LionessLover
edX course page: https://www.edx.org/course/embedded-systems-shape-world-utau...
More information: http://edx-org-utaustinx.s3.amazonaws.com/UT601x/index.html
The excellent quality of the above course - which includes programming actual hardware (you have to invest about $50 for components) - raises the expectations for that upcoming course.
.
EDIT
The page is already up for the new course "Real-Time Bluetooth Networks - Shape the World":
https://www.edx.org/course/real-time-bluetooth-networks-shap...
> In this lab-based computer science course, explore the complexities of embedded systems and learn how to develop your own real-time operating system (RTOS) by building a personal fitness device with Bluetooth connectivity (BLE).
- Enhance your embedded system skills
- Write your own real-time operating system
- Design, develop and debug C code
- Implement a personal fitness device
- Communicate using Bluetooth
More info: http://edx-org-utaustinx.s3.amazonaws.com/UT601x/RTOS.html
http://science.sciencemag.org.sci-hub.cc/content/351/6280/aa...
About Sci-Hub: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub
Whenever someone doesn't have an argument they resort to such empty phrases, merely repeating over and over "I am right!". Maybe you should have studied some neuroscience LIKE I DID, than you would not be left without arguments in discussions about neuroscience.
> plus the actions of muscles all take time!
And yet there is no "prediction". As has been pointed out to you by a lot of people including myself repeatedly. Cognitive dissonance is strong in "jamesrcole".
> This is an evolving publication, and I shall be extending it over the coming days and weeks to cover more topics on serverless architecture including some things commonly confused with serverless, and the benefits and drawbacks of this approach.
You can send a tweet to the author: https://twitter.com/mikebroberts
What does ownership have to do with it, you fucking moron?
That does not make him more right than any other human being. Ownership means one can impose ones will, it does not mean you are omniscient.
What does ownership have to do with it?
That does not make him more right than any other human being.
Ownership means one can impose ones will, it does not mean you are omniscient.
When a moving object leads to input from different retinal ganglion cells - always in the form of action potential frequencies (so, an analog signal despite an action potential being all-or-nothing, just an aside) through temporal summation timing differences - which can be a function of the speed the object is moving in the real world - can lead to different subsequent processing neurons being activated, eventually leading to different motor neurons being activated or the same ones firing at different rates. So the computation takes place with the signal flowing as a "wave" across brain regions, but it all takes place at once. There is no "let's calculate where this is going to be in a second". This is implicit by connecting input directly to output through paths that change in subtle ways depending on said input. Yes, the end result (system outcome) is a "prediction", but not in the same way as a computer would do it.
It just "happens", there is no actual effort to predict anything. There also is no representation of such a "prediction" anywhere else: It flows right into your movement, but as somebody else has already pointed out just because you manage to catch the ball doesn't mean you are any good at consciously being able to make actual predictions.
By the way, the processing already starts in the retina, which consists of several layers of cells, and the ganglion cells that communicate with the visual cortex at the very back of the head (after being relayed through the geniculate nucleus of the thalamus in the middle of the head). They don't provide a signal like a camera CPU gets from an RGB chip which simply 1:1 sends pixel values. You have cells signaling movement from left to right, others from right to left, etc., coming from the retina.
I think the main point is that the entire process in a neural network is completely different from how a computer operates. When we name outcomes we may be tricked into thinking it's similar, but when we look at how the output is generated it is a completely different world. That does matter, it has implications for how we think about the whole thing, what we think we can achieve, and how.
If you did this in a computer, imagine not using any storage - not even CPU cache. All data must be processed at once, there are no buffers, not even on an "input pin". You have a stream of data and all you can do is decide where to move it next. It's a horrible analogy but the best I can do right now. Oh, and you don't have a system clock signal, the data is the clock signal. And you don't do any calculations either as a microchip performs them, instead you rely on analog processing: temporal and spacial distribution of the electrical signal matter. For example, if you send a lot of small signals, since they are all actually ions entering the cell (the dendrites of a neuron) it takes time to throw them out again, and if before the ion transporters manage to do that a new signal arrives with more and more of them the amount of ions increases, possibly until reaching threshold (for action potential firing). Same over space: On a dendrite there are many synapses over its length, connected to different neurons (their axons). The charges (ions) can equally build up over space, not just time. So length of wiring matters as well as the shape of the electrical signal - two things we don't want to see having any influence in our microchips. So computation in a chip and in a neural network is vastly different. Computation in the network happens "on the fly" simply by the movement of the signal through the network, encoded as the frequency of an all-or-nothing signal (action potential), but then every analog trick there is is used to decide if and when an action potential fires in connected cells. Actually "storing" values happens over a longer period by changing the connections: New synaptic connections form all the time and existing ones disappear, and existing synapses change ion channel and ion transport channel densities. That is way too slow to have an impact for any given computation, so it plays no roll for trying to catch the ball that's in the air right now.
> This is an evolving publication, and I shall be extending it over the coming days and weeks to cover more topics on serverless architecture including some things commonly confused with serverless, and the benefits and drawbacks of this approach.
You can send a tweet to the author: https://twitter.com/mikebroberts
For example, if you do "money-math" you could just use only integers (use cents instead of dollars) - your number will be an integer as long as it's a whole number and you re,main below Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER (http://www.2ality.com/2013/10/safe-integers.html). That's not enough for big-finance math where fractions of cents matter, but for most such applications it is.
The one thing I do remember for sure was there was no "prediction" involved - none at all. Unless you argue backwards and say because it succeeded you declare the process a "prediction". Once explained the whole process was actually quite primitive. Again, that was research on an actual biological neural network.
