marshallp

The new distbelief paper doesn't explain some things. Why are "receptive fields". An earlier paper claimed better than 15% results on imagenet and so does this, what changed. Why have you claimed sgd works on nonconvex well without comparing against actual nonconvex opto algs. You also didn't cite my comments on metaoptimize where some of your ideas seem to come from.

Yeah, it's such a simple thing that nerds don't seem to get. Put out ads on craigslist, adwords, indiegogo. Whatever sells, do that. The biggest problem is having more ideas than time to write them into an ad, there's too many potential products. You can outsource the creation of whatever sells so executing isn't even that big a hurdle (though you do have to be careful with initial pricing on the ad so that costs don't get you).

Telecommuting high def video. Upstreaming dozens of security cam/robot videos from your house. Caching data. Google can cache much of youtube and web right on your internet router so that you pay the electricity bill instead of them. Telemedicine.

Success as in what earns their profits.

I mean in their data center. Also, I'd be more impressed if they actually got the self-driving cars out to the world. It's been 5 years now. Google has a problem executing, they're lulled by their one success.

Like I said earlier, a luxury tax. The capitalist utopia of singapore has them. Tax the rich and give it to NASA or create multi-billion dollar seed fund for immortality hacktivists.

As much as I like google, I doubt they're as good as that. Their search and advertising is essentially a monopoly because they have such a data lead over anyone else. That's why facebook freaks them out because they know how having more data is the secret sauce. Their data center innovations don't seem all that incredibly innovative. If they had robots whirring around I'd be much more impressed.

Maybe you should visit your local cancer ward or rat-eating homeless indian peasants and then decide what's what.

He's helping the poor by making energy cheaper indirectly through kickstarting an electric car industry.

The tax issue can be resolved by luxury taxes. If people decide they'd like $100 million yacht, tax them $200 million for it. Countries like Singapore already have punitive taxes like that on cars.

What if it's a relative you'd like to see live another 10 or 20 years because they're too young to die?

Yeah, we need more playboys. The kid with cancer or malnutrition and his family should just learn to cope with death.

Anti-death people are such narcissists. The financiers like you are the true heros. You get a lot of hookers and blow and we should be thankful for you consuming them.

That's why I said government maybe needs to redistribute wealth if these rich folk genuinely don't give a shit about poor people. They can keep their money if they invest in society improving stuff. That's why I said immortality tech. He could get involved in miniaturizing extra-corporeal devices (artificial organs) that keep people alive even if their hearts or lungs get too damaged. He can start by watching that video and contacting those people and putting together a team of engineers to get it done. If you're not doing an Elon Musk, then maybe the government needs to raise your taxes.

Why should he keep building nice UI's. He's proven himself as a can-do hacker and has millions in the bank. He could spend his resources saving lives instead of polishing what's a tiny hill in the global landscape of ideas.

DHH needs to get off his high horse. He's hacked his way into providing a tiny service for artsy folks but he's not exactly hacking on immortality tech or AI like some of us. The government needs to consider redistributing some of his wealth. This essay is him gloating about sitting on piles of cash, where's the concern for starving african children or terminal cancer patients. He should sell his company and work on immortality tech. He can start with extracorporeal devices like described here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuBDhT7Y5GU

That's what people said about driving cars as well. until a serious effort showed it was possible.

What were the things an autopilot couldn't handle. If more engineering effort were spent, couldn't those also be automatically handled. Plus, couldn't airplanes be remote controlled.

Airplanes should be fully automated, they probably already have the technology to do this. They could start with cargo planes and then move to passenger once the public fears are quelled.

The author neglected to mention that robocars are coming and so hitchhiking will become irrelevant before it's second coming.

Apple can take one of two directions

- focus on data, like google does, by massively investing in siri (they should make forstall in charge)

- focus on design, but expand out of consumer electronics (which will shrink) into cars and robots, like tesla and rethink robotics (tim cook and jony ive are the right people for that)

Their current niche, square screens and possibly google glass is a dead end

Airbnb should go all the way and start renting out trailers in the desert. Attach gigabit fiber as well, big opportunity in that. With self-driving cars and self-flying drones on the horizon there'd could be a first mover advantage for a short while.

If she's a prof, then she's engaging in the scam that is the current university system. Is she or the other profs you know advocating for the abolition of undergraduate degrees to be replaced by online learning like coursera or udacity. Also, abolishing phds/tenure and replacing with funding their research from kickstarter/indiegogo. Probably not. They might care about their few chosen students (selfishly, for the social company and labor it provides) but they're putting their finger up at the entire rest of the world (which includes potential students that never were, like in africa or india).

Condolences on your loss

Hack them into Democratism. Voting's closed now, so there's no use hacking right now, have to wait 4 years.

Pretty much all your points come down to "ignore the past, where republicans always screw over the public, trust us this time". That approach is unscientific. It completely ignores data. And the numbers you're fuming about are a trick. The republican proposal is to cut 5 trillion in taxes. How does that help the debt problem. And the debt isn't a problem at all. The entire professional economist community is against you, just like the entire professional climatologist community is against you on climate change.

I don't know if you're purposefully being a caricature of republican voters or if you genuinely believe what you're saying, but when you mess with Norvig, you mess with the best. You cannot win against Norvig, he is a tech super-ninja. Those super-ninja skills can equally be applied to deciding who to vote for, and his opinion on this case is signed and sealed. There is no question that today's Republican Party is anti-public, anti-world, anti-science.

Specialist interests will destroy the purity of both parties so it's no use arguing over numbers like that. It's a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

Peter Norvig, who is a god among the mere mortals here, makes a better case than I could http://norvig.com/election-faq-2012.html

Sacrifice karma to hack undecideds

Chill out, I'm half-trolling. It's election day. I knew I'd get a downvote-kicking.

I've been on here for 3 years, I'm a hugely valuable but underrated member of this community.

We can use data, like factcheck, to figure it out http://www.factcheck.org/