I recently changed my mind on this: being able to use phone numbers as identifiers also has some benefits: Last time I was on vacation, it was easy to get in touch with service providers (e.g. surf school, massage place) via WhatsApp, simply because I had their number, and everyone used WhatsApp anyways. If Signal would be more popular, I could instead contact them directly via Signal, since I only need their phone number. It allows for a more seamless transition.
Matrix OTOH would have a harder time getting adopted: businesses would need to update their websites, facebook pages and flyers to add the matrix contact info. Which they wouldn't do until Matrix is more popular. Which is a chicken and egg problem.
> > The first part is true of all statistical models: To improve performance by a factor of k, at least k^2 more data points must be used to train the model. The second part of the computational cost comes explicitly from overparameterization. Once accounted for, this yields a total computational cost for improvement of at least k4.
Those claims are entirely new to me, and I've been a researcher in the field for almost 10 years. Where do they come from/what theorems are they based on? It's unfortunate this article doesn't have any citations.
Those are exciting news. Both for Rust and for the project -- I think that's a really cool direction. The web becomes more and more a commodity to execute code remotely, and I think this step will help leverage Website-as-Interface as the default GUI for our programs, and empower us to commoditize it even more. And the Linux Foundation is a very lovely home -- they're dedicated to open standards and great stewards. However, complete lack of talk about funding and "every bit helps" makes it sound like this is actually the death of commercial support for this project. And I think it's super sad that Mozilla can't fund it anymore and would've hoped someone else would have picked up the banner monetarily. Does anyone know if the project has a good chance of survival (Rust is a great dev community, but might alienate broader adoption) -- can this survive purely within the open source community?
I thought that's exactly the point of Scientific Reports: to publish "reports" (i.e., not proper "papers") without caring about their impact or importance, as long as the science (however little of it there is) is done properly. i.e., you literally send them stuff that isn't good enough to be published in a proper journal. It's meant to be a dreg journal with low reputation; it's a feature, not a bug. The idea is to allow people to publish their work (e.g. to finish their PhD), but everyone knows that further investigation is needed before stuff should be called a proper finding. I think of it as the "workshop" version of a journal.
No, it definitely isn't. Why is audio quality so much worse when I connect my headphones as headset instead of as audio-sink (even when I'm not speaking). Why is it so hard to connect two audio sinks to one source? Why is the experience of using the same sink on multiple devices still not smooth?
So that's an order of magnitude more than what OP suggested and one less than what I suggested. But I still think that 100 is a more realistic estimate to get stellar results.
Matrix OTOH would have a harder time getting adopted: businesses would need to update their websites, facebook pages and flyers to add the matrix contact info. Which they wouldn't do until Matrix is more popular. Which is a chicken and egg problem.