Darn, now I wish I had paid more attention. Any actual neuroscientists here? Without the details even I myself can't see my own comment as a satisfactory reply, but only as a step to actually getting one from somewhere or someone else. But note that it depends on what you mean by "prediction" - as I said, if you define it backwards from success than sure, prediction happened. My point is that the process is very different from how a human-made algorithm would do it.
What does that even mean? The entire question only makes sense from a human point of view.
Self-selection bias. Those who post in a given topic are not always the same people.
What blows MY mind is how it is possible to wonder how in huge groups of people there can form sub-groups (through self-selection, in this case) who hold very different views. Yes, that happens. HN isn't a person.
As for the article... I'm amazed this is so popular (given the attention previous submissions here already got). Well, I guess it's nice to have a link to point to for all the things that do not matter.
This sentence scares me:
> Rozovsky and her colleagues had figured out which norms were most critical. Now they had to find a way to make communication and empathy — the building blocks of forging real connections — into an algorithm they could easily scale.
And this is a surprise:
> ‘‘By putting things like empathy and sensitivity into charts and data reports, it makes them easier to talk about,’’ Sakaguchi told me. ‘‘It’s easier to talk about our feelings when we can point to a number.’’
and
> And thanks to Project Aristotle, she now had a vocabulary for explaining to herself what she was feeling and why it was important. She had graphs and charts telling her that she shouldn’t just let it go.
Really? I have to crunch some numbers how I feel about this.
.
.
PS: figured it out: When I just touch the screen the font-size changes. There are three steps. It takes a double-click with the mouse - but only a single touch with the finger on the touchscreen. I can't imagine this being useful anywhere - especially since when you have a touchscreen you can also already do a two-finger zoom if you want to.
> We don't just ignore the autocomplete attribute, however. In the WHATWG standard, we defined a series of new autocomplete values that developers can use to better inform the browser about what a particular field is, and we encourage developers to use those types. [2]
> In cases where you really want to disable autofill, our suggestion at this point is to utilize the autocomplete attribute to give valid, semantic meaning to your fields. If we encounter an autocomplete attribute that we don't recognize, we won't try and fill it.
> As an example, if you have an address input field in your CRM tool that you don't want Chrome to Autofill, you can give it semantic meaning that makes sense relative to what you're asking for: e.g. autocomplete="new-user-street-address". If Chrome encounters that, it won't try and autofill the field.
If you would read what they actually wrote you would notice that - as usual - the headline does not even remotely catch the complexity of the problem.
Lecture brought to you by The Computer History Museum in Mountain View, CA (http://www.computerhistory.org/)
TL;DR: The foundation for the SV was laid by the US government in WWII. Only on that basis did private enterprise build the industry.
From today's point of view, WWII saw today unimaginable spending - huge waste! - by the government. On research, research, more research and infrastructure, and more infrastructure, and even more research. Imagine even half the amount they spent back then announced today (in today's dollars). The cries about government overreach and waste and "oh my god the debt!" would shake the North American continent down to 5 km below the surface.
Now apply what you wrote to your own text.
The story is about KILLING ANTS.
(Note: I lived in mostly peaceful coexistence with "my" ants - they had their roads through my living room and I ignored them, unless they started to crawl around my food. So no need to get upset, no excessive ant-killing took place in the development of this example.)
-----------
You kill a few ants in your kitchen. You can do that with your thumb or any object. However you do, it is a physical interaction between you and the ant(s). To kill more you repeat the same physical action. Killing one ant: one thumb press. Killing one hundred: one hundred thumb presses.
So the critical skill and the concrete action you will be doing throughout your ant-killing career is the "thumb press". Or if you use poison your skill is thumb pressing the spray can to distribute the poison.
-----------
Let's jump a few layers.
You become so good you attract the attention of the California governor. He puts you in charge of ant-killing in California.
-----------
QUESTION:
Will you do the same thing you did before, only more of it? A billion "thumb presses" instead of a few hundred?
Of course not!
You will never see or even touch a single ant yourself in your new job.
Instead of with ants you now work with a) humans, b) lawyers, c) regulations, d) logistics, e) statistics(!!!). You need to hire thumb-pressers, you need to organize poison - tons of it. You need to distribute the poison. You have to create maps and tell the middle managers where they should send their troops. You need to deal with absentees, internal politics, laws regulating work hours and poisons, people who were poisoned by your ant-killing troops because they misused the poisons. You need to collect numbers: Where were ants seen in the state? How many before the killing, how many after a week, a month, a year? Were the measures effective?
-----------
Compare the skills you need to control - kill - ants in your apartment or house with the skills you need to kill ants in ALL houses all over the state or country.
It SOUNDS like it is the same task - "kill ants". But human language is deceptive - 100% context dependent. "Scale" changes a problem completely.
If your ant-killing employees see any benefit at all in seeing you too kill an ant occasionally it is purely subjective "he's one of us", objectively each hour you yourself spend killing ants means you don't do your actual job of managing. It helps when you have past(!) experience - but joining your workers now really means that a) your are not doing your job or b) the problem still is low-scale (small startup - or, in the case of ants, even though you are responsible for ant-killing in the state there only are a handful of houses where there is anything to do).
-----------
Or another example, moving soil: If you need to move a tiny bit of earth you can use your hands. If it's a little bit you use a shovel - already you will no longer touch the soil directly. If you need to move even more soil you use an excavator - you now are even farther from the actual soil, and you need to know a lot about the machine, organize diesel fuel, spare parts, etc. If you need to move a vast amount of soil you get to the same problem as above, you don't even see the soil any more, you direct an organization, people, logistics, statistics, etc.
Eh, what???