nil-sec

11 ms·

61.
by nil-sec 6y ago
I’ve read through your GR part. Just to counter all the negativity here, congrats for pulling this off! I felt your papers do a much better job in explaining what’s actually the idea. Probably would be better to directly link to them here o
62.
by nil-sec 6y ago
So if I’m understanding this correctly you have a relativistic understanding of information in which the zero state is observer dependent? Just for my understanding, consider for example the spin of an electron. It can be in one of two stat
63.
by nil-sec 6y ago
Shannon wasn’t the first to think about entropy. It’s a general concept that is hugely important in thermodynamics and statistical physics. Information theory itself becomes increasingly more important in fundamental physics, see the firewa
64.
by nil-sec 6y ago
No it does not contradict it. You can have random processes induce a reduction in entropy of a system (e.g. random bit flips can lead to the sequence 111111 which has 0 entropy) and in particular a random process can increase the ability of
65.
by nil-sec 6y ago
It isn’t obvious to me that mutation, in general, would increase entropy. There are mutations that would. For example a mutation that would lead to a random bit flip during cell division would certainly increase entropy of the system. In my
66.
by nil-sec 6y ago
Maybe I misunderstood you here but I don’t think information theory and in particular entropy has anything to do with “our brain”. It’s simply a statement of the number of micro states in a system. There is no requirement for reading them o
67.
by nil-sec 6y ago
I’m not sure about this. Define your “erroneous” state as “halt”. Now the question becomes, for a systems that halts, find out how it reached this state. The mathematical answer to this is simply the description of the Turing machine that p
68.
by nil-sec 6y ago
It’s the other way around. It’s very easy to get a false positive due to DNA contamination.
69.
by nil-sec 6y ago
Could it be that the first test was false positive then and the first symptoms where actually not corona virus?
70.
by nil-sec 6y ago
This came up since the beginning in January. The number of people that were reported to reinfect like this seem to lie well within the expected rate of false positives. I don’t understand how this claim is made repeatedly, without a thoroug
71.
by nil-sec 7y ago
The best “test” for this I’ve heard is to ask people how many windows they have in their apartment. They might say 5 and then you ask them how they came to this conclusion. A normal thing to do is to walk through your apartment in your mind
72.
by nil-sec 7y ago
Ha, funny seeing this mentioned on HN, this student was my Professor for Astrophysics during my time in this field. He was a great mentor and taught me (and others) quite a lot, in particular about outreach and science communication. The Zo
73.
by nil-sec 7y ago
Or, those patients were false positives.
74.
by nil-sec 7y ago
See my reply to your original comment. Exponential growth isn’t a valid reason for this to not work. The factor of recovered vs currently Ill patients is constant, exponential growth or not. This factor may be high and I assume this is what
75.
by nil-sec 7y ago
e^(c t)/e^(c (t - 14days)) = e^(c*14days) = k = constant, with c the growth rate. While you are right that, in an exponential growth scenario, the number of recovered cases is smaller than the number of currently active cases, the fact
76.
by nil-sec 7y ago
The comparison here is not vaccine vs serum. It’s antiviral vs serum.
77.
by nil-sec 7y ago
Do you have a source for this? Interesting if true! 1. Where are the high costs coming from? Distribution? Storage? People? Most of these seem shared for other drugs. 2. Blood transfusion seems to be one of the most common treatments there
78.
by nil-sec 7y ago
Yes. What do you want to say with the quotes from the article? Yes it is not a vaccine, neither are antiviral treatments.
79.
by nil-sec 7y ago
Anyone knows why serum is not sufficient to completely solve all our issues? I applaud this trial but this confuses me. It seems like we already have the capacity to do this on large scale, it's considered very safe and as far as I und
80.
by nil-sec 7y ago
I wonder how vulnerable this system is to adversarial attacks. This will depend on the details of the implementation and is probably easy to guard against (e.g. by using an additional, non-NN based tracker or out-of-distribution detection),
81.
by nil-sec 7y ago
What you are stating is the original Lottery Ticket Hypothesis. What they prove in this paper is the stronger version, empirically noticed here https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01067 and referred to as "supermasks"
82.
by nil-sec 7y ago
I think you do misunderstand. They do not add “correlated variables” to a model. The idea is that if you have an overparameterised model for a specific problem, this model contains a smaller model, that has similar performance to the traine
83.
by nil-sec 7y ago
If that were the case I am wondering why anyone would buy GPUs? I invite you to retrain a state of the art model of your choice on a CPU and see how far you get.
84.
by nil-sec 7y ago
Mind expanding on what exactly you are doing for work? Is this freelance work or are you employed? This work/life balance sounds fabulous.
85.
by nil-sec 7y ago
So you are saying the system memory is 300GB and you can train your model on the cpu instead? Well yeah you can always do that but training will be slow because your model is not trained on the GPU. What’s the point?
86.
by nil-sec 8y ago
The concept of ownership is not necessarily the same for digital content. Streaming services for example extended this idea and I don’t believe this is a bad thing. It gives us access to more content for less money. Yes, someone can take it
87.
by nil-sec 8y ago
Yes and they enjoyed them and probably forgot about them already. If someone would buy my old books I'd be thrilled for most of them. For some selected others devastated, but these I would copy. If they wanted to chip in with another 2
88.
by nil-sec 8y ago
What do people annotate generally that's worth 25$? I'm genuinely curious.
89.
by nil-sec 8y ago
Maybe. But these are all hypotheticals. The article presents it as I should be morally disgusted by this move. I don't really see it.
90.
by nil-sec 8y ago
These books also don't exist in print?

More ›