chimi

One of the columns of sanding parameters is the sound of the sander.

I agree and rather than post a sibling response, I'll add that I think it's necessary today, simply because we don't have AGI, yet. And also point out that we are talking about determining if AI is snake oil or not. There may be some scenarios where we can teach a computer to do something we can't teach a human to do, I can't think of any off the top of my head, but if we can't, then I'm going to be super doubtful that an AI software can do it better than a human, if at all.

AGI, in the singularity sense, will be solving problems before we even identify them as problems. Experts in a field can do this for the layman already and I think it's possible. Some don't. I do.

It'll be super interesting when it flips! When the student becomes the master and we, as a species, start learning from the computer. You can kind of get a sense of this from the Deep Mind founder's presentation on their AI learning how to play the old Atari game Breakout. He says when their engineers watched the computer play the game, it had developed techniques the engineers who wrote the program hadn't even thought of.

Even still, the engineers could teach another human how to play Breakout, so yes, I do believe they did in fact create a software to play Breakout better than they could.

You're touching on the "difficulty" in verbalizing it. I see what you mean, because you did learn that the heuristic was changing with just a yes or no. I said you can't teach that way, but you clearly learned that way, so I wasn't exactly correct, but I'm not practically wrong either still I don't think.

I wonder, how would an AI perform on the same test.

What is the mathematical minimum number of questions on such a test, subsequent to the heuristic change, that could guarantee that new heuristic has been learned?

I'm curious about the test. Did it have a name? What were they testing you for?

Supervised learning in machine learning is nothing remotely like a human teaching anyone anything.

I disagree, I think it's exactly the same. As an example, a human teaching a human how to use an orbital sander to smooth out the rough grain of a piece of wood.

The teacher sees the student bearing down really hard with the sander and hears the RPM's of the sander declining as measured by the frequency of the sound.

The teacher would help the student improve by saying, "Decrease pressure such that you maximize the RPM's of the sander. Let the velocity of the sander do the work, not the pressure from your hand."

That's a good application of supervised learning. Hiring the right candidate for your company is not.

nah, it's on line 33 of player.js

   if(this.isShooting){
     this.bullet.y -= 0.1 * dt;

In this case, a new bullet is created when the .y value gets to zero, so there isn't an easy way to increase the firing rate except to increase the speed of the bullet.

By "easy" I mean, can be done in under 5 keystrokes to the code and without introducing potential bugs. Adding an array of bullets moving at the same rate, but able to be fired with less time delay between each bullet, would require at least an order of magnitude or two more than that amount of effort and also a not insignificant amount of testing.

It suggests that's possible, but we know that's possible already.

The hard part of plastics recycling which is already being done at various scales is isolating the plastic. How do you get foodstuffs out of plastic containers? How do you separate the components of waste, basically?

It's like cleaning metal by burning off everything that burns until all you have is metal. You're just moving the waste from one place to another.

In this case, the gasses are getting into the atmosphere just like they would at a traditional incinerating waste facility and there are lots of those already. They are not a good solution for the long term.

When people are being "coy" about something as the article indicates, there's usually a reason. In this case, I think it's because the solution solves the problem, but not better than existing technology and they don't want that to be revealed to the open market that would tear it apart.

Please don't troll. I'm happy to engage, but not with trolling.

It's hard to verbalize this, most of it is "intuition" but I think it boils down to "supervised learning is BS."

Humans are smarter than computers. How can a human teach a computer how to do something when the human itself can't teach another human that something?

We haven't solved that problem. The snake is eating its tail.

You can't teach a human how to do something when the methodology to do that is the student trying something and the teacher saying "Yes" or "No".

Well.... why? Why is it yes or why is it no? What is the difference between what the human or the computer, or in general, the student, did and what is good or correct? And then you still have to define "good" and many times that means waiting, in the case of the PDF linked to above, perhaps many years to determine if the employee the AI picked, turned out to be a good employee or not.

And how do you determine that? How do you know if an employee is good or not? We haven't even figured that out yet.

How can we create an AI to pick good employees if human beings don't know how to do that?

