Wittgenstein argues that there is no such thing as a private language.
348 karma · joined October 4, 2013
Yes, because then I could apply my own ranking. More realistically, it would be useful as various web services could select from among various forms of ranking as desired by their users. Right now, the internet as a collective is at the whim of the particular ranking Google elects to use. If they don't like you, too bad, you lose.
What's more, I would even settle for a sorted list of all websites that contain my keywords, but Google provides no such thing. Google's algorithm has changed significantly in just the past few years, making it very difficult to do research of unusual topics, no matter how broad or specific you make your search. For instance, just today I was looking up information related to an event in the life of Andre Gide. After you get through a few pages (maybe 150 or so useful links from the grab bag of what appears), Google makes it such that you can explore no further. Entering a new term with a slight variation can yield a set of another ~150 results with no overlap with the previous search's results, making any kind of exhaustive research quite frustrating.
You're ultimately right, though, and that a true HD is only going to come from the raw film content. What the neural network gives us are essentially plausible higher-res hallucinations.
Edit: as per the other comment, if the original exists only on video and not film, perhaps this is the best we're going to get.
The high price you'd pay for paywalled papers goes in large part to the publisher for no real tangible benefit. Most research, and likely the linked article, are funded either directly or indirectly through public funds like taxes. So it is especially obnoxious to see an interesting article like the one linked be locked down.
As for why it's bad etiquette on the front page of HN, the free-and-open ethos common among hackers (at least, old school ones...) would usually see someone link directly to a pdf, instead of this.
No, it is not. It explicitly is not. Freedom of speech is one right among many other unstated rights held in common by the people. The first amendment merely prohibits Congress from passing a law that restricts it. The wording is clear that this freedom is something that exists inherently beyond the scope of the Constitution, and is certainly not "provided" by the document. We naturally have rights such as freedom of speech. It is from institutions like the government that restrictions are placed on them.
Also, the 9th amendment was included precisely to clarify and codify the fact that the Constitution, in enumerating the rights, is not itself granting those rights or even stating that these are the only rights people have.
Edit: I'm guessing there's enough in the redacted part of the notice to prove SC's identity. But I think the question of DMCA abuse remains.
I must completely disagree with the other posters claiming that keyword searches are not useful. For niche research, they are extremely helpful or even necessary. Google and Bing have reached the point where it is impossible to do real, niche academic research on them. For instance, I had a very specific thing I was trying to look up involving medicine, religion, and Marco Polo.
Try searching for "marco polo doctors" on Google and witness it giving very counterintuitive, one-sided results that may align with the current zeitgeist of interest from people searching Google, but diverge completely with the aim of literal, precise keyword search needed by academics. I did work to improve or hone the search down, looking up Kublai Khan, doctors, atheism brings up blogspam articles on doctors and atheism, but scant results on the 13th century Mongol emperor's religious medical interest. Trying to narrow the search further by including variations on Cambulac, Cambaliech, trying to find any info beyond surface-level on John of Montecorvino and his retinue... all is impossible with search engines in 2018.
no it doesn't. Anyone's corruption should be exposed for the betterment of society.
Rather, it is your argument that solely depends on the belief that others ("the other side") MUST be guilty. I understand emotions run high to match the stakes since it was the presidential election after all, but you'll note I didn't make any value judgments either way. Just because we are convinced one party is guilty doesn't mean we should ignore evidence of another's corruption out of fairness.
Seth Rich was not killed by "inner-city violence." He was killed by an unknown assailant, presumably in a mugging but it is again unknown. It was also not in the inner city, but in the Bloomingdale neighborhood which is rather nice and you can read about it here [1].
>Given the fact that you can't walk around America's inner cities without getting shot
Again, this is far from what I'd call a "fact" and is rather ignorant. Plenty of people live and work in inner cities across America without ever being shot or shooting someone. Your bizarre appeal to authority with quoting Obama doesn't have any bearing in reality. Seth Rich's murder may have been, and likely was, a random act of violence. But that does not justify the assertions of your comment.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/08/12/heres-w...
You'd think evidence of corruption would be relevant and worthy of mass coverage, no matter who committed it or how it was obtained.
>The linear view of adversarial examples suggests a fast way of generating them. We hypothesize that neural networks are too linear to resist linear adversarial perturbation. LSTMs (Hochreiter & Schmidhuber, 1997), ReLUs (Jarrett et al., 2009; Glorot et al., 2011), and maxout networks (Goodfellow et al., 2013c) are all intentionally designed to behave in very linear ways, so that they are easier to optimize. More nonlinear models such as sigmoid networks are carefully tuned to spend most of their time in the non-saturating, more linear regime for the same reason. This linear behavior suggests that cheap, analytical perturbations of a linear model should also damage neural networks.
edit: apologies about the 'no background' part
[1] https://twitter.com/mark_riedl/status/535372758830809088
Also, Wookiepedia is doing an excellent job differentiating Canon and Legends, so you can take your cues from there.
That said, both are good reads and complement each other.
(r *(2*sin((-A*time)/10))^100) * ((r * r ) % 2)
I hope he suffers no repercussions with respect to his trespassing, although it seems the worker who left the tower open and unattended might have some explaining to do. You think since another tower had been attacked earlier this year they might have installed security cameras. I wonder why these towers seem to lack security given their importance to their owners.