luk32

For 200k I'd consider working even on JS and front-end xD

If someone likes more lecture style explanation I can recommend 3blue1brown's material on YouTube. He explained in a pretty good an accessible way imho.

I didn't learn artificial neural network stuff from there. I knew those concepts but I didn't know the matrix formalism applied to it. So this was really nice to understand why GPUs are good for this. Math-wise it was really nice watch.

No. It can check whether the operands will cause overflow and issue an error instead of silently giving a bogus result.

It's a performance hit though.

I don't think you'd want a banking app written with assumption that you'll never have more than MAXINT amount of dollars, and adding few more will roll you back to 0 or even put you in debt... silently... because well it works this way, and designer didint think you'll hit the limit. If it ever happened you'd like a siren to go off.

The problem is that UB is invoked on runtime for particular inputs... And it silently makes program unreasonable after this point.

That is not good. It's hard to reason about such a program, in other words can you trust results of such a program? How do you know whether your input caused Ub at some point or not?

The burden of sanitizing the input is on the user (either programmer or the data provider).

Checking this is usually a performance tradeoff, so it was decided not to be done by default.

Ummm one nitpick. This is not abuse, it's the intended use of the phrase.

Its application is to achieve your goal or enforcing your decision regardless of superior's stance.

Other wording i know is (loosely transtalted) to put somebody against a fact (as opposed to decision).

It precisely because overriding a done deed is harder that arguing against or disallowing it.

The article is tautological. It basically says that only some people get blackouts because they tolerate alcohol differently. It's like saying only some people blackout because only some drink.

I thought some people can't experience it. It seems they just didn't get drunk enough.

We got good models for pretty good chunk of phenomena of scales from subatomic to galaxy wide and beyond. Astonishing is the fact that same laws give good predictions on both ends of the scale. I think that's the reason behind the assumption we have most figured out.

But in the middle happens most what we cannot comprehend. How does a cell know when to divide. How exactly the process goes. Why do we have consciousness? Having theories capable of describing atoms and stars we can't figure out the middle, this is fascinating.

Imho the issue is the complexity of system. Stars and atoms are actually not that far apart. In the middle the amount of effects with comparable magnitude and stable states are the greatest.

That was my 1st thought... Yeah ok, so the random function is not statistically good...

How exploitable it is? What is the easiest vector of attack against the lottery?

If the poor rnd was the biggest flaw the system would probably be really good.

I don't know but peculiar choice of perspective seems baffling and undermines the credibility of source imho.

Also, the process might be random if the original input was, so the whole premise of the article might be moot. I find the style quite tabloid-like.

Well you buy the effect of discouraging the potential enemy. It's like the nukes.

You rarely buy power to really exert it, more often it's just for the possibility.

To simplify it a bit more (but not to lose correctness) it seems like this molecule is a maintenance signal, meaning the path is in use.

If it's not present the channel gets closed.

The whole purpose is to make it possible for a synapse to wither, because to reorganize something needs to be tore down.

Err at least some Battlefield games, fifa 17 and 18 use frostbite engine. I don't think one can call it custom.

Why the distaste? I treat it as a study of phenomena. It's like a social study on rather grand scale. It doesn't different species much from the crowd dynamics, useful in better design of evacuation routes.

The application is not life-saving, but the conclusions are the same. It's like dynamite and atom splitting. You can use it for the good and for the bad.

it's important to understand what's going on in these companies.

This is simple. They study people's behavior to drive it for their benefit. The basics of it should be taught in high school, so people better understand themselves.

To my knowledge they explore solution space but not through a gradient descent but by probing.

How can you perform a GD on non continuous function? Genetic algorithms and evolutionary methods can explore disjoint domains and functions hard from analytical pov.

Just because they can be used for gradient descend doesn't mean they use it.

I don't think so. I think currently dark matter is considered rather low mass density i.e. doesn't bend light too much. Black holes would.

Think that you have the mass spread out over a whole galaxy, vs just the middle.

From infinity-like large distance it's the same, from galactic it would probably make a difference.

I am also against any form of racial/gender etc. preferences positive or negative because it's inherently discriminatory.

But I also think it's a fallacy that one's professional performance is highly correlated with their acceptance scores.

If they harassed them in toilet would you install cameras there? =P

Sorry, but that's the same kind of argument for invading someone's privacy and justifying surveillance.

I doubt that anyone would agree even if you said you'll watch the videos only when necessary.

Haha. I have it opened in my browser waiting for some prolonged work interruption.

I guess I have to dedicate and report 1h for learning and self-improvment during next week.

Give it some time. Few years ago you wouldn't be able to legally google it in English

Ok imagine you are seeing a screen and from behind you is coming a photon. How do you know whether there was a double slit behind you or not for a single photon?

Those are two situations that will lead to the same outcome and you don't know which happened.

Also reverse is possible. You have the same situation evolving into two different situations with double slit and interference.

How does granular analysis differ from pcm representation, Fournier transformation and sampling? Or is it a different name for the same thing. I think it's natural to whoever worked with sound on a Pc.

It's probably debatable, but I don't agree with the statement that shortnening the "sound" changes pitch. It depends on your representation of the sound. If you represent it as a function of amplitude vs time then scaling the time axis does change pitch.

This makes a sensational tone about a fallacy. No instrument plays sound faster or slower to make it shorter or longer.... It just stops playing it or doesn't. If one thinks about the phenomenon this way, it becomes natural why you cannot compress time, to play shorter sounds.

Being fired at will is still better than being fired for a documented reason.

It boils down to risk management =P

That's what you call cultural differences. It's impercievable that another human being can think in some ways.

Though, it's a matter of upbringing, if anything it's a Muslim mind, not brain. Homo sovieticus is also a thing.

It's all my personal opinion anyways.

This is trivial. From one's frames of reference this very one is always stationary =].

What is interesting from photon's frame of reference is the image of the rest of the world.

The speed of light is, but it does not have anything to do with relativity.

Those concepts are connected by the speed of light in vacuum, yes, but there is no logical reason for that. This was an educated guess, and was confirmed by observation it's not a conclusion.

Einstein started to formulate special relativity theory starting from an assumption that a "ball of light" won't change its shape for non-inertial (no accelerarion) observers regardless of their respective speed. I.e. constant speed of light was the reason not a result of this theory.

(Duh. This got lenghty.)

So are trichromatic people colorblind to tetrachromats?

BTW. Wikipedia says that trichromatism was normal for mammals in the past, and then they lost one or two cones, which would suggest a different development path. The article does not touch on this.

Or did distinct cones were reduced, and then one of them split into two again? It's also interesting whether chemical structure of cones is similar. I guess I gotta do some research on my own.

Are you sure? I can make

(a==1 && a==1 && a==3)

Evaluate to true.

It is reasonable to assume what you say, but don't say "always", when it's not.

I'd be very careful with the claim that you are willing to put up with bugs.

Bugs in language or compiler will make the language useless for any project which is expected to work.

I'm gonna be bold any say that you nor anyone else would put up with it. There's enough bug in one's own code, there is rarely any space for unreliable infrastructure.

I think you meant antisymmetric. Orthogonal means "irrelevant to".

But it's like saying that publishing is opposite to privacy. Yeah... It is so by design and definition.

I highly doubt that cpu is the emitter. More probable is some long path on mother board, used for data communication.

AFAIK, WiFi signal does not penetrate walls it reflects of them.