The thing is: my mother bought an Apple device not to think about data, security, backups and all these "InternetS" things. She doesn't even know what hardware is. If she did, she might have bought an Android phone or something else :)
Well, since it's distributed / decentralized you wouldn't depend on a particular company (or service). This way you wouldn't need to worry about it being shut down.
Need legal advice ?
Call 505-842-5662! Jimmy McGill, a lawyer you can trust!
I tell you man, this money is yours, they can't take it from you! Call 505-842-5662 and you'll be a millionaire!
Do you need links or proofs if I tell you the sky is blue ?
OCR has been around for decades. This approach is only interesting if it improves OCR via NN. Would love to learn more about this process (the improvement, not the training...).
I do agree with you. Preaching the converted doesn't require that much effort.
Now to nuance a bit this over-simplistic sentence I just written: do you think I am interested in mathematics teaching? I did read the article anyway so you might be right but I felt a bit overwhelmed by all this "jargon" when an example would have been so simple to understand.
After all, Mr Minsky was a teacher, certainly a mighty good one :)
There is something quite interesting about the form of the article. While Mr Minsky talks about teaching using the "deck of cards method" and why it might not be the best approach if the child wants to advance to more complex subjects he also wants us to learn about his experiments (which are quite good!).
Having read the article I find it well written but WHAT THE HELL?! Why doesn't he use pictures? simple diagrams? "sexy" stuff?
It seems that I'm having the same problem as the child is having: the form does suck and it discourages me from reading a boatload of articles like this one. If the presentation of the subject was better I could read 10 more and maybe, finally, take an interest in "teaching methods" that would lead me to being curious and accept any "bad form" of content :)
Then meet me. I can also give you a list of french entrepreneurs that love Paris, France and hire a lot of people. Just look at Save, BlaBlaCar and Criteo.
Also, remember that our social system is the biggest VC in Europe, allowing thousand of entrepreneurs to keep their "old job salaries" while working on their own companies.
It seems to me you are just the typical example of "French Bashing" : always complaining and seeing the bad side of things.
Don't learn anything specific but be sure to be ready to learn everything when needed.
I had to learn linear algebra when I was a 3D engine developer, then I had to learn statistics (or maybe learn to understand the notations of it so I could use scientific papers in my work).
In the end I think it was best not to have lost hours, days, weeks of my time on things I "could have used". I find it best to be prepared to learn anything.
So ok, the website is cool and the technology is said to be something like 99.9999% better.
This might be a stupid question but I'm no nuclear engineer not a specialist about chemistry or physics but I wonder why a such "beautiful" idea would not be already used.
I've read the related wikipedia article about Molten Salt Reactors and I understand there are several problems about the technology: mostly corrosion and embrittlement.
So now I find myself asking this: did they fix those problems? The website copy suggests so. Can somebody explain how? I couldn't figure it out.
edit: clearly the team and company have quite legit credentials, MIT nuclear department etc... they must know what they're talking about. I just want to know if they've given details about the solution.
True, but humanitarian values do not need a last stand. So how do you discuss with someone being this radical with reasonable arguments? I don't feel like "you can't" is an answer :/
I read your articles and could add one myself but fail to find it : a published scientific paper about how smoking is good for your health because it makes you think about your health at some point (basically saying "don't trust everything science says"). I also agree with you that (most) people blindly following science but I don't feel like you are the kind of person I'm caricaturing (which is true for the sake of my description).
You seem to grasp the concept of critical thinking and I believe that's why you would object. To me talking about science implies critical thinking. Somebody having an argument with you about science without acknowledging the certainty of being wrong is not talking about science but pseudo-science. And so you end up discussing with a fanatic, which is not a discussion.
I'm not saying that English Lit experts are everywhere but I feel like they just do not trust "science lovers" to be capable of critical thinking.
edit: It's like you're asking "how to convince science fanatics that they can be wrong" and I'm asking "how to convince English Lit experts that I know science can be wrong but still think it matters"
Surely everybody knows an "English Lit expert" but even after reading this exquisite requiem to believers I still find it impossibly hard to argue with these people. It always feels like they are trying to make the last stand of humanitarian values against the dictat of science.
In all their glorious "everything science says will be as wrong as religion and you my friend are blindly following it" it seems they can't understand the basic principle of science advancing toward some kind of truth yet admitting it is -still- wrong.
I don't know if trying to convince someone who doesn't trust science - and to some extent, logical thinking - with mathematics really works. Sure it convinces me but does it matter?