Close Encounters of the Third Kind. (E.T. communication will be weird). The Man from Earth (What it might be like to live through several ancient ages). Citizen Kane (Simple things in life matter--Rosebud). The Fountain (What it might be like to live through several ages with unrequited love). FernGully (Don't mess with nature, or small humans will mess you up).
Same here. One of the few movies that really stuck. Explores the philosophy of human vs mortality, and how time may not cure all wounds. I will now try to watch it again this weekend.
Good point. It seems that in the first case, "sitting in the kitchen" is a restrictive clause and we might want to have "John threw out the old trash that was sitting in the kitchen." to eliminate ambiguity. However, this clashes with DLM. The second case would be better as "Sitting in the kitchen, John threw out the old trash." I think they gave a bad example.
"We will try to do this for every company..." If for some reason this term is not exercised, it will now unequivocally reflect badly for the company. I don't question the good nature and authenticity of a YC "try", but the sentence does naturally express doubt.
Frederick Jelinek, a researcher in natural language processing, has a funny quote, "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up."
In general, I think a neuroscientist would be a distraction to any ML team. I don't mean to say that neuroscience is what drives ML insight, but if asked to pick which field influences the other most, my choice is clear.
The subtitle of the article is "What Machine Learning Teaches Us About Ourselves"; This is backwards. Brain sciences inform ML (In fact, ML techniques are often coined after the biological counterpart). A result or finding in ML does not necessarily, or at all, imply anything for neuroscience.
Artificial neural networks do not teach us about biological neural networks, or 'Neuronal Networks', a term reluctantly used by a close neuroscientist for contradistinction. We don't need Google's cat research, but Hubel and Wiesel's cat research.
Let's see: Cheap reference to Kant, check. Vague parallel to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, check.
The 'intriguing' mapping that involves 3 ML terms is desperate.
This article appearing on the front page of HN shows how delusional some of today's ML lovers are with respect to neuroscience, the discipline that actually studies human brains.
Jameco is very much alive! However, My bank recently called to verify some purchases with them. They claimed that my regular transactions with such a company were flagged as suspicious. I suppose the everyday household is not impulse buying this stuff as I do.
Raw password storage is more common than we like to believe. A simple way for webapps to communicate that raw passwords are not being stored would be convenient. A small 'NORAWPW' image in the footer perhaps. it would ease my worries, especially with cryptocurrency related webapps.
Raw password storage is more common than we like to believe. A simple way for webapps to communicate that raw passwords are not being stored would be convenient. A small 'NORAWPW' image in the footer perhaps. it would ease my worries, especially with cryptocurrency related webapps.
As correctly pointed out, the initial hypothesis fails a quick reality check. This hypothesis can be tossed into the play box of countless others that do not actually explain wealth (e.g. Hypothesis of Cultural Superiority, or the Hypothesis that distance from the equator is correlative). A better explanation comes from a nation's legal system (Common law vs Civil law), contract laws, and property rights. Again, the initial hypothesis offers a poor explaintion of which countries adopted which systems.
Another issue that stuck me odd: Does anyone actually believe companies such as Apple would create a country that encourages competition and entrepreneurship in leu of say - a country that protects the interests of the company itself. Arguably, Apple has not been the most reliable in this category (Take the recent issue with Bitcoin Apps).
A new country probably should not be purchased by an existing force if individual rights are of a concern. Also, I question whether this article actually provided a reason for this need. There are a few implicit statements about tech and excessive bureaucracy, but is this honestly a bases for unification of a people? Seems to be a poorly defined cause appealing to the emotions of the eager technocrat.
I share concern with an earlier commenter as to how this landed on the front page of Hacker News.