> Although for a simple task like this demo, I stand by simple conventional neuroevolution as they would work best and are easy to train as the nets are quite small.
They may be easy to train but I'm not sure about 'work best'. Watching your final trained agents, I see a lot of dumb obvious mistakes where the agent runs right into a line; and I see little higher-level strategic planning like trying to maximize free space around one or run away from a incoming line.
To some extent, you probably have heard of them, under the rubric 'direct transfers' or cash payments. Direct transfers of valuable assets (cows or cash) to the very poor have done very well when evaluated in randomized experiments, and I suspect you've seen at least one article on them in the past (albeit it might have been on GiveDirectly or one of the other programs rather than BRAC itself).
Evolutionary algorithms may work ok here, but I have not seen any high-performance ML tasks done with evolutionary training of neural networks in a long time. It's all backprop and, increasingly, reinforcement learning these days.
Have you ever looked at https://github.com/karpathy/reinforcejs ? Karpathy already has demos similar to yours which you could build on. The trained agents might be better.
> Historians believe Suleiman’s heart and internal organs were buried in the tomb and his body taken back to Constantinople, as Istanbul was then known. His death at Szigetvar was kept secret for 48 days to prevent his troops from giving up the fight.
I was wondering how the tomb of the most famous sultan could have possibly gotten itself lost. The answer is it's only sort of his tomb.
That's too elaborate. They like more direct attacks. Think subpoenas exploiting the third party doctrine to the hilt, MLATs to image any server remotely suspicious outside the USA, and occasional direct hacks.
"Under the scheme, a company which turns over less than $20 million is eligible to apply for a cash rebate of 45 cents for every dollar spent on research and development activity.
According to a press release in May, 2015, DeMorgan Ltd succeeded in its application for the rebate.
That means DeMorgan were able to prove to AusIndustry that it had spent $120 million on R&D activities in the 2014/2015 financial year, all while turning over less than $20 million. A 45 cent rebate on $120 million works out to $54 million."
Yes, but presumably he can pay it out of his Bitcoin fortune. He has to deal with that at some point anyway, and by going public now, he gains additional leverage on his VAT or tax credit or whatever the ATO has decided to get him for this time.
At this point, if he is Satoshi, he would probably be better off coming out of the closet. If you read through the McGrath-Nichols documents about the Hotwire bankruptcy and how the R&D tax credits dispute killed Hotwire, it's clear the ATO has it out for Wright.
I bet that whatever this raid is about, it's about something like R&D tax credits again (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-australian-who-may-hav... says $54 million in 2015 alone!) or some sort of VAT rebate, and it may kill another of Wright's companies. There's not much you can do against the ATO if they are determined to reach an adverse decision against you... But if he's Satoshi, he can take the moral high ground and wage a media campaign to shame the ATO into dropping the case and maybe finally correctly treating Bitcoin as money.
> So let’s recap: in September 2015, Wright was annoyed that people didn’t know who the real Nakamoto was.
Is Kashmir unable to read? Wright never said that. He was clearly angry about the national stereotyping and the 'assumption' and how thinking is 'limited'. This is exactly like those cases where women authors publish books under names like 'J.K. Rowling' and readers assume they are men; of course they are going to be upset.
And Wright lives in London according to that Vegas video. Even more billionaires live there without much worries about kidnapping, and you'd think the Russians there would be a testcase.
So your point is that capitalist countries became much wealthier and they also did this much earlier than protectionist countries did, and this is somehow a bad thing about free trade?
I don't see any evidence that the cycle has gotten faster. There were plenty of mayfly wonders on YouTube years and years ago, and the Internet had its memes well before. It doesn't look much different to me over the past decade, (Have aggregators like Fark, YTMD, SomethingAwful, 4chan, really sped up? The list is so long: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_phenomena If we looked at knowyourmeme.com's lists and the Google search histories, I don't think we would see much of a speedup. Memes would still be born and die on similar timescales.)
> ...all of the countries which have done extremely well (China, Brazil) have protectionist economies while the countries that have stagnated or suffered (US, EU) have fervently implemented free trade policies....Empirically, countries that have not put all of their eggs in the proverbial free trade basket have been much more prosperous than those that have.
Are you saying that Brazil and China are wealthier than the US and EU?
I also think that this is a curious way to describe China's recent history in going from Mao to Deng...
I wondered that too but then they cover how it's been embroiled in a legal battle for 30 years now. So apparently its location more or less was discovered a long time ago, it's only now that the legal battle has ended that more detailed investigation can take place.
Is it just me, or is the "ANALGESICS AS RISK FACTORS FOR F-AD: (2) EPIDEMIOLOGY" section really uncompelling and the epidemiological evidence seems to amount to a few inconsistent cross-sectional studies with no particularly large correlations like implied, and a note that both paracetamol and Alzheimer's have increased over the past two centuries or so?
> The article is not well written, and I personally had to parse it several times to figure out what he was trying to say. I'm still not even sure if this is the correct interpretation.
I thought it was perfectly clear. He was telling a funny story about how systems and technologies evolve, giving two examples of that (latter, the watch, former, the system's airgap springing a leak), and furnishing an object lesson in the need for regular thorough audits to ensure that systems and controls thereof are still in place and still working the way that the owners think it's working.
> A facility like the one he described should have had regular security audits to verify that no hard lines were placed where they should not be.
Exactly. In fact, I believe at the time he wrote this blog post, OP was an active auditor for BDO. In some of his other posts, he analyzes observations he made while auditing a variety of companies/organizations; unsurprisingly standards across the board are very poor. He would be the first to say that this sort of thing is what an audit should prevent and why audits are needed (although I'm not sure I agree with his venom against pentesting; which I see analogous to fuzzing).
They may be easy to train but I'm not sure about 'work best'. Watching your final trained agents, I see a lot of dumb obvious mistakes where the agent runs right into a line; and I see little higher-level strategic planning like trying to maximize free space around one or run away from a incoming line.