I'm struggling to tie your comment to what the author is getting at. The advice to write thoughts down so you can stop thinking about them isn't offered as a way to achieve more efficient performance, it's to let yourself stop worrying.
I have no real opinion on the project in question but devotion is not a fungible, generically applicable resource you decide to apply to one issue or another. Run a test for whatever "IQ/g-factor/ability" handwave you're referencing on someone that loves their work and someone that doesn't.
They're similar, but at least with traditional pagination you have a very clear page transition boundary. You can manually loop through Next → Ctrl-F repeatedly much faster in my experience. With infinite scroll I'm left to work out my own "pages" by eye or some other mechanism, which is slower. Not by a lot, but still slow enough that I feel the friction.
(Edit: I emailed them and the article has been corrected.)
> a Library that contains 251,312,000 volumes of random sequences of letters (1,312,000 being the number of characters in any given book, each of which admits of twenty-five variations)
This seems to be a typo of sorts. I believe the correct number is 25^1312000 (sequence length m, n possible values for each, n^m distinct possible sequences).
Having hit this in the past, my guess is it was originally written with a superscript, then the text lost the formatting (leaving 251312000), and an editor left it as 251,312,000. Always worth checking final rendering for any text you expect to include superscripts.
I agree that it's a somewhat unfair generalization that paints a harsh picture. The core point of the argument still holds though, I think. A cynical response might be to say that the difference is the employer is accounting for longer-term replacement hiring/training costs, rather than short term value extraction. The optimization has new parameters but the structure of the relationship is still fundamentally transactional. I don't really think that's how things generally run, though.
Both parties should want a place that's enjoyable to work over the long term, yet sometimes the company will have to make hard decisions. Priorities slip or people are straight-up unable to avoid, say, laying off half the staff. Framing and context matter, as always. "Your employer is not on your side" is hopefully not a statement about the day-to-day interactions with your boss, or even a statement about company values, but it can serve as a reminder that there's always a line somewhere, and, intent aside, your best interests may simply fall on the wrong side.
Isn't the purpose of the example to make it hard to just trivially deduce y? If you know y = 1/(1 - t) then yeah it's undefined at t = 1. The example given doesn't seem to lend itself to that though, and a lesson is to know when your tooling isn't good enough.
You don't need --standalone to get only certificate files, by the way. You can also use certonly with --webroot and it'll work just fine. The certonly is the key part.
One thing I hope they make a little clearer is how to delegate cipher suite selection to certbot. I saw some discussion about making options-ssl-nginx.conf use, say, one of Mozilla's server-side configurations (whichever one you've configured). That way you could include options-ssl-nginx.conf and it'd auto-update over time.
I think you're confusing this list of attributes with a separate list used for rollouts and tree search. The ones above are definitely used for the neutral networks in the policy and value networks. See: "Extended Data Table 2: Input features for neural networks. Feature planes used by the policy
network (all but last feature) and value network (all features)."
Is there a source of the rules for colour choice? I had thought it would be another nigiri as in 1st game. Choosing it based on the 4th game's result would imply Lee Sedol would have been given white. Since he won with white, isn't it an unfair advantage in general? For instance, if it were 2-2 after the 4th game.
> the AI took its time when it thought it was ahead, and played exactly as aggressively as needed to win
Don't human professional players do exactly this? They care about playing the best move and winning. The difference is that AlphaGo is likely much more accurate at determining what "95% probability of winning" means in terms of gameplay. A human has a harder time judging the eventual outcome of a game, and so plays more "aggressively" (favouring point margins to account for variance in the estimate, etc.) than AlphaGo might.
It's worth remembering that AlphaGo was partially, initially trained on the previous game records of professional players, to form the basis of its policy network and so on. AlphaGo's victory over Lee Sedol is impressive, but it does rest on the combined total experience and long study of humans. That's why it's even more exciting to me to hear that one of the DeepMind team's next efforts will be to see how AlphaGo plays when it starts learning "from scratch".
I'd be interested in hearing about the process of returning to the District Court (or really any previous court) to defend on a fair use argument. Was that case not closed? Was it left pending until the question of copyright itself was addressed by the appeals court?
I don't know enough about client implementations to say whether it is unsaveable, but let's say it is: why would 308 exist? That suggests the HTTP spec folks believe it's fundamentally changed meaning. With new-301, new-302/303, 307 and 308, we'd cover each of the 4 cases. Seems to strongly suggested that's necessary.
302 is already bad, and 301 is already wrongly implement as RFC 2616 itself notes. Ultimately I doubt either is going to see a "fixed" implementation from a buggy one that's lasted as long as it has.