Supervised learning isn't going to solve any problem, if that problem isn't solved or perhaps even solvable at all.

In other words, over the years, my heuristic has turned into, "Has a human being solved this problem?" If not, then AI software that claims to is BS.

Please don't troll.

This is one of those situations where I have to hold two conflicting ideas in my head at the same time and am reminded of the difficulty of doing that.

You both make good points. China is doing a lot of bad stuff here, but it is their land and their right to exert their power over it how they see fit.

If China tried to tell another sovereign nation how to handle their internal disputes, they'd be just as wrong as the west is in this.

This is really something China needs to handle. It's not the west's place to butt in.

At the risk of whatabouting it, most of all the tactics you're saying China is using in Hong Kong have been used by western governments as well. It's not right.

You know, China gave away Hong Kong to stop the bombing from the west and now China is trying to wrestle back control of it... kind of still, in a way, from the west.

It was the west that caused this problem in Hong Kong. It's time the west stopped meddling in it and I think that'd be best.

I did edit to elaborate where I thought there was ambiguity.

Yes, I agree, if ASCAP, ICE_CS laid claim to the GP's work, then that needs to be fixed. I would suggest any money paid to ASCAP, ICE_CS for that video be returned to the GP, with interest paid by ASCAP, ICE_CS and perhaps some punitive damages so they don't make the same "mistake" again.

To be fair, or give the benefit of the doubt, this could be a Hanlon's Razor scenario where ASCAP, ICE_CS just doesn't understand how to do it right. Or they could be too heavy handed in which case the punitive damages should soften their hand.

That's not what I understood when I read it the GP saying:

And yet, they have claimed copyright on my music and monitized it.

By "they," I think he meant: ASCAP, ICE_CS, not YouTube. The problem is that ASCAP, ICE_CS has claimed copyright to something, which they are right to do and that is their performance of the public domain work. Since it sounds like the same work that the GP uploaded, the GP's music was locked.

I am no fan of YouTube's profiting off copyrighted material, I think it's unethical, and in this instance I do not believe that is what they are doing. I believe they have written algorithms to prevent copyright infringement and it is over-fitting on the GP's works.

The GP said they are "claiming copyright on my music" but I don't see any evidence for that. I do see evidence that ASCAP, ICE_CS claim copyright on their performance of the same music as the GP.

Yes, the solution is to have a person in there to be smarter than the AI, but YouTube has said it's not worth it to them to do that and so I believe that is their right.

In this case, the GP's claim is that ASCAP, ICE_CS is doing something wrong, but I don't think that is the case. I think everyone here is doing something right and a bad thing has come from that.

Theft is wrong. There is no wrongdoing here.

You and the GP should have both stopped before saying "It's theft." It's not theft, not even close.

You gave them the video and they said they do not want the video -- for whatever reason. You don't have a right to upload content to YouTube. You do have a right to your property, your video and music you've created. They didn't take it from you. They aren't making money on it and not paying you. You don't have a right to force YouTube to display and distribute that content on their website.

Imagine if Columbia records was forced to distribute any and all music sent to it on a demo tape. Columbia saying, "No, we won't distribute this" is not theft.

Columbia would be within their rights to say, "Your music sounds too much like Taylor Swift to us. Sorry. It's too big of a risk for us to distribute it."

That's exactly what YouTube is doing. They are saying, your music is too much of a risk for us to distribute based on our algorithms.

You can still go to Vimeo or soundcloud or build your own website to distribute your music, just like the aforementioned artist that sounds too much like Taylor Swift could go to Arista or upload it to youtube or or soundcloud.

I came here to say the same thing as the GP. I don't understand why some words are red or green.

For example, you can type in non-brand words as well. I typed in "houses" and the word "homeless" came up in green!

With a brand, facebook, I got this word "amiriteguyze" in red and clicking on it

Negative 11/19/2019, 12:13:31 PM

facebook is bad amiriteguyze?!?!?!?

Why is that even a word that would show up in the word cloud? I can't imagine it was entered a bunch of times. I can't intuit any correlation between the colors, sizes, or words themselves that show up in the clouds.

