colorincorrect

fair enough. i was told that by a old/english scholar and i checked wiki sample text to confirm, but i must have been mistaken.

>Middle English is much more similar to modern English than Classical Chinese is to modern Chinese (of any variety), for the obvious reason that Middle English is separated from modern English by less than half the period separating Classical Chinese from modern Chinese.

i think it depends on the specific text in question, but i'm drawing blanks because im not very informed on old lit in general. again tang poems are taught at an early age, but perhaps most text would be harder to read

misread, my bad; but i remain suspicious because from what i've heard the latin grammar is something quite alien, but then again i heard it from an english speaker....

your last sentence is inaccurate: an english reader cannot read any latin at all naively, but a modern chinese reader can interpret little/some/most of classical chinese, depending on the specific text in question

"classical" chinese is the form of chinese used before around 1910's (but some texts which have the "modern style" predate this time). single obscure characters would be used to convey a complex specific meaning, a lot of the grammar and referents are implicit, structure is very dense, and in practice there would often be literary or historical references that would go over most readers ill-equipped to deal with such things. it was also fashionable to write in "symmetry", but modernists who pushed for literary reform thought a lot of this was just style over substance.

"modern" chinese was developed around the 1910s as a push for modernization/literacy as influenced by western imperialism/thought spreading into china. tldr they advocated for readability/accessibility, which meant a stylistic reform of the language.

if you can read modern chinese well enough, you can kinda understand about 30-80% of the meaning, depending how obtuse the text is and or when it was composed, but early chinese education (elementary school) includes some Tang poems from 600-900 AD, but is still quite readable. compared to something like middle english, which modern readers cannot read at all, you can see that the chinese language hasn't changed all that much

cf:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Chinese#Grammar_and_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_vernacular_Chinese

not sure if serious but this sounds like trying to learn english via python syntax

as to whether it is conscious or not influences whether you would want to model it a-la 3d physics engine, or if not then perhaps there is a more elegant solution we do not know of yet

"Mr. Soros is a philanthropist."

also note that Soro's position isn't to inform a position on which Facebook should proceed with community guidelines, but instead he just wants to replace the heads of the company for whatever reasons. very helpful!

good point you raise: this statement is very behaviorist in leaning, and ignores human psychology, but perhaps this is to do with pragmatic reasons

it might be more accurate to say (as a hypothesis), is that whatever this "inner monologue" thing is, people don't seem to experience it the same, even if it does exist/not-exist

shhh don't tell him that: art is partially self contradictory anyhow

it is consistent for someone to procrastinate and work on something for a long time: you work for a long time while putting little effort. perhaps this was the intended interpretation?

>very small children spending a lot of their time learning basic concepts of cause and effect, properties of objects, materials and physics and so on.

i do not believe that young children explicitly/consciously simulate in their minds to learn cause and effect and other things, though this might be up for debate

maybe, but any regular human being might not want to play your stupid word game which isn't even fun at all asides for the AI researcher.

nitpicking here, but Cogito Ergo Sum (“I think, therefore I am”) has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. in modern vernacular you might translate it as "i percieve/witness therefore i exist"

is there a similar analysis of google/facebook/instagram?

dumb question, but if VCs decided that the venture is profitable under a certain model (aka: no limits pricing), then why doesn't the domain registry just do so themselves?

there are a lot of dashcam footages of car crashes on youtube. i wonder if that information can be salvaged in some way

I'm curious if there's any "good" positive correlations with screen time. Any ideas?

obligatory comment that uBlockMatrix or any similar content blocker is good, but would anyone tell me if that is sufficient as well?

Im more curious as to how they were found: can not even the richest of persons be completely secretive of their money?

not that i believe (or not) that this will eventually be feasible, but the dream is that if you feed an introductory paragraph (which includes a thesis) to the algo, it will be able to generate the next 4 paragraphs, which completes a 5 paragraph essay.

known nothing about the results, i suspect that mid-ranges are poorer mainly because human frequency response is most sensitive towards mid-range aka vocal-pitch frequency

unrelated question: but why would any investigator leak information like this? who benefits?

counter argument: having something explicitly labeled as "advertisement" allows for people to take it into context. now that that route has been taken away, advertisers would pursuit native marketing, even more subversive.

I asked this question before and received no answers, so I'll ask again: Is there a source that details the specific issues that self-driving cars could face, and potential methods of solving them?

Even if we did this, we still don't know how to interface with the brain. Brain Computer Interface (BCI) technology is still very bad. We can barely do anything.

I recall that using EEG, you can extract at most 4 degrees of freedom/conscious-control, beyond that we can't do anything. We also kinda suck at monitering any "human intent" using EEG because there's no clear biological signal for that either.

Most of the successes seem to be done with some direct-to-brain interface, but those aren't magical either, and no one wants to do that.

I unfortunately missed a bright grad student's talk on the state of BCI. I didn't get to hear what he had to say, but the only slide in his talk was the image of a garbage dumpster on fire.

i think this is the 2nd best option, not the best: as someone who deals with artsy stuff more than pure information (or more accurately, i prefer to interpret the goal of transmitting information as an artistic task), i find that too much white tends to overpower any graphics you have on the screen.

the benefits of a physical white background is because your lighting will make background/subject evenly lit, but on a computer screen, the white just tends to overpower.

https://imgur.com/a/I1jFrG8 this doesn't seem that bad, but maybe my phrasing of the colors was inaccurate.

that's a bit disappointing, seeing as this format is by far my favourite because of it being very simple and aesthetically pleasing.

any suggestions? my intuitive response to this would be black on brightly hued navy blue, but i worry that is also low-contrast, which also causes issues.

can't please everyone!