xccx
p2p no huge IP infrastructure between nodes
interest packets at narrow waist (like human attention, scarce)
sign all packets, more secure, easier to trust|not
hash for pointers, no surprises in containers
crypto apply more cryptography, less web3 baloney
broadcast radio native, no emulation of copper wire
data, closer to where you want, find faster, keep
content you want w/out intermediation, need to find "where" within IP/udp/tcp addresses
https://youtu.be/P-GN-pYfRoo?t=1825 node to node
https://youtu.be/yLGzGK4c-ws?t=4817 more application, less security hassle
http://youtu.be/uvnP-_R-RYA?t=3018 hash name the data
https://youtu.be/gqGEMQveoqg&t=3006 data integrity w/out need to trust foreign server
Are you worried that it's going to supplant my
99.67% accuracy rating in another two years?
Or ten years? Or 20? And that's just talking about
the technical accuracy; I haven't even begun to
get into the semantic accuracy.
The Bloomberg article says speech recognition in the lab already applies semantic context to improve accuracy. The article also says 75% percent accuracy from 2012 is up to 92% today, and that we can expect super-human speech recognition online before 2017.Show HN: 10x more precise YouTube captions
A Self-Perpetuating Machine for American Insecurity
Show HN: Vocaltext syllabic YouTube caption sync
Feature request: please enable preview of youtube loop right in your url like gifyoutube.com/y0ut0oo0biD&loop=123.4;5.67 where first number is 'start time' then second number is 'length'. And allow millisecond specification.
File size could be smaller? EG 0.14 second frames instead of 0.08, longer duration frames aren't too noticable and may cut bulky GIF sizes almost in half.
Don't be Google
Personally, I want information to inform my actions. I want to make better predictions. Please give me info I can use. Help me sort it. Make me act on it.
I want statements I can agree with, or not. If I'm not sure which, please provide me access to distillable arguments for and against any such statement.
First, I want to very clearly understand what any statement intends to say. Please provide ample means for clarification of such a statement. What is said? What does it mean?
Next, I want to sort and compare reasons to agree or disagree with any such statement. I want to see who agrees or disagrees with such a statement. This is much more valuable to me than the herd voice.
Make it systemic: let broad statements rest on supporting statements, where each statement provides for debate to define whether it is True or Not, Unlikely or Likely.
Something like this might suck less than the bloviating blog/comment/infoglut of yesteryear, especially as the next billion users go mobile.
The Trillion Dollar Vision of Dee Hock
Quirky is a social product development company
question: via moore's law, if it can hold up, what year can i hope to get a yottabyte on my netbook? thx
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/10/cerego-raises-3-4-milli...
Google tends to look a few steps ahead.
Remember that whole debacle with GOOG-411
and speech recognition? They intend to use
the free GOOG-411 service to improve their
speech recognition so that YouTube videos
can eventually have automatic closed captioning,
and can -- in turn -- be searchable by Google
and can offer a whole new era of video search
results.
The automatic closed captioning is especially interesting. Any truth to it?http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/97rc8/if_youtube...
For most people, analysis of how a language works is not meaningful. Just like for software users, most people don't care how a program works. They just want to use it.
For highly analytical mathematical minds, study of grammar can be effective. Krashen's research shows, however, that grammar study in classroom environments does not help the majority of students to achieve conversational fluency.
So I'm not saying you are wrong. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest that what works for you might not work for everyone.
Personally, I don't believe that human language is purely analytical framework for thinking. I do believe, strongly, that language is also physical, emotional and expressive. I mean, what is the first word out of a baby's mouth?
Just guessing, but I bet the experience that sounddust describes has less to do with grammar analysis, and more to do with personally relating to the stories in the films and songs. He gets input that A) he comprehends and B) he cares about.
Guessing again, I bet sounddust's success with early output results from practice within a safe environment, where he has no fear of sounding like an idiot. It's a much different experience that being surrounded by peers in a classroom and challenged by the teaching authority.
Further, since he's vocalizing expressions from authentic films and songs, he can mimic not only correct pronunciation, but also mimic expression with real gut feelings, like glad, sad or mad. Feelings are meaningful.
So I agree with you, pradocchia, that early output (expressive mimicry within a safe and playful environment) is useful: 1) it helps us to hear and understand the new language, and 2) it boosts our confidence so we can talk much sooner.
And to sounddust, please correct my wild guessing about what you experienced while learning French!