> It's almost the same
No, it isn't
> it blended lots of words from Iberian languages
No, it didn't
689 karma · joined April 7, 2018
No, it isn't
> it blended lots of words from Iberian languages
No, it didn't
Moreover, crucifixion is just a pragmatic approach to traditional public executions. Many societies have used trees and walls to hang, kill and display the executed their necks broken, beaten to death, lashed, lynched, asfixiated, left to die of thirst or exposure... the method doesn't really matter, the point is they are there for everyone to see.
And how is this change supposed to work?
... excuse me?
As opposed to having to figure it out later from the outputs of a black box?
> Quality control with machine vision is a good application for ML.
I can't imagine CV could be an actual replacement for actual SPC in many industries. There's a reason we need to take samples and stress test, analyze composition, etc.
> NLP for PDF documents is a huge field for manufacturing as well.
NPL could be big everywhere... if it provides actual value, which is not a given. ML has a lot of tangential applications (you could also say, better forecasting), but how will directly improve manufacturing processes?
I apologize for being abrasive, but I'm so tired of cs people descending upon all industries, plugging shit data into pytorch and doing shitty ML like it will automatically add value. Even more so in industrial engineering, which in my experience is full of people way better at math than computer scientists and requires a deep understanding of the product and the manufacturing process.
But my point is, before the soviet collapse Russia didn't have a lot of shared borders with NATO countries. Now they do. If Ukraine, Moldova (who knows, maybe one day Belarus) end up joining NATO or the EU, this will considerably hinder their power projection capabilities. Expanding on McCain's analogy, Russia is a sketchy gas station where you can hire bruisers.
The last time Russians found themselves in a similar position, NATO and the EU showed up at their doorstep. Baltic countries, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria... all of them joined NATO and/or EU in quick succession.
That's what I think Putin is trying to prevent. So the goal is to either have loyal buffer states (e.g. Belarus, Kazakhstan) or leave "unruly" buffer states (Georgia, Ukraine) in such state of destruction and disarray, that after Putin's death, Russia could get back on its feet before those states could focus again on entering international alliances. In other worlds, if I need 10 years to recover, I'll make sure you need 20 years, even if it adds a couple of years to my tally.
Of course this need of keeping NATO at bay exists only if the economic and political strategy of the state is to be an international gun for hire. It's a pity that the Russian elites decided to go for the easy buck with gas and military instead of developing the huge technical and artistic talent of the Russian people.
The irony is, after Iraq's invasion, NATO was incredibly unpopular in many European countries, and actions against Russia were seen as undesirable. I think fellow Europeans will agree that we saw Russia as an authoritarian state with old-fashioned values, but we were hopeful that one day we could have shared institutions and deeper political and economic cooperation. Now a lot of my fellow citizens perceive Russia as a direct enemy.
The value of Huamán Poma's chronicle is not just the historical account per se, but the fact that it appeals to the arguments, values and institutions that justified the colonization of his country.
Obviously, whatever arguments he presented, even if they had reached the Spanish court, would have been discarded by the political necessities of the moment. Multiple times (e.g. Peace of Utrecht, Congress of Vienna, Berlin Conference) the great powers have used symbolic statements, forgotten treaties, obscure precedents... to legitimize the partition or annexation of a territory; or the independence or promoted status of some other territories perhaps sharing remarkable circumstances to the above-mentioned and now-divided territory. The point is, the legal reasoning comes after the political decision.
In this thread we've seen something similar. Multiple users have presented some of the arguments that one usually finds among a very particular political group in Spanish politics. "They were provinces, not colonies", "They were not conquered but liberated", "They died mostly of disease", "Spanish laws protected the new citizens". Those are staples of Spanish nationalism (particularly right-wing), aiming to defend the legitimacy of the decisions of XVIth century monarchs and ultimately to present an attractive national narrative.
Out of respect for this site and its rules, I will not engage those users, but... we find ourselves now in a similar situation of that of Huamán: should we contest those interpretations? Will otherwise internet archeologists from the XXXIst century conclude that those interpretations were common and shared among the societies of both Spain and Peru (because "el que calla otorga", i.e. silence gives consent)? From Huamán Poma's history we should conclude that contesting an argument, just "showing up" is in itself the most powerful argument, isn't it?
As useful as the impact factor of the journal where they manage to publish.
Personal Computers on the other hand... that's almost all innovation with a dash of unregulated (garage companies, surreptitious deals, etc).