cracker_jacks

"College became default"

> The Russians are suggesting that the killings were of 'Russian friendly' Ukrainians, killed after the troops left.

Satellite imagery taken before Russian troops left shows massacre happened before withdrawal. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1511060668610457612

Oh, you're talking about using the forward gradient method. This still does not make much sense because if the projection of the gradient in that direction is zero or near zero, that is a very weak step in reducing the loss.

I believe what you are describing is grid search, not gradient descent. Gradient descent is not an exhaustive search.

I agree, in expectation, the orthogonal directions cancel out. But the variance does not cancel out. Are you using some sort of momentum-like optimizer?

> The more dimensions, the simpler the surface. With enough dimensionality, everything is a straight line.

Even assuming this statement were true (which is a big if). That does not explain how it would outperform gradient descent.

That does not make sense, can you expand? The steepest descent direction is far more useful than a random direction in high dimensions because that random direction has a greater chance of being nearly orthogonal to the steepest descent direction.

Yes, I am certain the background this particular website provides will be super objective and unbiased.....

Can a viable business be made around targets/victims sending their phishing attacks to a reverse engineering lab? The more valuable the target, the more likely an unknown and valuable exploit might be surfaced. As a consequence, this increases the expected cost of attacking these targets/victims.

lol, 'even', I find HN in particular loves pitchforks.

"Air tag" like trackers on decoy packages mixed in might be a cheap solution to this issue.

Agree that the reddit is more relevant to me because it has multiple perspectives in a discussion format, but I don't see any particularly bad links with the first search. The first one just has more conventional review sites like GoodHousekeeping and Forbes.

Can someone provide some explicit search queries so we can see the bad examples? Lots of criticism is being doled out in that thread without an actual example to see for myself.

Transformers subverting convolution on their own turf (vision) was certainly unexpected.

Why is there a culture of hiding cap tables in the first place? Seems like some incentive structures need to be fixed before a transparent cap table is adopted.

Because the ability to accumulate wealth becomes easier as you have more of it.

Can you explain how permanent monopolies won't become a problem?

This is the thing I do not fully understand about crypto and more specifically Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is successful, it will inevitably create a tiny group of super-wealthy early adopters amongst everyone else and we are back to the same rigged system evangelists were arguing crypto solves. Even worse, there is no method of confiscation/redistribution/taxation to prevent monopolies.

When you make housing an investment, by definition, it has to become less affordable in the future.

Until a country decides to stop making policy to support this notion that a basic need should be an appreciating asset and not a depreciating one like food, transportation, etc, this completely unsurprising trend will continue. It is a strange world we live in where we collectively believe that a basic need should increase in price over time.

What's the market Graphcore is going for here?

Even their own performance releases are not really favorable over nvidia's current offerings. This is definitely not enough to justify the risk of moving to a new hardware/software stack:

https://semianalysis.com/graphcore-looks-like-a-complete-fai...

Any memory of where you found this data?

This is a well-known phenomenon known as the bullwhip effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect).

These were only safe after one of those billionaires actually proved it. Before SpaceX and Tesla, both these things were considered untenable.

No, the difficulty of increasing supply has directly led to increased home prices.

When you make housing an investment, by definition, it has to become less affordable in the future.

Until a country decides to stop making policy to support this notion that a basic need should be an appreciating asset and not a depreciating one like food, transportation, etc, this completely unsurprising trend will continue. It is a strange world we live in where we collectively believe that a basic need should appreciate in value over time.

Can you give an example of how you can get away without an intervention?

Housing should have never been considered an investment. It is a basic need. If that basic need becomes an investment, it is by definition going to become less affordable to those who do not hold it in the future.

If you consider it an investment, homeowners are going to protect its value like one, and prevent supply competition via regulations, voting power, etc.

It is a strange world we live in where we collectively believe that a basic need should appreciate in value over time.