HN user
I imagine the next logical step would be for Netflix to start having their own (inclusive) movie competitions, and in the process more than likely become far more relevant than the exclusive competitions.
I was just thinking. What is a good way to phrase the problem in order to understand whether there are more pros / cons to having the client vs server decide which algorithms to use in a transaction.
I haven't thought this through fully, but as far as I can tell ecosystems on the web evolve. And so I think it's probably a good idea that we architect things for the web in such a way that we don't inhibit that evolution. When you put a decision like encryption algorithm in the client's hands does it feel to anyone else that the security will evolve more rapidly, and thus remain more robust? When the client is deciding, there's a larger pool of people "voting" for what is an acceptable level of security. Even though a lot of those "votes" will be based on the default settings of a library, that library will over time become less popular as more and more people consider it unsafe.
By the same token, if a particular service (server-side) does not keep up with that evolution, fewer and fewer people will use it as other (safer) services pop up.
If the specification requires the server to decide which algorithm to use a naive client, who doesn't know which algorithms are safe or not, is just as dangerous.
As far as I know there are no algorithms that exist today that we can guarantee will never be broken in the future. So algorithm choice inherently must be decoupled from the specification.
EDIT: Or a naive server implementation for that matter...
I used to get annoyed by all the negativity Soylent received from people. Now I just get amused by it. Soylent has been nothing but a positive addition to my life.
Do you think it's more difficult for a person to comprehend that the "workshops" are just as much an opinion as the "hate speech" they're trying to target?
Although that point of view appears to miss the point. It appears the inability to pay for food with the health budget would hide / obfuscate the data that might have otherwise shown a direct correlation between malnutrition and poor health.
Sure you could read a study to get the same information, but unless your own data screams to you what the problem is it's not always easy to convince folks you should be doing anything about it.
Granted, I don't yet know the scope of the project precisely (ie. how detailed and how much information was collected), but if it's as big as I think it is, Steve Ballmer has instantly become one of my favorite people currently inhabiting this planet.
My experience with FedEx's technology stack is minimal, but I can tell you that all publicly exposed FedEx technology (ie. apis, etc) confirm without a shadow of a doubt that FedEx is not a technology company and they should leave the evolution of the web to others.
I think an important thing for a product like this to take off will be integrating a good / open api.
I think hindsight will reveal that the things that make a "distributed company" successful are really the same things that make a "localized company" successful. I think it's just that having all employees on-site probably makes it easier for companies to "fake it" and stumble into success through sheer grit and determination. Probably a lot of times even when they have less-than-adequate (but highly motivated) human resources.
I think simulations will be used to help people live more productive / happy lives in the future. Imagine having many "lives" worth of experience, perhaps from many different periods throughout history, and you're still only 16 years old.
Not just the "matrix" flavor where the goal is to learn specific skills. I'm talking about being born, growing old, and dying in a simulation many times in a matter of hours? / days? / weeks? and being able to recall those experiences / decisions and their rewards and/or consequences once you're back to living your "real" life.
I think the "trick" (not really a trick) is to learn to "see things for what they are". As simple as that sounds, I'm always surprised at how difficult it seems to be for some people. And how I can easily get caught in that trap if I am not being disciplined enough with my own thoughts / learning.
Especially obvious when that lack of discipline helps shape the foundation of one's thoughts on a topic.
Noticed they added Facebook to the LICENSE. Facebook was notorious at one point for some unpopular language in their open source licenses. Does their inclusion in the LICENSE file mean a developer needs to be aware of how Facebook is currently (or in future) licensing React, as well as how Rax is licensed?
WebSockets are just too slow
Not sure status of this standard, or plans for adoption. As long as proper steps are taken to allow for secure implementations I'm all for it.
In theory I imagine the metrics a company defines and attempts to achieve are the ones they want to optimize for. So in essence I can think of only 2 primary reasons it will end badly.
1) They're measuring incorrectly
2) Their "world view" is incorrect
In either case as long as they continually re-assess the above 2, their metrics will change and (ideally) optimize toward a more accurate reflection of reality.
I'd rather have evidence that my world view is incorrect, and learn this as quickly as possible so I can adapt to what the data is telling me.
It's certainly not easy to do this right (and may be impossible to perfect), but I think it's an objectively better option than, say, "going with your gut".
