1,057 karma · joined May 15, 2011
- Bulletpapers title: Using robots to map and digitize construction sites
- Paper title: Multi-agent robotic systems and exploration algorithms: Applications for data collection in construction sites
- Bullets / Key Details: + Proposes methodology for multi-robot systems in construction sites + Robots use exploration algorithms to navigate autonomously + Information from building plans guides exploration + Robots digitize environments by 3D scanning as they explore + System is robust, efficient, requires minimal human involvement
- Generated Summary: This paper proposes using multiple robots with different capabilities working together to map and digitize construction sites. The robots use exploration algorithms to autonomously navigate and scan the environment. Information from building plans helps guide the exploration. The multi-robot system is robust, efficient, and requires minimal human involvement.
This all reads like the info was gathered from the abstract instead of the paper itself....that said, this is good AI generation info for IEEE explore to implement i guess
>> a. Military, warfare, nuclear industries or applications, espionage, use for materials or activities that are subject to the International Traffic Arms Regulations (ITAR) maintained by the United States Department of State
The key piece here (IMO) is: "assist in the planning or development of activities that present a risk of death or bodily harm to individuals". There's plenty of DoD activities that are a few steps away from actual conflict engagement. Is helping an engineer move HESCO barriers too close to "activities that present a risk of death or bodily harm to individuals"? What about helping a team learn how to use a weapon or even any piece of equipment within the DoD? Who decides how many degrees from 'these activities' are ok?
oof is that the bar we want to set? spend it and you're fine
agree that it'd be nice to have a markdown file be rendered inherently within the browser so i don't have to use haroopad on my windows machine, but it feels like we're just going to reinvent HTML
it's the point of your life where disposable income is easily spent to make them happy and you look at products not with respect to shelf life, but with respect to how much the kid will _actually_ enjoy them even if for only a brief time
subscriptions to disney+ are a 'no brainer', the content is there, _something_ will fit the bill without you even having to do the mental analysis
Understanding while not completely described by situational awareness definitely has some relationship to it and you could probably use similar constructs for defining it
no one was waved in, there's plenty of video of people breaking windows and through doors to get in
I did my PhD on biometrics and while i've transitioned to a different field since graduation, i'd like to think i have some insight into the field (which i still try to follow through journals like IEEE TIFS or conference proceedings from ICB/IJCB). Fundamentally, a biometric is both a _username_ and a _password_ at the same time. It identifies who is logging in (username) while authenticating them (password). There is some literature to address the elephant in the room about 'changing the password' where the key created and stored from the biometric can be changed. But again, fundamentally, the goal should be about how to treat the data like a username/password pair that's just as sensitive as something like a SSN. For law enforcement, i completely agree that it's useful, but for digital access i have yet to see proof that system architects are acknowledging that relationship when thinking about cybersecurity and any ramifications of a breach.
edit: LOL this just hit my RSS feed from HN -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28314993
1) It's absolutely, mind-mindbogglingly huge and it's nearly impossible to track all that's going on in the many, many different areas in any meaningful way.
2) Due to (1) and all the areas it supports, many actual projects are relatively underfunded for what they're expected to produce.
3) Because of (2) and the fact that it's public money, there's a lot of focus when going a few steps above the working level to make things efficient, remove redundancy, push for more collaboration, get more bang for your buck, etc. This often creates scope creep as things support more than what they can handle [see (2) now getting worse for maybe a little more money being added to the program] and are now expected to deliver the single solution to a multifaceted problem.
4) Because of (3) the program now has a lot more hands (people) who contribute to or rely on the outcome. This also starts to grind things to a halt as the program becomes more difficult and laborious to manage given all the new moving parts, people involved, and inevitable demonstrations and experiments to support.
The best way to be efficient in the US military, is to stay small as long as possible. To carve out some area that no one else is going to touch (so you don't get merged or lose funding) and make that 'your lane'. This adds to the challenge in (2), which leads to (3)...i guess if maybe we weren't so aggressive with (3) we wouldn't have as much challenge with (2) after some time for things to settle. That said, (3) is inevitable because of (1).
would call it more than just an "improvement", only using 1/2 memory is pretty freakin great when you're already known for hogging mem
fair
>> Yes, the university curriculum - and especially the humanities - is a left-wing echo chamber. If you do not agree I'd like you to show me some proof in the form of neutral or conservative courses in these fields.
you're asserting something, why shouldn't i be asking you for proof?
