82xx

It would be easy to write software to parse that particular phrasing of that particular relationship ("Company X in Talks to Buy Company Y"), but to catch any arbitrary relationship between two entities in a given domain? That's no longer an easy problem. Not to mention that you'll need to represent that world knowledge coherently in ontologies / knowledge bases and write complex logic around it to make the data actionable.

I very much feel this way. I also live (but did not grow up in) a country where the average yearly income is ~800$. So, I guess my neighbors shouldn't get to experience all the interesting media that I did?

Also, there are many things that I feel I have an obligation to be informed about (like junk on CNN / Fox News, or war propaganda like "Zero Dark Thirty" or "American Sniper"), but I would be ethically opposed to paying for.

The string matching is fuzzy though. It is case insensitive and it ignores at least some non-alphanumeric characters.

For example, "twenty-four" will return results about the TV show "Twenty Four" as well as results for "twenty four" and "twenty-four".

There's some other maddening exceptions for those who would prefer exact string matching, but I can't remember them all and it's changed over the years too.

What is vile about burning a flag or condoning drug abuse? What does "condoning" mean to you?

Thanks, that makes sense now and I totally agree.

Could you clarify what he means in this quote?

Between the famous "whenever I fire a linguist..." quote and the "fuck computational linguistics" meme, I would be hesitant to reveal my linguistics background in a interview.

If no one joined then the war would end much more quickly.

We currently prohibit trade, and yet there are still drug dealers...