ulber

It's really about the speed here. I have one that takes ~6 seconds to stabilize, which is by no means bad but is still a noticeable pause.

The Thermapen is rated at 3 seconds, which I imagine feels much better when you quickly want to get the temperature of a steak or something while preparing other components at the same time.

This post got me into looking up what Google's privacy sandbox actually is. One proposal I found quite interesting was TURTLEDOVE, which proposes to move ad bidding onto the user device [1]. The current proposal of course uses bidding logic delivered by the ad seller. However, if this were to gain wide adoption, the step to imposing user control over bidding gets a bit smaller.

Imagine being able to tell advertisers "ok I'll look at any ad that pays me at least 50 cents" (~100X the typical price of an impression currently). If anyone wants to show you an ad at that price you know they think its going to be relevant. That's the kind of targeting I could get behind.

No chance that would actually happen though.

[1]: https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/master/FLEDGE.md

The "legitimate forces of supply and demand" seems to be the critical part there. GME stock didn't go up because /u/DeepFuckingValue bought so much of it, it went up because everyone else did. In August 2019 GME had a market cap of $300 million so there was no way /u/DeepFuckingValue buying some hundreds of thousands worth had any real effect on its own.

For traversing a DAG you probably still would to avoid exploring an exponential number of paths (consider a chain of diamonds [1]).

1: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-diamond-shaped-DAG_fig...

4k DLSS takes something like 1.5ms to compute on a 2080ti IIRC, so the drop in render time has to be at least that to give any improvement. So it's quite situational and doesn't help with for example when frame rate is high already. Ray tracing at high settings would be expected to be one of those situations though, so something might be just broken.

DLSS 2.0 requires motion vectors as an input to re-project the previous frame, so an equivalent of that at least can't be implemented in the display.

DLSS is also a rather heavy computation, taking 1-2 ms per frame on high end GPUs. That's a serious amount of processing power to put into a display and doing so makes it exclusive for that use. On the GPU those tensor cores can be used for other tasks when they're not doing DLSS.

In other news counties with the highest incidence of kidney cancer (very rare) have few people [1] and surprisingly many of the best schools are small [2].

In any noisy metric small samples tends to be overrepresented at the extremes. Emsi (the company behind this article) should note this where appropriate.

[1]: https://dataremixed.com/2015/01/avoiding-data-pitfalls-part-...

[2]: https://caroljacoby.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/are-small-schoo...

Is that expectation wrt. responsiveness guarantees? In other words, if I'm just interested in throughput are CPU intensive tasks a problem? For example, my expectation is that it would be appropriate to use the new Tokio scheduler to parallelize a compute intensive simulation workload (where inside a "frame" responsiveness is not a problem).

This seems like a great way to think about this. The core reason why these kinds of patters keep popping up is that making people jump through hoops to get discounts is an effective way to price discriminate based on how much people value their time, and how much you value your time is going to have a very strong correlation with how much you're possibly willing to pay.

I think the fixes for this are largely going to be cultural. For example something that could help is everyone having more pride and simply refusing to jump through pointless hoops for a discount (even if it is technically worth their time).

Good discussion and I would love more lightweight type creation in C++.

The "Allow internal functionality" proposal doesn't fully work as-is. Imagine you have a type Scalar, which has a function:

  Scalar Scalar::scale(Scalar);

If you now do

  typedecl Scalar Celcius;

you'd get a function for it with the following signature:

  Celcius Celcius::scale(Celcius);

However, the function you'd actually want is

  Celcius Celcius::scale(Scalar);

The root problem here is that since the original type mixes different uses of the type, you can't blindly convert all those uses to the new type.

I think you are probably approximately correct (although a relaxed outlook might lead to helping your grandchildren thrive, thus passing on your genes).

However, your comment could be actionable in a number of ways, for example:

1. "You should embrace the intensity to make sure you reproduce."

2. "You should understand the source of that intensity as something that might oppose your goal of happiness."

3. "You should accept the biological inevitability of that intensity."

I'm partial to number 2. Even if the calculus of reproduction is straight forward, how that should inform your life choices is not.

One interesting application of NTT polynomial multiplication is in fully-homomorphic encryption libraries, such as Microsoft's SEAL [1], where the ciphertexts are polynomials of very high degree. (Disclaimer: I work at MSR using SEAL for machine learning.)

[1]: https://github.com/Microsoft/SEAL

A clever approach for VR that was used in Downward Spiral [1] (a Unity game) is to add a periodic eye blinking effect and trigger the GC on a black screen.

[1] http://www.3rdeyestudios.fi/downward-spiral-horus-station/

There doesn't seem to be much reason to challenge the assumption: humans aren't good at solving any problems that we know to be uncomputable (e.g. the halting problem). Sure, it's a thing you could investigate, but the explanation for why it's not a popular topic is that it doesn't seem like a fruitful area of research.