>> . Why do you even try to deny this fact, seeing as to how this is so obvious? If there were to be a place for a "not in good faith" accusation it would be far more towards your reply than to my original comment.
What's obvious about it?
We can go back and forth just asking open questions with specificity and being unmoved by any answers OR we can discuss what might be the roots of those arguments, e.g., what i brought up in a previous comment about empathy. The former is not in good faith. Like in the original comment:
>> Have a look around the average university campus, look at the curriculum. Is it any surprise that those who went through these institutions come out ideologically lopsided? This is true for most of the countries I have experience with, it even holds true for a large part of pre-university education. Add to this the more recent phenomenon of trying to label all those who do not keep within the (narrow and shifting) window of allowed opinions and the recipe for producing an ideological monoculture is complete. To me this is a sign of these institutions failing in their duties. It this situation does not get remedied it will lead to the creation of new institutions which welcome those who do not wish to align themselves with the current dogma, something akin to the way the Protestant church was founded out of disagreements with Catholic dogma.
my reasoning for assessing the comment isn't in good faith: you're prescribing your assumptions as truth to reach a biased conclusion. Whether or not you're correct is inconsequential, just like with your comment here, you're saying this situation is "obvious" and if not there needs to be proof. The original article actually says that it isn't "obvious", only that there's been some changes occurring over the last 70+ years and they're getting more prevalent (not that they're extreme in one direction or the other, where the 'simplest explanation is due to more access to higher education'). You're not discussing anything with respect to what the numbers are showing, how much 'liberal bias' is actually occurring? Is it 10%, 20%, ...do you know? Instead you're broad-brush approach to saying it's "obvious" that university curriculum is producing an "ideological monoculuture" is purely speculation based on your own bias. Change the words from where anecdote is your defense to a larger discussion on where your perception stems from and we'll have a real discussion about the topic.
Dude, language evolves... this is such a weird thing to be hung up on.
> Thomas Piketty, an economist, became famous for a book that analysed 200 years of data on wealth inequality in a wide range of countries. This month he published a paper, co-written by Amory Gethin and Clara Martínez-Toledano, which applies a similar approach to the relationship between demography and ideology. Its findings imply that the electoral victories of Donald Trump and the Brexit campaign in 2016 were not an abrupt departure from precedent, but rather the consequence of a 60-year-old international trend.
Opening credentials
> In 1955 both the richest and the most educated voters tended to support conservative parties. Conversely, both poorer and less-educated people mostly chose labour or social-democratic ones. Today, wealthy people still lean to the right. In contrast, the relationship between education and ideology began to reverse as early as the 1960s. Every year, the 10% of voters with the most years of schooling gravitated towards left-wing parties, while the remaining 90% slid the other way. By 2000, this had gone on for so long that, as a group, the most educated voters became more left-wing than their less-educated peers. The gap has only grown since then. This trend is strikingly consistent. It developed just as fast in the 20th century as in the 21st, and appears in almost every Western democracy studied. This includes both two-party systems and proportional ones, in which green parties now lure educated voters, and nativist parties attract the less educated.
This isn't just because of trump and while current right-wing narratives hate on universities for being echo chambers, the research says this shift has been occurring for a long time.
> Although the authors do not identify a cause for this trend, the simplest explanation is that it stems from growing educational attainment. In 1950 less than 10% of eligible voters in America and Europe had graduated from college.
This makes sense, institutions have largely had a consistent mission (we could maybe argue with the access to federal loans there's been more change to cash in while they can), however access has been increasing significantly over the last 70ish years.
not sure what you mean here, what exactly are you postulating? Is it that there's a bias in any university curriculum? Is it that a large group of a younger (primarily 18-25) demographic create an echo chamber or that there's peer pressure to a specific ideology?
There's a lot to unpack in your comment, and it all appears that it isn't really in good faith.