Besides the course you are taking (is it an in-person class, or online perhaps?), are there any resources for learning Sanskrit that you'd recommend? I have the same long term goal as you! I'm looking to self-study the language since there aren't local courses where I live.
Beautifully presented! Thanks for sharing, these notes are inspiring, I especially like the simplicity of the presentation's design paired with interactive elements. Too often I find material with the latter to be extremely busy. As someone interested in instruction, I'm taking notes from this!
I never (no longer, that is) see tweets that other people like. I think there is a setting to disable them from appearing now. At the very least, whenever one appears you can click the little arrow next to it and select "see less often" (or equivalent).
>Do you want an unsorted list of all websites that contain your keywords?
Yes, because then I could apply my own ranking. More realistically, it would be useful as various web services could select from among various forms of ranking as desired by their users. Right now, the internet as a collective is at the whim of the particular ranking Google elects to use. If they don't like you, too bad, you lose.
What's more, I would even settle for a sorted list of all websites that contain my keywords, but Google provides no such thing. Google's algorithm has changed significantly in just the past few years, making it very difficult to do research of unusual topics, no matter how broad or specific you make your search. For instance, just today I was looking up information related to an event in the life of Andre Gide. After you get through a few pages (maybe 150 or so useful links from the grab bag of what appears), Google makes it such that you can explore no further. Entering a new term with a slight variation can yield a set of another ~150 results with no overlap with the previous search's results, making any kind of exhaustive research quite frustrating.
No, it is not just interpolating. The underlying algorithm uses machine learning by applying a trained deep neural network. So there is value added besides a mere upscale.
You're ultimately right, though, and that a true HD is only going to come from the raw film content. What the neural network gives us are essentially plausible higher-res hallucinations.
Edit: as per the other comment, if the original exists only on video and not film, perhaps this is the best we're going to get.
The article is paywalled, unless you have access through a university or other library.
The high price you'd pay for paywalled papers goes in large part to the publisher for no real tangible benefit. Most research, and likely the linked article, are funded either directly or indirectly through public funds like taxes. So it is especially obnoxious to see an interesting article like the one linked be locked down.
As for why it's bad etiquette on the front page of HN, the free-and-open ethos common among hackers (at least, old school ones...) would usually see someone link directly to a pdf, instead of this.
>Freedom of speech is a right provided by the constitution
No, it is not. It explicitly is not. Freedom of speech is one right among many other unstated rights held in common by the people. The first amendment merely prohibits Congress from passing a law that restricts it. The wording is clear that this freedom is something that exists inherently beyond the scope of the Constitution, and is certainly not "provided" by the document. We naturally have rights such as freedom of speech. It is from institutions like the government that restrictions are placed on them.
Also, the 9th amendment was included precisely to clarify and codify the fact that the Constitution, in enumerating the rights, is not itself granting those rights or even stating that these are the only rights people have.
Exactly what I was wondering about -- couldnt illegitimate DMCA requests be an attack vector to shut down a public GitHub repo temporarily? There wasn't much to the quoted DMCA request.
Edit: I'm guessing there's enough in the redacted part of the notice to prove SC's identity. But I think the question of DMCA abuse remains.
If the researcher had done that -- queried every cellphone and published it -- I fully expect they'd receive the same treatment from law enforcement that weev and Aaron Swartz got, if not worse
An article with a title like this, people are only responding to the question (which is rhetorical anyway). The OP submission has only been up 1 hour at the time of this comment and the vast majority of the 100+ comments here are addressing only the title question or reactions to it. None mention Polanyi and few discuss the author's most salient points at the end of the article.
Not yet! I'm still on the hunt, but now I am searching for books. I suspect it will require checking out a few tomes from library to find what I'm looking for.
I was wishing for old-school keyword search just this morning! Nice synchronicity.
I must completely disagree with the other posters claiming that keyword searches are not useful. For niche research, they are extremely helpful or even necessary. Google and Bing have reached the point where it is impossible to do real, niche academic research on them. For instance, I had a very specific thing I was trying to look up involving medicine, religion, and Marco Polo.
Try searching for "marco polo doctors" on Google and witness it giving very counterintuitive, one-sided results that may align with the current zeitgeist of interest from people searching Google, but diverge completely with the aim of literal, precise keyword search needed by academics. I did work to improve or hone the search down, looking up Kublai Khan, doctors, atheism brings up blogspam articles on doctors and atheism, but scant results on the 13th century Mongol emperor's religious medical interest. Trying to narrow the search further by including variations on Cambulac, Cambaliech, trying to find any info beyond surface-level on John of Montecorvino and his retinue... all is impossible with search engines in 2018.
>your entire point rests upon the incorrect assumption that the other side isn't corrupt.
no it doesn't. Anyone's corruption should be exposed for the betterment of society.
Rather, it is your argument that solely depends on the belief that others ("the other side") MUST be guilty. I understand emotions run high to match the stakes since it was the presidential election after all, but you'll note I didn't make any value judgments either way. Just because we are convinced one party is guilty doesn't mean we should ignore evidence of another's corruption out of fairness.