Also, personally what my mind is doing doesn't feel like it's invoking an oracle for my problem solving. Generally when the search space for a problem that I'm solving increases I experience the kinds of blowups in the difficulty that would arise from me following an algorithm. Now, not everybody is the same. Do you feel like your problem solving calls an oracle?

Transducer is the standard term inside CS for this model of computation [1]. Often there are some disambiguating terms, such as finite-state transducer, but this article does not limit itself to any particular kind. Of course Hacker News has content from both fields so the overloading of the term is unfortunate.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_transducer

Transducers are also familiar from automata theory. There’s a recent line of research into automata and transducers with symbolic representations for transitions. I’ve studied using them to apply fusion to pipelines of stream transformations [1]. Here’s talk I have for a related paper [2] and this talk by Loris d’Antoni gives a general overview of symbolic automata and transducers [3]. In a few weeks I’ll have a talk up that summarizes the last three papers I have on the subject.

[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3062341.3062362

[2] https://youtu.be/0IL60qJEKLU

[3] https://youtu.be/ca9IF-7nSOA

The default position here is that human intelligence is computable, since we have some 7.5 billion biological computers clearly implementing human intelligence. Arguments to the contrary typically rest on a belief in mind-body dualism (popularly disguised as "quantum effects" these days).

I see from another post of yours that you are religious, which is a common personal reason to assume a form of dualism as at least central tenets in the Abrahamic religions seem to require it. Do you see dualism necessary for your position of human intelligence being incomputable, and if so could you reference an argument you would find compelling also for readers whose religion (or lack thereof) does not necessitate dualism?

If you don't see dualism as necessary for the possibility of human intelligence being incomputable, could you open up your thinking on this?

I apologize for being so forward, but I worry some might read your comments without realizing that they might rely on unshared assumptions.

For C the first approach I would try is just using a general software verification tool. Write a test driver which feeds the two functions two different non-deterministic inputs and assert that their results are the same. A verification tool will attempt to prove that the assertion can not be violated. The yearly software verification competition (SV-COMP) [1] has some very capable tools for verifying C programs. If I remember correctly, SMACK [2] and Ultimate Automizer [3] both do very well over all.

[1] https://sv-comp.sosy-lab.org/2017/index.php

[2] https://github.com/smackers/smack

[3] https://monteverdi.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/tomcat/Website...

Well, that makes the CPU as powerful as some processors in mobility focused laptops, not as powerful as "anything you get in desktop PCs".

Very much reminds me of Jacques Carelman's "Catalogue of Unfindable Objects", one of my dearest book memories. A Google search gives some examples of objects from the catalogue [1].

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=Catalogue+d%27objets+introuv...

Wirelessly chargeable phones can typically be charged normally. What it buys you is convenience in that special place or two where you always charge your phone (bedside, work desk, etc.). I really liked it when I did have it and wish Apple offered it too.

Being a monopoly is not against the law.

The control group in this study was drinking an artificially sweetened drink in place of the sugary one. Otherwise, this answer [1] refers to recent studies having shown insulin rising from artificial sweeteners, but says the research on links to actual weight gain is still ongoing (I have no idea if that answer is current).

[1] http://www.health.harvard.edu/diabetes/ask-the-doctor-do-art...

Often people are wary of new results about health, so it's worth pointing out that this paper is rigorous and the conclusion is very likely to be correct, as explained by this comment on Reddit's /r/science [1].

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6oufus/comment/dkk...

The point is that the specification is short and human understandable: you get confidence that bugs are unlikely to exist in the specification. Now if you also can prove that your optimization passes fulfill the specification you've obviously gained a lot of value. It doesn't matter that deciding the correctness of arbitrary program transformations is undecidable if you happen to succeed in proving that the ones actually implemented are correct.

Can't agree more about the importance of breaking the rules. In my foray to Windows Phone development, I spent a lot of time customizing components to implement the design language well in Reitit [1]. The early Metro/Modern design language had next to no UI chrome, so many apps that didn't do their app specific design work ended up feeling very empty.

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/reitit/9nblggh093vj

Would anything approaching typical bitrates used in audio codecs imply an enormous dictionary? Also I wonder if any statement could be made about the learnability of codecs, e.g., are Fourier transforms something deep networks can arrive at?

"Safety" in a verification context generally refers to safety properties, i.e., properties that can be shown to not hold with a finite counter example (a test that hits a bug). Liveness properties in comparison are those that need an infinite counter example, i.e., a way to make the bad thing happen infinitely often.

This is placing a much higher standard on robots than humans are held to: to demonstrate that robots have to make hard decisions you presented a scenario where a human making either decision would have socially acceptable justifications available. But that just may be the key: maybe robots don't have to have superhuman decision making as long as they can produce humanly acceptable justifications for their decisions. That might still be hard, but at least you don't have to do that in a split second.

Interesting project for low cost NAS. However, why is it open to air? It seems to me that it would gather quite a bit of dust and be susceptible to damage. Is this required for fanless operation?