What’s the “magic” behind this? Executives are coy, but biotechnology expert Oded Shoseyov, a Hebrew University professor who has consulted for UBQ, says melting plastics and waste creates a homogeneous substance strengthened by fibers in the organic ingredients.

The article then goes on to describe a typical waste recycling facility plus:

a multi-chamber reactor that sits behind a closed sliding door to block prying eyes. Temperatures up to 400 degrees break down the organic matter into its core elements, and then it and the plastics are re-engineered into a matrix through chemical and physical reactions that UBQ keeps secret.

I fear there is really no story here. There is a lot of energy being put into this system. Something comes out, yes, but is it worth it? How is it better than a garbage incinerating facility?

There is no evidence presented that the material output is as good as the material input. Or that the energy required is less than traditional recycling methods.

This is way too early and way too long of an article to spend a lot of time on at this point.

To add: The music needs to be loud enough to drown out every other aural stimulus. You want to hear the music and only the music, not everyone's side conversations, not your clothes rustling around while you're dancing, not the sound of people's hard healed shoes on the dance floor.

Just. Music.

HN is a marketing channel for startups who might want to pitch ycombinator, then market the startups they pick, then find employees for those startups, then repeat.

The value isn't in selling ads.

I see this whole line of reasoning that thousands of people isn't enough to be newsworthy a symptom of valleythink where all that is valued is growth.

There are other factors that indicate success and the community for the most part has lost sight of those for the tunnel vision of "must get funding!"

Once you start distributing your HTML5 game on PC distribution platforms like Steam or GOG, you need an actual executable that people can download to play the game offline as well.

Can someone elaborate on this? Why is this needed? Is it a market penetration decision? Does steam not allow HTML5 games?

Due to virus issues, etc, I would prefer playing an HTML5 game in the browser. I don't want to install something that could contain viruses or be a vector or increase my attack surface.

I'm missing something, but not sure what it is. I don't use Steam or install games on my computers, but I do play HTML5 games.

I always wonder about claims like this where one nation says a ship was within their borders and the other nation says it was in international waters. This USS Pueblo is one incident. Israel attacked a Turkish ship in international waters. Iran attacked oil tankers in international waters.

All these incidents ... I can't help but think we never grow up as human beings all the way until becoming international super powers.

It's like a geopolitical "I'm not touching you." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgXDYiHhp5Y

It's bullying behavior. It's an aggressive provocation.

Will we ever grow up?

If any browser can be a camera, why do you require me to register to try it out? I'm not ready to give you my personal details. You say below privacy is your primary concern, but you require us to give up our privacy just to try it out.

The site is not credible. This is not news, it's propaganda. The article doesn't belong here. It's just provocation designed to make amazon affiliate money.

For example, the article says:

For those of you who don’t know – anything that touches the soil eventually gets taken up by the plant. It becomes apart of the plants tissues and DNA. It is unavoidable.

The point of hydroponic farming is the plants don't touch the soil. They don't take anything out of the soil at all. Glyphosate does not become part of a plant's DNA.

Edit: Down votes why?

It's an anti-vax website for crying out loud:

https://livelovefruit.com/still-vaccinating-25-questions-for...

The "free market" is a myth. Do you have a mortgage? Do you drive a car? Do you use the internet? Do you eat food? Do you spend money? Go to national parks? Drink water?

You are the recipient of govt subsidies. We are a society and as such, some things are more valuable than people are willing to pay for them, but yet still essential to keeping society functioning.

This is negligent homicide. Same as would be charged to a person who kills someone while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In this case, Uber is under the influence of greed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide

They should at minimum lose their license to drive as would a human being who committed the same crime. They should also be "imprisoned" by way of losing their right to exist in society for a period of 3-15 years like a human being.

This is what happens when we let criminally minded sociopathic corporations flaunt the law. They flaunt more and more laws until someone dies.

It's wrong and I am not shocked in the least that Uber would let something like this happen.

This should be an existential crime. How many laws must they break until we stop them?

Just such a thing is done in Season 4 of HBO's The Wire. It profiles just such a class where the disruptive students are pulled out. Yes, it's fiction but you can see how it'd work and it's pretty interesting to see the changes in attitudes among the "gen pop" class and the special class.

