jgershen

Published in 2013.

It looks like it's less about "putting the fish to sleep" and more about simulating weeds with your fingers to avoid alarming the fish as you start to grab it.

http://drowningworms.com/tickle-trout/

The "beserker equilibrium" hypothesis is a fun thought experiment, but it seems unlikely to me. Robin Hanson did a particularly good job writing about this here:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/12/berserker-breakout.htm...

No.

Actually, the probability that all decks ever shuffled are unique is also very high. We can approximate the probability that any two of the n decks shuffled in human history were identical as p=1-n^2/52!

Using the same estimate as the OP for n (1.56x10^23) gives p=3.02x10^-22. Still fantastically low.

Thanks for submitting this. After seeing the article that claimed the design of the iCloud icon was brilliant because it included Fibonacci ratios, I desperately wanted to nail this article to the (other) author's monitor.

Whenever I see that kind of unjustifiable Fibonacci-worship, I get the same feeling I do when I read creation myths or just-so stories. It honestly hurt the first time I read the truth, and realized I was taught many of the outlandish claims this author points out as fact in grade school math classes.

While the resolution of the webcam is (obviously) important when discerning accuracy, I feel like you may be conflating two terms here. Specifically, going from the resolution of the webcam to an estimate of so many pixels of accuracy using basic trigonometry will necessarily depend on the method you're using to convert the webcam input into eye-tracking data.

The <70 pixel figure for GazeHawk's accuracy is based on testing against real, labeled training data. That is the distance, on the screen, by which our calculated gazepoint differs from the true location at which the user's gaze was directed. It is only loosely correlated with webcam resolution, in that a higher webcam resolution corresponds to a larger pipeline - more input pixels being dumped into the eye tracking algorithm. I could be wrong, but it sounds like you're discussing the size of the eyes in the input image.

Also, at this point a discussion of accuracy vs. precision becomes germane. The use of higher resolution video as an input can often impact one but not the other.

What calculations did you do?

As cofounder of GazeHawk, I've written on different aspects of this topic previously [1, 2]. Is that information helpful / can you elaborate on your skepticism?

[1] http://www.gazehawk.com/blog/on-accuracy/

[2] http://www.quora.com/GazeHawk/What-broad-computer-vision-tec...

Well, I wrote my thesis about cellular automata, and I promise I've considered Wolfram's set of ideas and perspectives. So while I can't prove anything about the popularity of Aaronson's review in general, your hypothesis is demonstrably false in at least n=1 instance.

That being said, I took a look at your website and GitHub (not to mention your employer, Wolfram Research) and it's obvious you know what you're talking about - I don't think you should be being downvoted as heavily in this thread as you are. Plus you made a Futurama reference, so you're obviously a cool dude.

My point is, let's all avoid implying that people who don't agree with us aren't qualified to discuss this subject. I think both of us are, and Wolfram is a pretty polarizing subject - one that all sides need to keep civil about sometimes.

I came across Scott Aaronson's review of NKS a few days ago and loved it: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206089.

I would recommend reading that to anyone who is also looking at Wolfram's work.

Could you explain in more detail how these trigger a reboot? From writing a 32-bit kernel I understand how the triple fault method is supposed to work, for example, but would love to know a little more about these methods.

Donald Trump.

I had to reread the article to confirm that that sentence is actually in there. I honestly can't believe that a program which focuses on launching successful companies prioritizes "building your actual product" below meetings and finding mentorship.

I can't remember who said it, but I read somewhere that "the goal of every startup should be to stop being a startup" (the moral was that a startup is a fledgling business, and you should be trying to mature that business rather than staying in the beginning stages forever). If you're more interested in meeting people and talking about startups than you are in actually working on your startup, something is probably wrong. Not that this is a bad thing, but you should reevaluate whether being a startup founder is right for you.

This article, like the headline, is light on facts and high on sensationalism. However, the bill (full text available at [1]) does look pretty ugly.

[1] http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BillText-PROTECTIPAct....

TL;DR - "Tu quoque."

Additionally, when I read Kara Swisher's article in AllThingsSD, the next thing I read was her own disclosure (http://allthingsd.com/about/kara-swisher/). It left me with the impression that she takes journalistic integrity very, very seriously (maybe even too seriously, honestly). Arrington's self-righteous, dismissive diatribe here leaves me with exactly the opposite impression about him.

Also, binary views will bork your terminal.

If anyone wants to work on "artificial intelligence," then, GazeHawk is hiring!

(sorry for the spammy post, but I'm really impressed by the level of computer vision experience and talent showing up in this thread, and wanted to reach out to you all. We are a startup which is also actually solving hard CV problems)

"Plus, now every entrepreneur who has a good idea will make sure they add Sequoia to their Sand Hill Road tours."

Really? How many entrepreneurs do you think there are who wanted to pitch other Sand Hill Road VC firms, but not Sequoia?

Awesome, thanks! I haven't read enough Schneier to have picked up on that (really just Secrets and Lies).

"There were two kinds of codes in cryptography, codes that stopped your little brother from reading your message and codes that stopped major governments from reading your message, and this was the first kind of code..."

(from HPMOR: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/62/Harry_Potter_and_the_...)

Sorry for being unclear. I wasn't saying he - or anyone - is perfect. What I meant by that last part was that the moral of the story, to me, seems to be summed up pretty well in the two blog posts tptacek wrote and links to at the bottom of his profile page. (And maybe also Schneier's oft-repeated comments about how a system is only as strong as its weakest link.)

Very well written article - it does a terrific job of explaining things like rainbow tables for a non-technical (or at least, technically-but-not-security-minded) audience. The only part that seems off is the theme that /all/ of the exploited vulnerabilities were necessary to render HBGary vulnerable:

"Even with the flawed usage of MD5, HBGary could have been safe..."

They homebrewed their own password system. Can someone switch on the tptacek bat-signal?

Very cool stuff. I wonder if there is any way to integrate something like KeYmeara (http://symbolaris.com/info/KeYmaera.html) for a way to prove correctness of Java systems (or components of Java systems).

Which means that onomatopoeic is a heterological adjective - an adjective which does not describe itself.

Is "heterological" a heterological adjective?

- Grelling and Nelson, 1908.

I've always liked the correspondence between idioms in natural languages and idioms in programming languages, especially as it pertains to how we think about problems.

See http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html (May 2002) for a great explanation.

Not true; it is possible to be convicted of a crime of which you are innocent.

Nice article; it reminds me of taking OS at CMU. There's something incredible about learning what happens all the way down when you call, say, printf. Suddenly the computer transforms from an incomprehensible black box into an fascinating marvel of engineering - but unlike a magician's act, the magic only gets better when you see how it works.

Or furiously scribbled, illegible notes from your advisor.

It doesn't always include the latest chapters immediately, but here you go:

http://www.mediafire.com/MethodsOfRationality

GazeHawk (YC S10) is still hiring. Send joe or brian at gazehawk.com an email!

We're based in Mountain View, but not doing remote work at this time though. Sorry.