being performed to restrict the output to only the fully overlapped area of an otherwise linear 2D convolution. This is typically called a cropped convolution in image processing.

The article is all right but for newbies reading it; be a little careful. The author is sloppy with terminology in a way that can trip up someone who is just learning. An example being that a Kernel and a Filter are not the same thing.

In this system the RF source you are sending is effectively the IF component for the sensor's Tx chain. Because it is so high power and such a clean pilot tone, the sensor can eliminate it's IF generating oscillator and output amplifier by just mixing the data onto the receive pilot tone and retransmitting it. This is how the sensor is made so cheap and low power. If the pilot tone was cyphered, it wouldn't mean the data was. That is, you could recover the unencrypted data if you recorded a copy of the pilot by mixing. There is also the issue that, because the pilot tone provides the power to the sensor's carrier, any spreading of it's spectrum, which is what random xor encoding does, makes it harder to recover and use as the IF component for the sensor's radio chain. The last issue here is that the CSS standard does not allow this sort of non-linear modulation.

All that said, it's not a fundamentally bad idea. Pseudo-random xor encoding of signals is a technique used all the time to increase orthoganality between signals for a variety of encoding schemes.

HN ate my reply, apparently I was posting too fast, but as a TLDR you can avoid the overhead of encryption and authentication by revisiting the trust framework in the design of your network and simply assuming that you don't trust your sensors. This moves the overhead from the sensors and the network which are heavily constrained to the processing of the central authority where you have a lot more lee-way and moore's law to help. If you are interested in learning more about this sort of system, it is a topic of research in control theory often lumped under robust systems.

Medical is just an example of the economist not understanding the product vs the buzzline. It is a terrible tech implementation for medical, but I agree that you generally want medical encrypted. However, if you are talking medical, the cost of the sensor device is tiny compared to other costs even for very expensive sensors.

Fuse based programming would have a whole host of issues. You either need a destructive fill device or load at the factory. If you load at the factory you have to trust them to not retain copies, keeping in mind that it will probably me manufactured in China. If you use a fill device you open up for destructive programming (IC fuses) you open up a bunch of liability for accidental damage to the device plus the cost of a technician plus training can quickly swamp out the cost of your low cost sensor network.

Finally, these sorts of networks work best with asynchronous uni-diretional communication applications. This makes good crypto-practices very difficult. If you chose full crypto and handshake protocols, the amount of data you spend just exchanging keys and handshakes will exceed the data the sensors collect.

Modern microcontrollers can be had in the sub-$5 range that support hardware implemented encrypting algorithms. Mostly it's a worthless feature but we aren't far out from it being more or less standard even in the $0.20 guys.

The bigger issue is that the entire point of this system is to remove cost of deployment and maintenance for cheap highly distributed lo-fi systems. The cost of keying all those devices for encryption would defeat the purpose. Also the added data overhead of the encryption would possibly exceed the amount of actual data you are trying to get out of the system. Also, why do you even want to encrypt it in the first place?

It's not a passive tag. If you only read 3 sentences into the abstract, you find out that it is an active device. This is repeated at the end of the abstract and right at the beginning of page 2 in the introduction.

You might have more luck looking at Active RFID. The same technology in any meaningful sense.

CSS is an analog (continuous frequency function) modulation where the CSS standard specifies that only linear encoding be used while FSK is a digital modulation that can employ pseudo-random keying and operates at discrete frequency keys. Without these restriction imposed by standards, FSK would be a special case of CSS, at least mathematically.