I had a single mom with a government job. Being discovered as gifted saved my life. I am still bullied to this very day. Most recently I was fired by bullies for refusing to write illegal software and now the company could be in serious legal trouble.

Gifted people don't escape bullying by growing up and it has immeasurably costly ramifications for society at large.

In toxic environments, the individual is forced to choose to be a target or be a bully. You chose to be a bully to survive. That is expected. If you'd chosen to be a target, you might be dead.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to unlearn those bully behaviors that enabled you to survive. Had you instead been able to focus your attention on developing your gifts and confidence, you would be much better off right now and society too, I imagine.

The gifted kids are bullied by their very nature, because they are different. They have abilities that create envy in others. That envy prompts bullying to neutralize their abundance.

Someone with abundance in a community of scarcity is a target for bullying. That bullying robs the individual and society of those gifts.

So, yes, we protect the gifted, precisely so their gifts survive to benefit all of society, including the bullies. That's the irony. The gifted want by their nature to share their gifts and do so -- even with the bullies and at their own expense.

The average individual is much less likely to be bullied and thus need less protection.

You got it already! Imagine if most of that first payment went to the buyer's equity instead of interest.

I've been doubting a mortgage is worthwhile debt for society for a while now. For the individual, it's not worthwhile, it's just pretty much the only way you can get a house anymore -- unless you are very adventurous. Even the amortization schedule is weighted to benefit the banks.

The reality is if you get a typical 30-year mortgage, your house costs you 3x the list price you thought you were buying it for.

In 1940, the median home value in the U.S. was just $2,938. In 1980, it was $47,200, and by 2000, it had risen to $119,600. Even adjusted for inflation, the median home price in 1940 would only have been $30,600 in 2000 dollars, according to data from the U.S. Census.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/how-much-housing-prices-have...

Why 1940? Because Fannie Mae was created in 1938 after a housing crisis in the 1930's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

The majority of a person's labor throughout their life is now given to banks. It doesn't take 30% of your productivity for 30 years to build a house. It doesn't take 10 years for a person to build a house. You can build a 1,000 sqft house in a year with $50,000 worth of materials (even less) and a piece of land.

Where has the rest of the typical $200/sqft home cost gone? To the banks! That's $150,000 cash, and $450,000 total outlay of capital, if you buy that cash with a mortgage.

I propose, the loans themselves are the reason we now dedicate a decade of our life to our shelter. I do not believe this is a good thing. I do not believe this is worthwhile.

You will save money and have a better, more free life -- debt free life, if you save up enough money to buy land, plus $50,000 of materials and build your house yourself.

Loans enable every single level of the housing industry vertical to extract more money from you. Architects costs more. Utility services cost more. Building codes get more onerous. Builders charge more. Insurance companies charge more (since the houses cost more). Taxable values go up, costing you more. All of these increased costs are enabled and exacerbated by mortgage "innovation."

Everyone wants this except the first time buyer, but the first time buyer takes all the risk with a new purchase.

It is completely unbalanced. The younger generation is suffering the most and I think it's unfair and detrimental to the future of society.

This doesn't mesh with my perspective of education. Universities are non-profits for a reason. yes, there are profit minded University of Phoenix's but that is not the historical norm and they are the worst offenders.

Not everyone should go to college. We shouldn't enable everyone to go to college. If you shouldn't go to college, going to college won't change that. You'll struggle and fail out or get a worthless degree because it's the only one you can pass enough classes to get.

We have trade schools. We have apprenticeships and on the job training. Lots of folks for home those paths are better, are turned off to them by social pressure, not logic. I've taken welding classes and vehicle maintenance classes and they have shown themselves to be valuable assets to me. I can connect steel at the atomic level. I can keep my vehicles safe for me and my family and friends.

There's no one-size-fits all approach to human evolution and we need all of us. Maybe I'm idealistic.

We need to stop doing stuff that only makes sense to the banks. They are entirely self-interested and provide negative value back to society. We are squandering our futures to the fat cats.