3 ms·

Handwritten digits / OCR was one of the first practical uses in the late 80's / early 90's for CNNs (check reading, addresses, http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/lenet/

Handwritten digits / OCR was one of the first practical uses in the late 80's / early 90's for CNNs (check reading, addresses, http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/lenet/ http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/lenet/). Integrating an LSTM would be useful for providing higher level sequence recognition.

WalterBright 10y ago
I know just when my bank "upgraded" their check reading software last year. I was taught to write checks in the form: $1234 66/100 in the amount column. I've done this for decades. Suddenly, my account was only debited $12.34, and I received dunning letters, interest, and penalties. Showed the bank the check image, they fixed it. (They also admitted that the OCR software made no attempt to read the handwritten amount, nor the signature.) I thought it was a fluke, but it happened again for the the next two checks. So I started writing the amount as: $1234.66 and things started working again. So no, I am not impressed with the OCR used to read checks, and it is clearly not remotely ready to read general handwriting.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  The sad thing is you are still writing checks. The last check I wrote was about 15 years ago.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    I get tired of the fees charged for electronic transfers. It should be the other way around. Many places will tack on 3% if you use a credit card. Paypal is what, 1.5%? Wiring money is expensive, Western Union is even worse. Added up over a year, all those "convenience fees" and crap can be a hefty bill. Checks still have zero transaction costs for me and the depositor. When people claim I didn't pay them, it's nice to show them the cancelled check with their signature on it. When bargaining with someone, showing them a signed check made out to them can clinch the deal :-) Of course, cash is even more persuasive, but I don't care to carry around cash and again, I like having a cancelled check as a receipt.
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      I am not criticising you for using checks. As you rightly point out electronic transfers should be the no fee option - the idea that pushing around bits of handwritten paper is cheaper than electrons is crazy.
      - WalterBright 10y ago
        My bank wants me to use electronic billpay, but they want to charge for it. I say no thanks, you can keep dealing with my free paper checks which cost you more. I've been using ATMs since 1979, and I picked a bank that did not charge for using it. It's just nuts to charge for an ATM when using their tellers for free costs them far more.

WalterBright 10y ago

I know just when my bank "upgraded" their check reading software last year. I was taught to write checks in the form: $1234 66/100 in the amount column. I've done this for decades. Suddenly, my account was only debited $12.34, and I received dunning letters, interest, and penalties. Showed the bank the check image, they fixed it. (They also admitted that the OCR software made no attempt to read the handwritten amount, nor the signature.) I thought it was a fluke, but it happened again for the the next two checks. So I started writing the amount as: $1234.66 and things started working again. So no, I am not impressed with the OCR used to read checks, and it is clearly not remotely ready to read general handwriting.

danieltillett 10y ago
The sad thing is you are still writing checks. The last check I wrote was about 15 years ago.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  I get tired of the fees charged for electronic transfers. It should be the other way around. Many places will tack on 3% if you use a credit card. Paypal is what, 1.5%? Wiring money is expensive, Western Union is even worse. Added up over a year, all those "convenience fees" and crap can be a hefty bill. Checks still have zero transaction costs for me and the depositor. When people claim I didn't pay them, it's nice to show them the cancelled check with their signature on it. When bargaining with someone, showing them a signed check made out to them can clinch the deal :-) Of course, cash is even more persuasive, but I don't care to carry around cash and again, I like having a cancelled check as a receipt.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    I am not criticising you for using checks. As you rightly point out electronic transfers should be the no fee option - the idea that pushing around bits of handwritten paper is cheaper than electrons is crazy.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      My bank wants me to use electronic billpay, but they want to charge for it. I say no thanks, you can keep dealing with my free paper checks which cost you more. I've been using ATMs since 1979, and I picked a bank that did not charge for using it. It's just nuts to charge for an ATM when using their tellers for free costs them far more.