Not sure if I understand, but it seems the dendrites are "grouped" in a way, and their influence on the output is a function of the group?
Is this functionally equivalent to having a two layer mini-network (that represents one brain neuron), with one neuron on top, and "child" neurons on bottom that mimic the grouping behavior? If this is true, then I would suspect our networks are already doing something like this automatically.
> Early methods conceived of vision as searching for edges, or generalized cylinders, or in terms of SIFT features. But today all this is discarded.
These aren't discarded, they are part of ML vision networks today. Edges are one of the 3x3 convolutions that a network can learn, SIFT/etc are the dense / clustering nets, I'll admit I just googled Generalized Cylinders (very interesting). There are others like SLAM as well.
I think I understand this. In "he only drinks soda", The token "only" opens the opportunity for "fcontrol" (like yield in a generator) to be resolved at a yet-to-be-determined position in the sentence. So if you "run" the function of `only { f(drink) soda }` or `only { drink f(soda) }`, `drink soda` is an independent construction by itself, but this pitch accent allows an additional information channel to be threaded through it.
I imagine generalizing this, not just "fcontrol" but other information-awaiters, it would be like functions wrapped in decorators of the various yield-channels they can emit to. Probably someone already does this.
But when you pay a dividend, you lose a small % in tax, or the delay between receiving the dividend and reinvesting it. That % loss adds over time and makes dividend structures less efficient than direct reinvestment. You are correct when the business cannot grow using the money, but BRK is an capital investment company, so I don't think that's an issue for them.
Seems like game theory? If everyone else is playing, then it's better to play than abstain.
Also I'm not sure about "higher prices", in my town there's two convenience stores across from each other, one with CC fee and one with no fee, same prices otherwise, so I just go to the no fee one. Maybe it gets worked in somewhere but it's not as fair/efficient as it could be.
We used a similar trick, not for testing, but the ability to download the prod database and debug things locally. We hit scaling issues before PII, so coworker built a system to generate real-ish DBs with only one customer's data. And then in a future version, sensitive fields were filtered or replaced with mock data. Not sure if there are better, less engineering effort ways of doing this, but it was a great tool when debugging.
It concerns me how 5G has a huge PR push behind it, while academic papers seem to be in a state of confusion and uncertainty, particularly around the 50GHz line (most 5G standards, including the current EU standard, is only up to 27GHz, but the US allows up to 86GHz)
The most reputable papers I'm aware of are
> Frequency and Irradiation Time-dependant Antiproliferative Effect of Low-power Millimeter Waves on RPMI 7932 Human Melanoma Cell Line (2005)
> Effects of Millimeter Wave Exposure on Termite Behavior (2011)
It's an interesting point seldom discussed: governments use money in boring safe ways, eccentric rich people "waste" money in unique and unpredictable ways. Both seem essential to the equation of production, just maybe not in the current proportions.
Taxing real estate at large causes a supply-side pressure, driving up market prices. If you only "tax" very specific land around a train station, you limit the effect on the greater market. In theory a government could pass such location-specific tax law, but I've only see that done via property taxes.
I know this is a battle as old as time, but the other extreme does exist: a system so complex that it directly attributes to attrition and decay, but too business-critical to get rid of. Yes, it's a "serious issue", and yes, it's common at many overgrown startups.
It exists, but I see those as edge cases. Compared to when someone is asking "am I smart enough", they are really asking if they can move from where they are now, to just a bit higher, the answer is usually "yes". At that level, innateness is irrelevant to those who succeed, and a self-fulfilling prophecy (at least in part) for those who don't.
I believe the article mentions this, but the paper only studies urban-area VKT, the paper mentions that the same effects do not apply to interstate highway system or a number of other categories.