HN user
There are many, many more tax returns filed by people earning under 200k adjusted gross income than those earning more, I assume. So if there's a uniform chance that a return is audited, we would expect most audits to be done on returns under that threshold.
Of course, it may not make sense to select returns uniformly at random for audits...
The paper says that:
In practice, we find that four Taylor terms (P = 4) suffice for recovering conventional attention with elementwise errors of approximately the same magnitude as Float16 resolution, acceptable for many AI applications.
ie., the claim is that this method reproduces the results of conventional attention, up to float16 numerical precision.
This must be facetious? A GFCI breaker in a house's electrical panel and any breakers present in the transformer on the utility pole are protecting against _very_ different scenarios -- the breaker in the house is to stop someone from accidentally electrocuting themselves, but the breaker on the pole won't even notice an amount of current that could easily kill someone.
The problem with that is then you need a mechanism that creates non-uniformly distributed mass.
The mechanism is gravity; and we have good observational evidence that the mass distribution of the universe is not uniform, at least at the scales we can observe (we can see galaxy clusters and voids).
Sadly, this is not possible, at least AFAIK. The basic problem is that a gravitational wave won't push against you, like a water wave would; the wave will pass through you.
See https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/36113/woul... for a more detailed explanation.
Because they are researching inertial confinement fusion, not trying to build a working power plant. The efficiency of the lasers doesn't matter, since it doesn't affect their research.
You can download a version without the watermarks from arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03719.
So if HN added advertising to support the site, you would totally stop posting here, right?
This is a good observation, but gravitational lensing surveys have all but eliminated massive compact objects as a potential source of dark matter; see for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17359015.
"The period for which reasonably reliable instrumental records of near-surface temperature exist with quasi-global coverage is generally considered to begin around 1850. Earlier records exist, but with sparser coverage and less standardized instrumentation.
The temperature data for the record come from measurements from land stations and ships. On land, temperature sensors are kept in a Stevenson screen or a maximum minimum temperature system (MMTS). The sea record consists of surface ships taking sea temperature measurements from engine inlets or buckets. The land and marine records can be compared.[13] Land and sea measurement and instrument calibration is the responsibility of national meteorological services. Standardization of methods is organized through the World Meteorological Organization and its predecessor, the International Meteorological Organization.[14]"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_recor...
This article is not about FRBs:
Earlier this year, Swinburne University's Emily Petroff was the lead author of a report on the first observation of a fast radio burst (FRB) in real time. Previously, the enormously powerful but poorly understood events known as FRBs had only been detected in the records of large radio telescopes years after they happened.
However, among those records was something else, which astronomers named perytons. The first peryton detected was in 1998, although it was not recognized as such until 2011. Perytons look sufficiently like FRBs that astronomers even speculated that the first FRB, known as 010724, might actually have been a peryton.
The convenience is hard to beat. I recently switched from a drip coffee maker to a Keurig, and I love it. My wife and I don't drink much coffee and so making 12 cups is a huge waste, we end up throwing away 3/4 of the pot. I also leave for work fairly early (and I don't have a lot of time to spend making coffee in the morning) and so being able to put a pod in the Keurig and get decent coffee out of it a minute or two later is really nice.
I can't agree with their attempt to use "DRM" to prevent users from buying pods from independent vendors (and arguments that they need to "control the experience" so that users don't buy low quality pods and get poor coffee ring hollow to me) but the machine itself is great.
Fortunately, their efforts to control the k-cup market seem doomed to failure in any case.
It's a bash bug because the bug is ultimately in how bash parses environment variables. My understanding is quite limited, but IIUC, after the invalid function definition, the bash parser simply stops trying to parse the environment, and the remaining input tokens get used as arguments to the next command executed by the shell.
You can do this in Preview.app. :)
Edited to add: BTW, Shift+Cmd+4 is a super useful shortcut from taking screen grabs on the Mac.
Where the F#?k is Dexter when you need him?
Vigilantism is not the answer.
The "decoder" rat was not trained beforehand, unless I am badly misreading the article. The training process that occurred used the real-time signal from the "encoder" rat's brain. It simply took some time for the "decoder" to learn how to process the signal sent by the other rat.
According to the article, "Servicemembers from the tank brigade that found the crater have confirmed that background radiation levels at the site are normal", and "Background radiation levels in Chelyabinsk remain unchanged, the Emergency Ministry reported".
I am no physicist. But assuming that we can take these reports at face value, doesn't that rule out the possibility that the meteorite was intercepted by a nuclear device?
Ah! I did not know that. Thanks for informing me, I'm happy I got the chance to learn something new today. :)
It is very nice penmanship. Nice to see skills like this still around.
From the article:
It’s clear that it is mostly, but not completely handmade, as although the included paper is weathered all of the “handwriting” and calligraphy lacks the telltale pressure marks of actual handwriting.
So it is likely not handwritten.
How does one 'print' handwriting like this?
> I guess you'd fill the capsule with 'locally sourced' air
There is no air on the moon, so this doesn't seem likely.
I believe their argument stems not so much from the intelligence of cetaceans -- as others have pointed out, intelligence is hard to define -- but from evidence that they are self-aware, conscious beings.
Where exactly in that article does the author make any sort of argument that would support his thesis?
This is part of NASA's Planetary Protection directive [1]. Their goal is to ensure that we do not inadvertently contaminate the pristine environments that we visit with our spacecraft. If we did, we would be destroying an invaluable scientific resource!
They are also responsible for ensuring that samples returned to Earth from outer space are handled safely.
> Doesn't mars also lack a magnetic field?
For humans to settle on Mars and stay for any length of time, we will need to find a way to shield ourselves from the ionizing radiation that reaches the surface. [4] On Earth, most of this radiation is either deflected by the global magnetic field, or absorbed by the atmosphere.
[1] http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/mars_m...
[2] http://cmex.ihmc.us/data/catalog/TectonismonMars/Paleomagnet...
[3] http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/as...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars#Radiation
> the most interesting things you can see are the dust
> devils and maybe/hopefully, ice formations
This is why Gale Crater was picked as the rover's landing site; there are several nearby features, including Aeolis Mons, that will provide the rover with an opportunity to date and investigate rock layers from different eras.
> Is it silent on Mars?
> Just curious if Martian weather tends to be windy or calm
> But the atmosphere is thinner, so this makes it harder to
> hear? Or quieter?
Given that the speed of sound is roughly independent of pressure, and keeping all other variables equal, as $\rho$ decreases, $I$ also decreases. So yes, on Mars, sounds are much quieter.
Sources: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/672/what-is-the-r...
> around 50km above the surface of Venus, the temperatures
> are nice, and the pressure is 1 earth atmosphere. You just
> have to to stay up there.
> I have trouble comprehending the size of other planets
> as I understand, if you could cool it down to an
> acceptable temperature, you could walk on the surface
> with just a breathing apparatus, right?
Mars is a much better bet for human habitation in the short term. Chemically, it has all the ingredients we need to support human life. And it is much easier to build structures that can withstand the thin atmosphere (0.6 kPa) and relatively tame temperature range (-87 C to 63 C, all figures according to Wikipedia) than to build something that can survive the 9 MPa and 450 C on the surface on Venus.