jjh42

Elefant AI (elefant.gg) | Full stack developer / ML Research Engineer | Full-time | REMOTE

Elefant AI is build AI to understand the physical world. Our first product (which you can try today) is an AI agent that plays Minecraft with you.

We are looking for both a full-stack engineer (we use Go, Rust (https://tauri.app/), Typescript, Javascript, Bazel) and a strong AI engineer to further our research goals [two different positions].

If interested please email me (CTO) jj@elefant.gg

Truth is a defense in Australia. one thing I like about Australian law is that large companies cannot sue for defamation.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Australia

I recently learned this has a name. The Gell-Mann effect.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/08/the-murray-ge...

If you want different threads to see the same data structure then I think you would also need a mechanism to prevent multiple threads modifying the same node and clobbering each other's changes.

Fortunately, the internet is large and adds a huge number of new domains daily such that whitelisting is so disruptive to everyday browsing it's rather difficult (e.g. Amazon cloud front CDN makes new domains with one click and you couldn't block the base domain with breaking several major websites)

For insertions and lookup it is probably hard to find a situation (for large n hashes are asymptotically superior).

Trees provide some other nice properties such as maintaining an ordering (so it's fast to get the smallest argument or interate of the elements in numerical order) and always perform at the asymptotic time cost (a dynamic hash table occasionally takes O(n) when the table is resized so it might not be a good fit in a realtime situation)

Fixed. I'd like to say it was a subtle implication that it contains wisdom from the future ... but actually it was just me being boneheaded.

I only benchmarked and considered the single-threaded case. Multithreading is a whole new can of worms.

(top article author). I wasn't aware of that, it looks like they come to similar conclusions "B-trees are widely known as data structures for secondary storage, because they keep disk seeks to a minimum. For an in-memory data structure, the same property yields a performance boost by keeping cache-line misses to a minimum. C++ B-tree containers make better use of the cache by performing multiple key-comparisons per node when searching the tree. Although B-tree algorithms are more complex, compared with the Red-Black tree algorithms, the improvement in cache behavior may account for a significant speedup in accessing large containers."

Btw. Google now has a similar DNS service https://developers.google.com/cloud-dns/what-is-cloud-dns

See https://guardianproject.info/apps/orbot/ for some easy to use Tor apps for Android.

Deep learning just refers to the idea of a many layered neural network. These can be used for unsupervised (unlabeled) learning and supervised learning (labelled).

Many of the recent headline results for deep learning have been supervised such as the image net classification challenge (http://www.image-net.org/challenges/LSVRC/2013/)

I don't thin the issue is Uber recruiting drivers. The issue is DOSing their competitor to do so.

Had a similar issue with AT&T. Now I'm using prepaid straighttalk service ... Not great but no mysterious extra charges.

There is some academic interest in ability to use bitcoins scripting language to build "smart contracts."

In practice, escrow isn't necessarily needed. In a typical consumer transaction the merchant is more trustworthy than the consumer (think me ordering from amazon). Amazon could just steal my money but that'd quickly destroy their brand. OTOH amazon accounts are free and so amazon is much more worried about me defrauding them. If amazon accepted bitcoin I'd pay them without worrying about escrow.

The NSA lost all credibility for their claim not to be stealing for commercial advantage when they were caught spying on Brazil's Petrobras (government owned oil company). It is simply not credible to claim this spying was for the prevention of terrorism.

This is a real concern. I held the same view for awhile. In the end, however, I decide the small risk was outweighed by the importance of the issue.

The more people that voice their opinions, the more impossible it becomes to punish that group (i.e. safety in numbers). Join in!

Is there a way to donate bitcoin?

One difference is the degree of effort and expensive required to record mailed letters in bulk.

If I was a person of intense interest to the government I definitely would not trust the mail system. But as a nobody, I imagine its pretty unlikely anyone is looking at my mail.

With email, the resources required to record all email is comparatively trivial and this makes it much more feasible that even us nobodies are having our privacy invaded.

I find it amazing the US officials thought it a good idea to drop small (trainer) explosives on a nuclear armed USSR sub during one of the tensest standoffs of the Cold War.

Is it only in retrospect that this seems poorly thought through?

I agree that it is important to reform the system, not just scapegoating. However, I think you minimize the importance of holding individuals accountable and the effect that has on the system.

For example, suppose Clapper is imprisoned for 6 months and looses his job for contempt of congress (he is the one who falsely told congress that the NSA was not spying on millions of Americans). I imagine it will be awhile before the next NSA leader decides to tell congress a porkie. Done properly, individual accountability has a systemic effect.

I started using it after the recent prism fiasco (taught my wife how to use it).

It's ok, adds a few extra clicks to each email. The main problem is I haven't found a good solution for reading email on my iPhone.

The video includes a court room clip of a police officer stating that force was used. Mr Dotcom also laid complaints with the police that excessive and unnecessary force was used.

Is this true? genuine question - have these companies stated this or done so in the past?

It's a good start for a response, especially since it has the CEO's imprimatur on it.

However with all the shady definitions the NSA is using (e.g I can imagine some weasel claiming user data is only the content not the metadata) I would have liked an explicit example.

Something like, "For example, when one gmail user emails another gmail user the government is not, for the majority of users who are not the subject of a specific government order, made aware of this in any way including the contents of the email, metadata and even that an email was sent. Obviously, we have no control over emails, sent outside our network."

I think that depends a lot on the project. Projects that heavily use github tend to prefer a github pull request.

It makes it easy to comment on the diff and integrates with Travis CI (integration tool) and other tools.

It is easy to make multiple changes to the pull request before it is accepted so nothing about this system implies that pull request are always accepted without changes.

You seem to agree that Kierra's prosecution is grossly out-of-line but terribly worried that we might forget that she maybe, should have got a slap on the wrist.

In think its fairly understandable that if someone gets expelled and charged with felonies for a "slap-on-the-wrist" offense the response is focussed how outrageous the prosecution is, not about the details of whether she should have got a talking to or a detention.

This is great idea.

She tried a fairly-safe experiment in an out-of-way place on school grounds. She's 16 years old, so old enough that she can do an experiment like this fairly safely, out of the way makes sense. What exactly did she do wrong? Was it her presumption that the school is a place for curiosity.