cyorir

My guess is the parent poster means residents are leaving. I know people who live in an apartment in Manhattan. The only way they can afford it is by renting out a room through AirBnB whenever they can. However, the pandemic+recession means much less demand for AirBnBs in Manhattan. On top of it, they have less work because their industry has effectively shut down from the pandemic. The result is that they can't afford Manhattan because the landlord refused to reduce rent, so they'll be moving out.

Susie Greene: You sick fuck, Larry David! What do you think you're doing, sending invites straight to spam folders?

Any "Twitter is a _ propaganda channel" seems a bit odd when you consider that users choose who to follow, who to block, what topics to follow, what keywords to mute, whether or not to see targeted ads, etc. Twitter might be able to do a better job of tackling outright misinformation that spreads on the platform and they aren't always perfect when it comes to banning or suspending accounts (or failing to do so), but in general it's hard to say that a platform is just a propaganda channel for a specific ideology when it is inhabited by a diverse range of incompatible ideologies. Users tend to sort themselves into bubbles of like-minded accounts, but that is on users rather than Twitter.

According to the creator of PureScript:

"Solutions at the time included various attempts to compile Haskell to JavaScript while preserving its semantics (Fay, Haste, GHCJS), but I was interested to see how successful I could be by approaching the problem from the other side - attempting to keep the semantics of JavaScript, while enjoying the syntax and type system of a language like Haskell."

https://leanpub.com/purescript/read#leanpub-auto-about-the-a...

Edit: at least point out why you're downvoting me, this is a straightforward answer to the question.

which for me is a litmus test as to whether you are a "crazy leftist"

Implying that those who disagree with you are "crazy leftists" might be one reason for a downvote, for a start.

PureScript already has the Haskell -> Javascript niche covered:

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

Nothing comes to mind. Most attempts to introduce static typing into Python only do that, and not much more. Seq is an example:

https://github.com/seq-lang/seq

I think you might be interested in looking at multi-paradigm languages that use static/inferred typing and combine the functional and imperative paradigms. Some worth taking a look at might be OCaml, Nim, and F Sharp. Nim leans more towards Python, OCaml and F# lean more towards Haskell.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_(programming_language)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Sharp_(programming_language)

I don't find that surprising at all. When I looked through Upwork job postings during a period of unemployment, I saw a post from a restaurant asking for a coder. The job was to create a script to cheat in an online poll from a local magazine. The poll would be used to determine which restaurant would get an award and be highlighted by the magazine, so the restaurant had an incentive to cheat. Naturally, Upwork refused to remove the post.

That's essentially technocracy. I think some amount of technocratic decision-making is good in a government, but at the end of the day you still need that government to be informed by the needs/desires of the people (democracy, more or less). Democracy should be informed by the technocrats, not replaced by technocracy. In this case, I think voters should be listening to ecologists to understand the effects that reintroduction of wolves will have, but it's good that it's still up to the voters to decide whether to prioritize restoring the ecosystem versus making life easier for those in the agriculture industry.

Good question. I think they probably meant "publicly available," not "public domain." Maybe one could make an educated guess about which platforms they took data from, based on the sample outputs of their model? I can't tell, myself.

Samples here: https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/mast...

To my knowledge, you can't talk to it. It looks like so far they've released sample conversations with Meena[0], and not much else. They've given a rough description of the model architecture and how they trained it, but good luck trying to replicate their 2.6B parameter model unless you can afford a lot of computes.

[0] https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/mast...

How many problems do you have available?

Not so much faulty as incomplete. There is still value in a partial picture.

Note that on the extreme end of consumer GPUs, there is the 2080 Ti which comes with 11GB.

I challenge you to find a single journalist who isn't "lying by omission".

If we're issuing challenges, then I challenge you to prove that every single journalist IS lying by omission.

A lie by omission is intentionally leaving out facts to misrepresent the truth. Another way to describe it is that a lie by omission is the cherry-picking of facts.

This differs from providing a limited subset of the facts for other reasons. You may not have all the facts yourself, you may not be certain of every fact you have, you may be practically limited by the amount of information that you can convey to your audience (perhaps because the audience only wants to read a 1-page article instead of 10, or perhaps because you don't have the time to write 10 pages instead of 1). In none of these cases are you necessarily lying by omission, as long as you choose to present facts that are representative of the broader set of facts that you have instead of cherry-picking facts to match a given narrative. You may still have implicit bias; that does not mean you are lying by omission because you are not necessarily intending to be biased.

Do you believe that every single journalist is intentionally skewing the truth and cherry-picking their facts to match a hidden agenda? I don't.

And it's not the only one!

modelzoo.co is good for finding the best/most-used models but remains far from being a complete zoo and lacks a sufficient list of models for certain tasks.

