Let me interject with a related issue I've seen in HN and its "Who's hiring" posts. I'm tired of having to waddle through the crypto/blockchain/web3 offers that are seemingly and permanently 6 months away from solving most of humanities issues. Most of them are grifters and they should not be rewarded with visibility in this forum.
The cross became a symbol of Christianity because Jesus was crucified, not the other way around.
Moreover, crucifixion is just a pragmatic approach to traditional public executions. Many societies have used trees and walls to hang, kill and display the executed their necks broken, beaten to death, lashed, lynched, asfixiated, left to die of thirst or exposure... the method doesn't really matter, the point is they are there for everyone to see.
> It might change parts of the world where redundancy and integrity are threats to very powerful people who want to control transactions and corresponding data.
> OR is perfect when you can describe explicitly what the decision space is and what the restrictions are.
As opposed to having to figure it out later from the outputs of a black box?
> Quality control with machine vision is a good application for ML.
I can't imagine CV could be an actual replacement for actual SPC in many industries. There's a reason we need to take samples and stress test, analyze composition, etc.
> NLP for PDF documents is a huge field for manufacturing as well.
NPL could be big everywhere... if it provides actual value, which is not a given. ML has a lot of tangential applications (you could also say, better forecasting), but how will directly improve manufacturing processes?
I apologize for being abrasive, but I'm so tired of cs people descending upon all industries, plugging shit data into pytorch and doing shitty ML like it will automatically add value. Even more so in industrial engineering, which in my experience is full of people way better at math than computer scientists and requires a deep understanding of the product and the manufacturing process.
Greg probably also knows SAS and AMPL, and has a good knowledge of ops research, which is within stone-tossing distance of whatever ML is pretending to be this week.
Well, now you're just being obtuse. Putin just got into an incredibly expensive war, and protests are marginal at best. This is achieved through repression and violence, but if you don't think that is stability, you're deluded.
The decision of those countries is perfectly legitimate (and in hindsight a very good one, seeing how Putin instrumentalizes Russian minorities).
But my point is, before the soviet collapse Russia didn't have a lot of shared borders with NATO countries. Now they do. If Ukraine, Moldova (who knows, maybe one day Belarus) end up joining NATO or the EU, this will considerably hinder their power projection capabilities. Expanding on McCain's analogy, Russia is a sketchy gas station where you can hire bruisers.
I might very well be mistaken, but this war and Russia's belligerence during the last 10 years never seemed to me a matter of ambition and territorial expansion, but rather desperation. Putin is 70, and his death will certainly plunge Russia into a period of turmoil. It doesn't matter if a successor is anointed by big P himself. The democratic opposition will see it as an opportunity for reform. The political and military elites will be fighting each other to advance their position. I'd be surprised if after Putin's death the Russian state could settle for a coherent agenda and foreign strategy within a decade.
The last time Russians found themselves in a similar position, NATO and the EU showed up at their doorstep. Baltic countries, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria... all of them joined NATO and/or EU in quick succession.
That's what I think Putin is trying to prevent. So the goal is to either have loyal buffer states (e.g. Belarus, Kazakhstan) or leave "unruly" buffer states (Georgia, Ukraine) in such state of destruction and disarray, that after Putin's death, Russia could get back on its feet before those states could focus again on entering international alliances. In other worlds, if I need 10 years to recover, I'll make sure you need 20 years, even if it adds a couple of years to my tally.
Of course this need of keeping NATO at bay exists only if the economic and political strategy of the state is to be an international gun for hire. It's a pity that the Russian elites decided to go for the easy buck with gas and military instead of developing the huge technical and artistic talent of the Russian people.
The irony is, after Iraq's invasion, NATO was incredibly unpopular in many European countries, and actions against Russia were seen as undesirable. I think fellow Europeans will agree that we saw Russia as an authoritarian state with old-fashioned values, but we were hopeful that one day we could have shared institutions and deeper political and economic cooperation. Now a lot of my fellow citizens perceive Russia as a direct enemy.
Really? The reports about the issues I intimately know are superficial and laughable. A mixture of newspaper clippings, geopolitical fanfic and macro statistics only aim to reassure the biases of the authors.
A classic of Spanish nationalism: produce laws/actions that create obstacles in the use of other languages, leading to Spanish being overwhelmingly used. Then those asymmetries in use are utilized to justify other laws that further deepen the inequality.
No, it isn't
> it blended lots of words from Iberian languages
No, it didn't