Oh, you're talking about using the forward gradient method. This still does not make much sense because if the projection of the gradient in that direction is zero or near zero, that is a very weak step in reducing the loss.
I agree, in expectation, the orthogonal directions cancel out. But the variance does not cancel out. Are you using some sort of momentum-like optimizer?
That does not make sense, can you expand? The steepest descent direction is far more useful than a random direction in high dimensions because that random direction has a greater chance of being nearly orthogonal to the steepest descent direction.
Can a viable business be made around targets/victims sending their phishing attacks to a reverse engineering lab? The more valuable the target, the more likely an unknown and valuable exploit might be surfaced. As a consequence, this increases the expected cost of attacking these targets/victims.
Agree that the reddit is more relevant to me because it has multiple perspectives in a discussion format, but I don't see any particularly bad links with the first search. The first one just has more conventional review sites like GoodHousekeeping and Forbes.
Can someone provide some explicit search queries so we can see the bad examples? Lots of criticism is being doled out in that thread without an actual example to see for myself.
Why is there a culture of hiding cap tables in the first place? Seems like some incentive structures need to be fixed before a transparent cap table is adopted.
This is the thing I do not fully understand about crypto and more specifically Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is successful, it will inevitably create a tiny group of super-wealthy early adopters amongst everyone else and we are back to the same rigged system evangelists were arguing crypto solves. Even worse, there is no method of confiscation/redistribution/taxation to prevent monopolies.
When you make housing an investment, by definition, it has to become less affordable in the future.
Until a country decides to stop making policy to support this notion that a basic need should be an appreciating asset and not a depreciating one like food, transportation, etc, this completely unsurprising trend will continue. It is a strange world we live in where we collectively believe that a basic need should increase in price over time.
Even their own performance releases are not really favorable over nvidia's current offerings. This is definitely not enough to justify the risk of moving to a new hardware/software stack:
When you make housing an investment, by definition, it has to become less affordable in the future.
Until a country decides to stop making policy to support this notion that a basic need should be an appreciating asset and not a depreciating one like food, transportation, etc, this completely unsurprising trend will continue. It is a strange world we live in where we collectively believe that a basic need should appreciate in value over time.
Housing should have never been considered an investment. It is a basic need. If that basic need becomes an investment, it is by definition going to become less affordable to those who do not hold it in the future.
If you consider it an investment, homeowners are going to protect its value like one, and prevent supply competition via regulations, voting power, etc.
It is a strange world we live in where we collectively believe that a basic need should appreciate in value over time.