I apologize for not being more clear. I was thinking about the flexbox more than the IE9 deprecation. The jQuery story was only to reinforce the idea that open source projects are "at the negotiating table".
http://caniuse.com/#feat=flexbox
There is a footnote on that page for IE11 (I believe still supported by Microsoft) that says:
"Partial support is due to large amount of bugs present (see known issues)".
I find it extremely powerful that major open source projects are calling the shots instead of the major browser vendors.
For some who may not recall, I think the most famous / historic move was when jQuery decided version 2 would deprecate support for IE 6/7/8.
Originally jQuery project would go out of their way to make sure all browsers were covered. Needless to say these days Microsoft is far more receptive to the needs of the open source community.
IMO humans are just bad at communicating in a precise / efficient way. Most people I meet / work with who are not in a technical field are usually very bad at explaining their business needs in face-to-face let alone by email or over the phone, etc... And ironically isn't it usually the case that these are the people who are (a) the stakeholders, or (b) the ones writing the paychecks.
Until technical folks start taking over the world (maybe we're in the infancy stages of that?) I think most people who want to work remotely will need to expect to be in the office regularly if not every work day.
It's beyond belief that people spend money to gamble at casinos. It's one thing to know with 100% certainty that the house has the odds in their favor. But an entirely different beast to know that AND know that if you do find ways to win the casinos will still do everything in their power to prevent you from taking home the winnings.
First, in the US I think we need to convince a substantial chunk of the population that it's not religion that will solve our problems, but better education.
I think now is a perfect opportunity for the startup community to work toward changing this. In other words, I think dependence on VCs (or loans in general) for success builds an ecosystem filled with unicorns and everyone else. I think that's incredibly unsustainable and surprised not more people are trying to fix this.
What I think the ecosystem of startups in general (not just tech startups) needs is a continuum where it's more or less obvious how to "plug into" an ecosystem and succeed. And as long as your company is producing a satisfactory product / service (to the customer) you're more than likely going to succeed.
Will this transition happen within our lifetimes? Perhaps not, but I think it's an important thing that needs to be fixed for the future of civilization. Do I even know exactly what this other world will look like? Probably not, but I do believe it assumes there will be far fewer ultra wealthy and ultra poor, and a whole lot of middle class.
Even from a purely philosophical perspective I have a great appreciation for material design. Even if it's not their intent, they're normalizing and standardizing art / design for non-artists and non-designers. Sounds like a pretty ambitious thing to me. I hope they succeed with it.
My guess is existing auto (and other) manufacturers have all but locked up world's supply chain of raw materials necessary to make it feasible to manufacture automobiles at large enough scale.
If I were Google (if they seriously want to consider getting into manufacturing their own products) I would look into starting a chain of junk yards and refineries.
As far as my experience tells me, it is hard to become truly successful in life. Where the history books will take note of what you became and what you accomplished. It boggles my mind that even with such great odds there are so many who actively work to prevent it, or work to cripple the ecosystems that are supposed to exist to enable people to become what they want to become and accomplish what they want to accomplish.
Would it be feasible to replace the "common" component of a recurrent neural network with a convolutional neural network?
My lay person's impression is that at its most basic level a recurrent neural network is simply a "conveyor belt" of neural nets which are affected by external weights as well as by the weights from within the network. More precisely the "internal" weights coming from the layer of perceptrons operating at 1 level shallower than itself. So we're dealing in essence with 2 dimensions (shallower to deeper, and older to newer) instead of just one (shallower to deeper).
This looks really cool. Can't wait to try it.
I'm confused.
About 10 years ago I was told that Detroit MI has/had a similar "tradition" around Halloween.
It appears, from the article, that they're working on a shoestring budget. My initial impression was that adding at least one full-time specialist, maybe more, simply to dot the i's, cross the t's for NHTSA, plus purchasing (or renting) infrastructure to do all the required tests could probably easily bankrupt the project in its current state.
My guess is sometimes it's probably ok to decide a project is not yet in a position (financially or structurally) to take on the additional responsibility of dealing with an enormous bureaucracy such as the US govt. And if that means you have to give your product away in order to do so, that's a calculated risk you might feel you have to take.
I seriously doubt that when NHTSA contacted them they were like, "just invite us into your building and show us around", like a health code inspector might.
It's probably an apples to oranges comparison, but the image of America's electric grid looks like the prototypical "disaster" scenario when you're a new hire and walk into a train wreck of a server room that's been ignored or half-heartedly managed for years :)