argonaut

78 ms·

391.
by argonaut 10y ago
Except even most modern theologians do not take the Bible literally.
392.
by argonaut 10y ago
The evidence of Bill's sexual harassment is actually much thinner, since there is no tape or anything except several women's accusations (his confirmed affairs are a different matter - they were consensual and Trump also had plent
393.
by argonaut 10y ago
Here's the thing: you may be right that Elon is not a genius, for example. But I can't deny he's a master salesman. Generating this hype is precisely what a salesman needs to do. That in of itself leads to genuine success.
394.
by argonaut 10y ago
I dislike his views, but one thing Thiel is most certainly not is misinformed. His interpretations may be completely wrong, but he is not misinformed. I recall an interview of Marc Andreessen where Marc said he had to do a ton of preparatio
395.
by argonaut 10y ago
The things you described are just V1 of the visual cortex. The first area (not actually the first layer, but there are 5 other visual areas that aren't convolution-esque).
396.
by argonaut 10y ago
This is way easier said than done. Even with added noise, the sensor data from the real world is nothing like simulation.
397.
by argonaut 10y ago
1. Is not a justification, it's a motivation / intuition. It proves little since only the first visual layer (there are 6 visual cortex layers) does convolution-esque things. 2. Justifies convolution over fully-connected. It does
398.
by argonaut 10y ago
When you say "loss layer" I think you mean output? The notation is a bit mixed up. Those building blocks are precisely the art (it's both art and engineering) that siavosh is referring to. Everyone is mostly using derivatives
399.
by argonaut 10y ago
You must be thinking of longshoremen, not drivers.
400.
by argonaut 10y ago
Both you and renesd are correct. Renesd is correct that "big data" is overblown. There are diminishing marginal returns - you need orders of magnitude more data for the same incremental gain (and this blows up well beyond however
401.
by argonaut 10y ago
You need to think this through more carefully. What would "playing it back" give you? Presumably all that would give you are a bunch of incidents where the human driver disagreed with the algorithm's output. That's it. W
402.
by argonaut 10y ago
You're not making sense. If the loss function is convex, adding L1 regularization is still convex. So iterative methods for convex problems (which include SVMs, linear regression, and logistic regression) will find the global optimum.
403.
by argonaut 10y ago
Yes.
404.
by argonaut 10y ago
I was never under this impression. I was always under the impression the filters are just created by a designer playing around with various effects until it looked nice.
405.
by argonaut 10y ago
This is certainly a Google press release. On a meta level, what I find interesting is that when Tesla makes what is also basically a press release, few point that out. People just take at face value Tesla's pre-recorded demo videos,
406.
by argonaut 10y ago
Having studied both topics (just coursework), I don't think so.
407.
by argonaut 10y ago
This applies even with perfect information, as long as drivers are completely selfish.
408.
by argonaut 10y ago
Although technically east bay is not in the actual geographic valley, for all intents and purposes in discussing the tech industry, it is part of the metaphorical Silicon Valley - lots of people live in Oakland and commute to SF tech comp
409.
by argonaut 10y ago
Your conclusion is theoretically false. You can prove that L1 regularization is equivalent to taking the optimal unregularized parameters, setting to parameters below a threshold to 0 (the threshold depends on the regularization parameter
410.
by argonaut 10y ago
That is not sparsity. In machine learning there is a very strong distinction between values that are exactly 0, and values that are close to zero (see: difference between L1 and L2 regularization).
411.
by argonaut 10y ago
Are those masters/PhD's? My data points were people with no graduate degrees. The ramp up and ceiling is much higher in finance. First year salary for someone with a bachelors in a finance company may be comparable to someone with
412.
by argonaut 10y ago
That's really your personal opinion. I'm honestly not going to solicit artistic opinion on Hacker News. He hired a world class architect.
413.
by argonaut 10y ago
You can publish. Those are called stories. People can follow you on Snapchat (by username).
414.
by argonaut 10y ago
Like it or not, this stuff is what normal people like to read though. Take Twitter Moments. It's widely derided (lots of the content is the same as you describe - celebrity sports stuff), but I actually find it fairly interesting/
415.
by argonaut 10y ago
Three years ago, in college Snapchat was hugely popular. Three years later, today, it is still hugely popular. Of course, if you only heard about it on HN/tech sites, you might think Snapchat is a recently popular phenomenon.
416.
by argonaut 10y ago
I hear a lot of people claiming this is the "best public site in a large metro area," "highly prized real estate in the entire world." This is what the museum would replace: https://www.google.com/maps&#x
417.
by argonaut 10y ago
I hold governments to a higher standard than companies.
418.
by argonaut 10y ago
Give an example of gatekeepers blocking fake news. Reply to below: I am not talking about government censorship, which is obvious, since I just talked about it. I am talking about companies using fake news as an excuse to block what they be
419.
by argonaut 10y ago
If you're trying to make fun of fact checking fake news, that is a totally facetious comparison. The whole point of fact checking is that the fact check / rebuttal is put side by side or preceding the original claim, with evidence
420.
Deep Learning at Gilt(tech.gilt.com)
3 points by argonaut 10y ago|0 comments

More ›