It's interesting that there are essentially no pictures of the actual device anywhere on this page (except for a lone image, from the back of a user's head, where all you can see is the strap and the edge of the front).
Another ISSDC alum here, but from a little more than a decade earlier. It really was a unique experience. I remember the finals at Kennedy Space Center fully exercised the extent of your mental and physical stamina both. It also delivered lots of surprisingly applicable lessons for startup life around coordinating technical teams in high-stress, high-stakes environments.
I used to work on solar power plants and solar tracking technology back in the late 2000s. Even back then, I remember frequently discussing that "eventually panels will be cheap enough that we'll just wallpaper the world...". It's really nice to see that coming true.
Lordy, I clicked on this, fully expecting a discussion of a shape-pattern in the board game of Go, and somehow didn't have a thought in my mind for the real, completely different, meaning.
This reminds me of "trompe l'oeil foods"... dishes that appear to be one thing, but are another entirely. Or maybe optical illusions more generally.
I wanted to actually build first-hand intuition on all of the choices around hyperparameter choices, activation functions, network architectures, etc. So I've been rigorously exploring them by training and testing models off of the mnist dataset.
Coming up soon: vision transformers, depth-of-architecture on CNNs, batch size investigations, and more.
Let me know if any of you have any suggestions of things to investigate next!
I'm all for innovative ideas in supporting families and children, but the examples from the article hardly count as "successfully reversing fertility declines".
- Nagi, Japan. TFR: 2.95 (replacement rate is ~2.1). Astonishing. This is the only true success in the article.
- Nagareyama, Japan. TFR: 1.5. At this rate, the population will drop by ~25% every generation.
- South Tyrol, Italy. TFR: 1.64. Marginally better than Nagareyama. Noticeably better than the rest of Italy (TFR: 1.2), but still a population in strong decline.
- Czechia. TFR: 1.6 (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...). Better than the European median, but not exceptional. Roughly on a par with Lithuania (1.63), Belgium (1.59), and the UK (1.57). Noticeably behind France (1.79). None of these countries at such TFRs are even capable of maintaining their population at a stable level, and should all be regarded as undergoing some level of population collapse.
That sounds crazy, and amazing. As I've now got a kid of my own who might eventually be interested, could you point out _which_ intensive wilderness school in Washington that is? I did some googling, but wasn't able to find it.
I'm reasonably good friends with Windell & Lenore, and I think "gobbled up" is not the right way to look at it.
It's my understanding that they've known the folks at Bantam for some time now, and that given how hard it can be to run a physical product company (especially one that does some in-house manufacturing for your own products!) in the bay area, that they're looking forward to having such niceties as 'pto'.
They're really excellent people, and made a huge difference to me when I first moved to the bay area, so while it's sad to see them leave, I understand it, and hope this leads to a better situation all around for them.
Doesn't really work this way. A lot of the wonkiness in SR is tied to the fact that the speed of light is the same, measured in _any_ reference frame.
So, say you're on earth and you measure the speed of light... you find that it's c (~3x10^8 m/s).
Now you get on a spaceship and accelerate to 0.5c with respect to earth, and you measure the speed of light relative to your spaceship... still c!
In this way, you can't really define a reference frame with a speed "the same as the speed of light". And if you try, you'll run into nasty infinities in all your equations that will cause them to blow up and stop being useful.
For reference, though I now work in tech, I have a physics degree from a top-10 worldwide university, and reviewing linear algebra on math academy has not only been great to re-learn things I've forgotten, I'm confident that it's taught me at least a few things that I've never encountered before.
So yeah, it's legit in my book.
I also think that one of the reasons it gets such rave reviews/etc from folks using it is that it's, frankly, not that well known yet, and we users who like it _really_ like it, so we want to see it stick around and grow further for our own use too!
One more vote for feedly from me! One of the few online subscriptions I don't mind at all paying for. I especially like the ability to auto-generate email addresses for newsletters to "turn them into" RSS feeds within feedly.
At the risk of sounding like a shill, have you tried Feedly? (feedly.com)
I switched over to it ages ago after the death of google reader, and it's held up remarkably well for me, and now also includes welcome features for, e.g., intaking email newsletters, conducting automatic content-specific web searches, etc into the same RSS-reader UI.
Ignore all the other answers and skip straight to this one. Math Academy is amazing. It's got everything you could want (mastery based learning, knowledge graph dependencies, assessment tests, a hint of gamification to encourage you to learn more, even spaced repetition reviews) and its coverage and depth of the material is _excellent_.
For specific example, I've literally studied linear algebra probably close to a dozen times in my life, including full courses from two different universities whose names end with "institute of technology", and I'm currently using math academy to review the subject again. I've already encountered several things that are straight up new to me, and the presentation/practice and spaced repetition review of the things I just never managed to lock into my long term memory is already helping me finally own them.
When I first heard about this, I thought "oh man, how dumb! they're just going to make inflation worse!", and then I read more of the details.
By my understanding, the case for stimulus checks leading to inflation comes when the stimulus checks are paid for by printing more money (thus increasing the overall money supply).
This program is not that. This program is providing a tax refund from CA's tax surplus. No new money is being created. The only change is who gets to decide how the money is being spent? (e.g., the state? or the people?)
If CA could have seen the future, they could have achieved the same end by lowering taxes this last year for people in an equivalent amount. Would anyone seriously argue that lowering taxes is inflationary? How about the contrapositive? Would anyone seriously argue that we should fight inflation by _raising taxes_?
Could you clarify a little more about what you mean by this? Tomato skins are definitely hard to cut with a dull knife (without crushing the tomato flesh underneath), so many people will default to using a serrated knife for them, hoping that the scalloped edge grabs and tears the skin.
That said, a well sharpened kitchen knife should have no problem at all with tomato skins.
"Sharpness" is related to the physical size and radius of curvature of the apex of the blade, combined with the angle of the terminal bevel. [1][2][3]
Chipping of any sort almost certainly tends to erode the sharpness for many reasons, not least of which is that a sharp edge is a very low entropy state (compared to a dulled / chipped / etc edge...).
VG-10 steel is considered "entry level" in terms of high end steels. [4] It was first introduced in production knives in the mid-90s, almost thirty years ago! [5] And there has been significant progress in materials since then.
Almost all mid- and high-end knives these days are cut from blanks via an industrial laser or waterjet cutter.