tz18

>AI makes the math world more accessible than before. If you have a question about a proof in the lecture, you can just ask it.

I think that is great, really! but does anyone remember asking a TA or teacher or prof or parent and getting told you can work it out for yourself, or maybe just given a hint? What if that is an essential part of learning, having to work through things you don't understand, but that you have the tools, the foundation, to figure out.

A calculator can't teach you math. A forklift can't build your strength. This is really a double edged sword, as far as education or accessibility goes.

You have to constantly ask... what do I lose by not figuring it out myself?

The same things Intel said 10 years ago.

Hi Mr. Roberts,

How hard/slow is it for an American citizen to bring their non-American wife over these days? My friend is a dual citizen considering taking a job in the USA but he's a little concerned about whether his non-American wife and kid could join him. She has a B1/B2 visa already. Is there some strategy to it? I heard the process is super backed up.

This is the sort of shit that gets you glassed by the watchers

No, this is just about keeping people from defecting and taking secrets / cash with them. Many Chinese people working for state controlled companies or similar (schoolteachers were one ridiculous example I think) in super mundane jobs have their passports taken away or exit bans for "national security" reasons.

Source is a pro fossil fuels think tank. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Public_Policy_Foundati...

>I noticed something that seemed almost too obvious. While our sophisticated models were still processing frame sequences and temporal features, the viewers in the comments section had already identified the crisis.

>Comments like "don't do it" or "it's not worth it" were appearing consistently. While we were pouring resources into optimizing frame embeddings and acoustic models, the clearest signals were hiding in plain sight.

First, I call bullshit. There's no way you're the first person in the room to think "let's check for keywords in the chat". I can believe that being able to tell these kind of bullshit stories is what gets someone promoted at the big companies, but I think this one is not even particularly good. Wouldn't any interviewer be skeptical? Feels like a Feynman story. Then again maybe life is stranger than fiction sometimes. Or maybe the real contribution at the time was in suggesting a feasible mechanism to incorporating the comment data?

Secondly, I hope that whatever model you came up with extended to livestreams without viewers, or livestreams where the viewers were egging them on. Also "Don't do it" seems like a pretty weak signal when you consider the entire variety of dumb shit people do on livestreams, e.g. the cinammon challenge, ice bucket challenge, whatever.

Also this is Facebook we're talking about, shouldn't they already know whether a user is a suicide risk in general from all the data mining shit they do? Shouldn't there just be a report button on the stream so users can report such things?

Sincerely, guy who went from new grad to laid off in 3 years

Parent commenter's description of the difference between an ascending bid auction and a second price auction (or Vickrey auction) is very confused. You can review the first chapter of "Mechanism Design and Approximation" for an introduction to auctions and proofs of the optimality of different auctions for different goals (e.g. the second price auction is proven to maximize social surplus): https://jasonhartline.com/MDnA/

This is almost entirely wrong in all respects. You can review the first chapter of "Mechanism Design and Approximation" for a good introduction to auction design. https://jasonhartline.com/MDnA/

1. it is not true that (for all hats h in {liar's hats}, h is green)

2. by the negation rule, there exists a hat h in {liar's hats}, such that it is not true that h is green.

3. there exists a hat in {liar's hats}

This is really basic first order logic guys.

"For all x in {}, P(x)" is always trivially true without regard for P.

Similarly, "there exists an x in {}, P(x)" is always trivially false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth

Number of employees is not the correct comparison, total labor cost is. Intel intentionally pays middling compensation so you would expect to need more people to do the same job.

>For the sake of simplicity, I will ignore that Smash games have stocks, and assume each match is a total win or loss.

There are 3 equilibria in Battle of the Sexes.

what are you gonna spend your 50 cents on?

Could this change how tech salaries are set? I know many companies base their salary grades on an algorithm that amounts to looking at what "comparable" companies are doing and aiming for the middle of that.

pick a word dude

The Alberta coast??

live by the algorithm, die by the algorithm

I think it needs a way to review the contacts (other than the request signatures form), and to edit them (in case I put the wrong e-mail originally), or at least delete and re-create them.

Is this different from https://opensignapp.com/ ?

"ugly" is not an aesthetic

this feels like some hellish thing you would be faced with when you first try to use a bus in germany. so in that sense you have succeeded!

Context on the author: he is Internet Policy Counsel at TechFreedom, a think-tank which opposes net neutrality. I feel this is relevant because as the article goes on it feels more and more slanted, like a ship listing into libertarian seas.

Pizza is 3USD a slice in NY?!??!?!?

Honestly, will these people ever stop huffing their own farts? This site is so full of itself sometimes. Are all of you guys really THAT engineer to the degree that you act like it on this site?

Are we really going to celebrate a new marketing term to sell the idea of knowing more than one thing back to engineers?

Like, hey, what if, hey maybe what if it was a good idea for people to know more than just the very narrow domain that we slot them into. Like, they could read books and things, and, have different competencies, and not necessarily approach every problem from the perspective of the STEMMIEST GOONIEST engineer ever. Maybe they could look at the same problem from different perspectives, instead of just steamrolling over all the others in a mad race to be the most engineeringest engineer that ever engineered, the kid that was building radios in his garage, getting stomped on by the kid that was writing linux kernel modules in diapers or some shit, all of us clambering over eachother to engineer harder. And when something goes wrong, the problem was you didn't engineer hard enough-- don't worry, there are ten or twenty brilliant engineers here who will be able to point out your engineering mistakes.

Maybe we should try to understand how we have accepted and profited from a society that increasingly only wants you to know how to do one thing, and that thing is engineering. Maybe even of the amazingly talented engineers on this site-- and I know there are truly many-- it is true that though engineering is what society will currently pay them for, it is not what society needs most of them. Maybe in fact it is paying them mostly to keep their heads down and not think, to work on smart fridges and disposable scooters and giant vacuums that suck up all your data and package it into a CDO. Maybe we all need to read a fucking book once in a while, and maybe that means we need to pay people to write the books so that we have something to read. Here's a shocking idea, maybe some of those writers have multiple competencies too, maybe some of them would actually make amazing engineers-- but actually society needs them to write more than it needs them to engineer. It needs to pay them to write. It needs to pay shitty writers long enough for them to get good as much as it needs to pay shitty engineers. That's what it means for something to be a real profession and not a hobby for dipshits, it means society agrees to pay you without you having to beg. Maybe we don't need comments, maybe we need fucking books. Maybe we don't need headlines, maybe we need stories. And everyone always has a take. Everyone always has a fucking take. Go shove your take. We're living in a fucking take machine here.

Maybe without all this shit, we are plowing forward into a future we don't understand-- towards goals we didn't choose-- because we get paid and hey, we're good at it. We're good engineers. We make thing work. We make thing go fast.

You wanna build something, you wildcard piece of shit, build a way to pay other jobs what they're worth instead of finding new ways to overpay engineers to build fucking Skynet / The Matrix / The Metaverse.

Yes, never. You are assuming that the implementation of all unit test cases are themselves correct (that they would fail if there was any error in the case they cover). In fact unit tests are often wrong. In that context a unit test can't even prove code incorrect, unless we know that the unit test is correct.

IMO to prove that code is correct requires a proof; a unit test can only provide evidence suggestive of correctness.

how about you read the paper?

How many yuan you get for this post?

Squandered isn't harsh at all. The deployment of capital was disproportionate to the size of the profitable business that will result. It could have been better spent elsewhere... or saved.

So that is the sample at the end of Viking North: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CSNCiqbtHLA