The original post of 11% is referring to leaked numbers about _MFU_, which has erroneously been re-reported as fraction of GPUs being used at all. The parent post is trying to correct this misconception.
> BTW the reporter looks like Cotten Hill if he was real, and actually fought in all those wars. I'm quite surprised they had him hosting the video. I'm curious what decisions led to this.
I hope positively surprised :) That's Paul Carter - he's a regular presenter on the BBC, particularly their tech show "BBC Click". Here's a nice interview (https://disabilityhorizons.com/2019/09/paul-carter-journalis...) he gave to Disability Horizons a few years ago about his experiences.
And one of the interesting (and hard) computer science problems is how to turn an arbitrary einsum expression into the most efficient series of operations (transpose, matmul, etc.) available in hardware kernels. This is mentioned in the post under "How Contractions Are Actually Computed".
There was actually a lot of pushback against the austere aesthetic by government ministers - they wanted fancy looking photo banners and pretty things. This was pushed back on in the name of making something functional the prioritizes users.
Honestly this sort of climate & environment tokenism frustrates me - spending a lot of energy trying to reduce and elimate things that barely matter (or even actually make things worse by displacement), while ignoring the big ticket items. At best it's innumerate, at worst it's greenwashing.
Harry Nyquist isn't exactly an unknown engineer who doesn't have his own achievements, though - not sure why people are saying he would be fired in a modern company!
What was remarkable is how Facebook's Threads app jumped straight to being full of advertisers and hucksters - they didn't think that maybe the right way to bootstrap a social network would be to make it full of authentic conversations, at least to start with.
Social media owners wanted all the benefits of superscale communities with none of the responsibilities - it isn't surprising that moderation got worse.
Reddit vaguely has a workable approach with subreddits, but it's still high variance, and they have to discourage long-lived comment threads.
I'm not going to detail challenges in medical ML - the literature can do that. But just to mention one that other people haven't that goes beyond just precision-recall: algorithms can be biased based on variance in physiology (e.g. more accurate for men), and understanding how an algorithm is biased is very important for the person interpeting the information, who should be a trained doctor.
And it doesn't matter what his credentials are, that's appeal to authority. If he thinks this should be used and trusted by people for decision making, then he should submit it to independent peer review and regulatory approval.
Thermometers are well understood, simple devices, and there are other complementary checks (e.g. does my forehead feel hot) if they fail.
This project might lead to people thinking they're in the clear and not seek appropriate medical treatment, or be overtreated due to an error. You should always talk to a qualified doctor if you're concerned about your health, and not use projects like these for decision making.
What peer review or regulatory approval process has this been through? Seems pretty irresponsible -- there are many notorious pitfalls encountered with ML for medical imaging. You shouldn't play with people's lives.
There's a responsibility under refugee conventions to take on people needing asylum. The conflation of them with illegal immigration is quite ridiculous. The UK is a rich country (~6th highest in the world), we should shoulder some of the (small) burden that we're asked to - many other, poorer, countries take on much higher refugee burdens.
Funny how when confronted with an article that gives a clear, unambiguous demonstration of how patriarchy negatively affects women, you come up with two weak articles that supposedly demonstrate cases where women were advantaged (they weren't). From that, I'm led to believe that maybe the opposite actually isn't more common than I think.
Maybe you don't actually think that the issue in the Tokyo medical school was such a big deal after all?