For a while I liked the GAN Zoo which was specifically for GANs, but I guess there got to be too many GANs so it is no longer maintained.

https://github.com/hindupuravinash/the-gan-zoo

My guess is that eval and query have the worst performance, since they need to be interpreted first. As for the other methods, I'm not too sure how they rank. Personally, for style I agree with the first comment on the linked page, which is to split up the conditions for readability:

  f1 = (df[“col1”] == condition1)

  f2 = (df[“col2”] == condition2)

  df[f1 & f2]

Along these lines, I worked on a team project in a university course to create an automated Q&A system making use of IBM Watson. We chose to focus on a Q&A system for business regulation in the state of Illinois. However, just using existing FAQs isn't sufficient. To build a corpus, we scraped several websites belonging to the state of Illinois for any information that would be relevant to businesses operating in Illinois. Then, we created sample question-answer pairs, with answers taken directly from the corpus. Using both the provided QA pairs and the rest of the unlabeled corpus, Watson trained a model to answer questions that hadn't been trained on by providing excerpts from the corpus. By ensuring that the model was providing excerpts from the corpus, we wouldn't have to worry that we were providing (too much) incorrect information; most of the time, the answers were relevant, too. Of course, you could create a similar system without using proprietary IBM software.

Sure. But you can still be lying by omission. Does the phrase "speaking truth to power" still apply if you are also lying by omission?

Anecdotally, it seems like the Bay Area LGBT community has lower overall cohesion than the communities in other urban areas I've lived in (Denver, Chicago areas). Maybe the communities differ within the Bay Area too; it seems like there is less of an LGBT community in silicon valley than there would be in San Francisco or the East Bay.

I think the quality of your experience with dating apps for any given dating app will depend on 1) where you live (are you in an area with a high or low LGBT population density) 2) who you are looking for (very hard to find people if you are, for example, a trans or non-binary person looking for other trans or non-binary friends) and 3) how much time you invest (it can take hours just to get conversations started, and more time before you get to actually meet people). This applies whether you are looking for friends or something else.

The "if" is key. The parent post does not indicate that their voting residence is in Massachusetts - they could have maintained a voting residence in Pennsylvania instead of switching to MA.

Voting residency requirements are weird because they differ from state to state, and can be very vague when it comes to maintaining residency. As far as I can tell, Pennsylvania's 30-day residence requirement only applies when registering to vote; as long as you maintain a voting residence in Pennsylvania, you can vote in subsequent elections as you do not need to register again between elections. According to Article VII of Pennsylvania's election code (qualifications of electors), however, you lose your residence if you move to another state AND do not intend to return to Pennsylvania OR you move to another state AND intend to make it your permanent residence. So it depends on the parent poster's intentions of whether they view MA as their permanent residence or they don't plan to return to PA.

What rapid changes have we seen lately?

Well change in support/recognition of transgender issues has been very rapid over the past 5-10 years.

"More than six in ten (62%) Americans say they have become more supportive toward transgender rights compared to their views five years ago."

Source: https://www.prri.org/research/americas-growing-support-for-t...

You are probably looking for an aggregator like AllSides.com . You can get articles from "left" "center" and "right" related to a given topic, like "campaign finance." However, if you are looking for coverage of specific events, you may find that only one or two sides cover that event. Each side basically has selective attention; they will cover an event that interests their primary audience and ignore events that don't interest their audience. For example, you will find many articles on impeachment from left and center sources, but the same developments in impeachment may not even be covered by the sources on the right. That's why I find the "look at articles from all perspectives" approach to be flawed. The sides aren't directly comparable. And there's no guarantee that the two sides will be equally trustworthy or equally verifiable. Instead, I choose to go to a handful of trusted sources that don't express much obvious bias in their news articles, but might have biased opinion sections. Washington Post, AP, NYT, Reuters, WSJ, etc. may all have faults and make some mistakes, but they are more reliable and more likely to employ ethics in their journalism than biased sources further on the left or right. Just make sure whether you are reading a news article or an opinion article.

Gradient descent should have no issues with a function like exp(-x^2). Actually, softmax (softmax(x_i) = exp(x_i)/sum_j(exp(x_j))) is sometimes used as an activation function. It could make sense to modify the softmax function to use -x^2 in place of x, for some use case. However, it doesn't always make sense as a drop-in replacement for other activation functions like ReLu or Sigmoid. It really depends on your use case.

Surface area of the neuron depends on the type of neuron. It can be a very important factor in summation of inputs and propagation of potentials, along with shape, diameter, myelination, etc.

I find it just a bit funny that when I clicked on the link to an article titled, "advertising makes us unhappy," the first thing that happened is that an ad popped up to cover the whole page.

The information stored in DNA is important, but so is the state/information given by extant proteins. Reading up on epigenetics may prove interesting:

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

That's why I said, "I hope", not "I expect".

The problem Bosworth does not seem to have addressed is that the scales are currently tilted in favor of political misinformation. Facebook has chosen to not apply the same rules to politicians as it does to other users. Why doesn't Bosworth see a moral imperative to hold politicians to the same standard he holds everyone else?

"Dozens of Facebook employees pushed back on Mr. Bosworth’s conclusions, arguing in the comments section below his post that politicians should be held to the same standard as other Facebook users. They debated whether Facebook should ban or remove posts by politicians, including Mr. Trump, that included hate speech or forms of misinformation."

This is heartening, at least. I hope these employees prevail.