yccs27

24 ms·

301.
by yccs27 5y ago
Indeed, in mathematics/physics the analytically unsolvable problems also vastly outnumber the tractable ones, yet in a competition you always get questions with nice solutions.
302.
by yccs27 5y ago
Definitely. OTOH, the Japanese braille question was more of a pattern recognition puzzle.
303.
by yccs27 5y ago
It seems like you can solve most of them just as a puzzle, but some linguistic knowledge and intuition would definitely help. I like the concept.
304.
by yccs27 5y ago
Hopefully the consumer marketshare has some influence on business decisions, which might make it worthwile for them to keep non-business customers. This kind of strategy certainly works for some professional software, which is often even fr
305.
by yccs27 5y ago
I feel like the "at Microsoft" already implies billions of funding. However, teams within big companies are not immune to reduced funding and cancelling if their strategy does not work.
306.
by yccs27 5y ago
As I interpret it, it is adressed to those who have a problem which needs a compiler, but don‘t want to build one because it sounds scary and difficult.
307.
by yccs27 5y ago
This is a super interesting question, given that the generator model is trained to fool the discriminator, which is also an AI.
308.
by yccs27 5y ago
I'd say Sean is pronounced >Shawn<, not >Sean<, so there's that.
309.
by yccs27 5y ago
The whole law is talking about the case of a developer who wants to change an implementation but maintain compatibility. With deprecation of old functionality, the whole point is moot.
310.
by yccs27 5y ago
Unfortunately, you only have to compete with real users using that specific feature, and there aren't that many when measured against the power of even cheap attacks.
311.
by yccs27 5y ago
Sorry for having "someone is slightly wrong on the internet" syndrome, of course it does not change your point about an overly broad patent.
312.
by yccs27 5y ago
To those downvoting: Am I wrong here? Not defending the patents, I just want people to stop tearing down strawmen instead of the real thing.
313.
by yccs27 5y ago
Yeah, I'm absolutely not arguing this should be patentable. It seems like they are obvious and marginal (at best) changes to preexisting systems, even if they were the first ones to describe them. Still, the patents are not as boundles
314.
by yccs27 5y ago
The "novelty" (idk how novel it is really, but they present it as such) is not in speakers playing the same audio or L/R at the same time, but individual autonomous playback devices being grouped and ungrouped, so that they c
315.
by yccs27 5y ago
Interesingly, none of the specific claims referenced in the decision have to do with clock synchronization, they all focus on the act of grouping speakers in some way and controlling them together.
316.
by yccs27 5y ago
Ignoring the HN-pleasing "Patents are horrible" (to which I agree btw), the patents are very specifically about the opposite of independent volume control: They are about setting up groups of speakers which can be controlled tog
317.
by yccs27 5y ago
Google will probably have to get the patents themselves removed, by proving prior work or such. Those patents are way too broad. I wonder what Bose does, they have their own multiroom system. Do they license the patents from Sonos?
318.
by yccs27 5y ago
Sonos seems to patented the concept of "paired" speakers itself, and the protocol used to synchronize speaker's clocks for synchronous playback. I wonder how Bose manages to produce their own multiroom system. Do they license
319.
by yccs27 5y ago
The official document is at https://www.usitc.gov/system/files/secretary/fed_reg_notices...
320.
by yccs27 5y ago
This is intriguing, but unfortunately a presentation pdf is always missing the spoken parts… Most informative part in the conclusions: "Compiler that can automatically – find parallelism – manage small scratchpad memories – generate co
321.
by yccs27 5y ago
Mental effects are unfortunately pretty hard to measure reliably or even control, so people trying to do "cold hard science" tend to disregard it. It is easy to write off claims as unscientific if they are hard to replicate in lab
322.
by yccs27 5y ago
Those are separate classifications, right? A unit test can be property-based and an integration test can be accomplished theough fuzzing, and versa.
323.
by yccs27 5y ago
Here's my (oversimplified) understanding of async: It's functions with yield points, at which other code can be run until execution returns to the function. Then, isn't it almost trivial to call an async function from a synch
324.
by yccs27 5y ago
The name kind of sounds like a mash-up of education streaming platforms Nebula + Curiosity Stream. Maybe I have just seen too many sponsored video segments...
325.
by yccs27 5y ago
Not necessarily. Watching a second time will usually give you less new information than the first time (obviously if you already know more than 50%, there is less to learn)
326.
by yccs27 5y ago
The bigger problem is: You not only have to trust their good intentions now, but you also need to be able to trust them in the future, as long as the script is active. Additionally, you have to trust/hope that the patch security is abs
327.
by yccs27 5y ago
Maybe we can forbid the function from returning 1 in the off case. The existence of such a function means that "is this machine running?" is semidecidable - but it's surely not decidable by the machine itself.
328.
by yccs27 5y ago
I think you mean suing for trademark infringement (because FOSS has permissive copyright), or am I just confused?
329.
by yccs27 5y ago
I don't think cameldrv is saying that a first strike is really feasible right now. It's just that in the past, the second strike capability had layers upon layers to make 100% sure no war-hungry commander could delude themselves i
330.
by yccs27 5y ago
Sorry, is there any real argument here? > Cryptocurrencies are not anonymous A lot of them are certainly hard to trace, and are specifically trying to be. > and fiat currency is no shining star Indeed, but we go to great lengths to ma

More ›