Oh, STEM naming… Especially mathematics. How can you tell that a "set" is different from a "group" different from a "manifold" different from a "category"? Then there is a lot of seemingly unrelated things called "space" (they are all actually a topological space, but when studying e. g. vector spaces one might not yet have been into that). "Field" is two absolutely unrelated things in physics and algebra, sometimes these domains even intersect! Linear programming, no real relation to computer programming at all, "programming" used to mean "optimization". Calling stuff after their discoverers might be non-descriptive, but giving a misleadingly descriptive name that also collides is way worse - yet people working with this manage just fine.
Not true. You are confusing "digital" with "microprocessor". You wouldn't be able to do any single-chip microprocessor, of course, but something like 74181 is very doable at this scale, and building a 1970s-era computer out of a few dozen of these is something enthusiasts still do. The main problem isn't logic, it's memory - memory needs density (thin film magnetics anyone?).
Then, of course, if by "useful" you mean "commercially viable", it is indeed not going to be competitive against either TSMC or your local 500nm foundry ever.
A CPU made with ALUs like 74181 would take alone a PCB of ATX or eATX size densely populated with integrated circuits and consuming much more power than an entire computer consumes today, while being slower than a tiny microcontroller with a cost of less than a dollar, which also includes enough memory for a practical application.
I call such a CPU as not useful.
It can be a very useful experience to design such a CPU, but you can simulate the design in a logic simulator and you gain nothing by building it.
As a valuable computer building experience, it is more useful to use much older components than digital integrated circuits, where you can see nothing without special instruments, e.g. you can build interesting computer blocks, like adders, registers, counters etc., made with electromechanical relays or with neon glow lamps, where you can see with your eyes how they function.
It's not like they are not going to figure it out themselves eventually. Use inverse slow loris instead. Yes, these are harder to deploy, but much more robust.
Sorry, this sounds like the absolutely worst idea ever. The way to kill open source as such. Sloppy PRs will end when the idiot HRs release there is no value in them. Plagiarism isn't really anything new and AI doesn't really change much there. But adding friction to examining source is a sure way to make no one care to contribute.
Honest question, what are "HR"s? I only know that acronym for "Human Resources" and I don't understand how that has anything to do with code contribution
Activity on github - must be a productive programmer. Have a thousand issues open - definitely a hire. I'm not talking about the Valley, but in India, as well as some some backwaters in the West that's how it seems to be. Talk about misaligned incentives.
Stupid question - how is it even possible given that you lose information on each layer? And how do one implement a non-linear activation function without an amplifier of a sort?
Normally in this kind of systems, the detection is the nonlinearity.
That is, you send light through the system, the light can interfere, Changes path through the system but in the end you can detect only the intensities, |E|^2.
Oh nice, thanks for these! Since you’ve worked with PB a lot - do you usually jump b/w different tools depending on the format (PB, Avro, JSON, etc.)?
Or would having a single place to inspect multiple formats actually make debugging easier?
I haven't had the need to convert between different formats, only protobuf and a bit of Json. If I had too, I'd find python libraries akin to blackbox for each of them and use a ptpython shell - but then I'm more of a CLI person.
It might not make any sense for the country as a whole, but it certainly does for individual recruiters who need to fulfill their quotas and individual commanders who can keep their more useful units this way (perhaps for a price). Also, over a million sounds implausibly high - estimates via opened inheritance cases gives a lower estimate of ~215000, which is of course still a huge number.
reply