Despite improving production (more tools! more assistants!) and bonus tractors (work harder! heroic labor brigade!) it's not enough to make up for phase 2's punishing 1000 tractors in 60 days, or roughly 16 tractors a day. Even if we give ourselves a full 120 days, that's 8 tractors a day and we seemingly cannot accumulate tools and assistants early enough to do that.
In Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, Prodigy ran a message board and would have escaped liability for defamation by a third-party save one problem: they exercised editorial control by moderating content.
Hacker News faces the same risk.
Respectfully I prefer a world where Hacker News exists.
Appreciate you sharing that. Agree with the overall concern with children using tech and I'd start with banning smartphones in school classrooms. Two observations:
Why stop with image boards? After eliminating all photo uploads, awful people still produced and shared illegal content. So then we eliminated unlicensed camera use. 'Course the real problem still happened.
Hacker News is made possible by Section 230... should it not exist?
There's some logic to wanting to assign responsibility for other's actions upon those who enable it. Like you say, to incentivize intermediates to police their users and those they do business with.
But the problem with deputizing intermediates is that it's too effective. It creates incentives to over-police and we have less rights against corporate policing than we do government policing. We would not have the internet we have today without the user generated content and moderation that section 230 enabled.
The picture in the article shows what looks like keypoint matching (ie, SIFT, SURF, FAST) between the query picture and the database. This can give an exact location if a picture of the location exists in their database.
They contrasted this with their prior technique which is more of an image classifier that can identify general location from image features. This approach does not require their database to contain a picture of the exact location.
A while back I looked at matching pursuit. At first it seemed very complicated, but after staring at it a bit realized it's simple.
- Start with a list of basis functions and your signal.
- Go through the list and find the basis function that best correlates with the signal. This gives you a basis function and a coefficient.
- Subtract out the basis function (scaled by the coefficient) from your signal, and then repeat with this new residual signal.
The Fourier transform is similar using sine wave basis functions.
The key that makes this work in situations where the Nyquist theorem says we don't have a high enough sampling rate is ensuring our sampling (possibly random) is un-correlated with the basis functions and our basis functions are good approximations for the signal. That lowers the likelihood that our basis functions correlating well with our samples is by chance and raises likelihood it correlates well with the actual signal.
Often people who lose their hearing want to be able to hear in social situations such as restaurants and family gatherings. In this context, the signal and noise have similar properties and are coming from the same direction. Directionality helps but can only do so much. Noise reduction can make hearing aids more comfortable to wear but don't necessarily improve comprehension in challenging situations. Progress here is fantastic -- at the same time it helps to have realistic expectations.
Putting the mic on the person speaking sidesteps the problem -- it's like the rest of the room isn't there.
Hearing in noise is both what most people want from hearing aids and what they are least equipped to provide.
The traditional solution is an FM system where you give the person speaking a microphone linked to your hearing aids. There are dedicated ones like Phonak Roger. You could probably also use your phone as a microphone if it's bluetooth connected to your headphones or hearing aids.
Dan is a moderator on a forum and his goal is to maintain a level of civil discourse rather than an aggressive style of communication. It's a very specific definition of "violence" for a specific context and perhaps there's room for clearer terminology.
If talking about UI, the flip side is not to harm the user's data. So despite containing errors it needs to representable, even if it can't be passed further along to back-end systems.
For parsing specifically, there's literature on error recovery to try to make progress past the error.