3 ms·
How do you actually get a number like that? What are the computations, simplified? Is it a coincidence that 1280 = 2⁷ * 10? (I mean, it makes me wonder if it is
by krick 3y ago
How do you actually get a number like that? What are the computations, simplified? Is it a coincidence that 1280 = 2⁷ * 10? (I mean, it makes me wonder if it isn't basically a result of using some sort of a decision tree splitting some set by 2 or something, and 10 is perhaps just some hard-coded into the model assumption — which it most probably isn't, of course, I'm just wondering: what is that number?)
- Shrezzing 3y ago>Is it a coincidence that 1280 = 2⁷ * 10? 1280 is the nearest threshold we can estimate to, for the reason you've describe. In the OP's title it suggests "exactly 1280", while the original published piece in Science[1] uses the phrase "around 1280". [1]https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487