> You'll probably leave your home at dark in the morning and will return again at dark.
That's what happened in my high school years in France, which still changes clocks twice a year. Wake up in complete night, take the bus and wait for classes to start under yellow lightbulbs, then go out in the sun for the first time in the day at noon.
I don't understand why people are afraid that this will bring what was already happening.
Note that this won't work with reasonably performant CNNs. Passing an image batch through a large-ish ResNet takes half a second on our GPUs, several minutes at full load on CPU. This makes training infeasible, and most models small enough to work on CPU are so far from state-of-the-art that you can't do any worthwhile computer vision research with them.
Yes, but note on the other hand that simpler infrastructures such as one-digit-wide-GB GPUs you could buy and install on your workstation could be similarly frustrating, because you may easily encounter their limits (as in, "I got this semi-specialized equipment and I cannot get an output above 1024x768?!").
So, while one is learning, the case could be for being conservative and work directly on available tools, which will be revealing on some scalability requirements, also optimistically: you do not need a full lab to do (reasonable) linear regression, nor to train networks for OCR, largely not to get acquainted with the various techniques in the discipline.
When the needs push, it sometimes will not be just high-end consumer equipment to solve your problem, so on the side of hardware already some practical notion of actual constraints of scale will help orientation. Because you do not need a GPU for most pathfinding (nor for getting a decent grasp of the techniques I am aware of), and when you will want to produce new masterpieces from a Rembrandt "ROM construct"¹ (and much humbler projects) a GPU will not suffice.
(¹reprising the Dixie Flatline module in William Gibson's Neuromancer)
...I am curious, now that I know about Fabrice Bellard's LibNC (bellard.org/libnc), if that «image batch through a large-ish ResNet» would be faster using this library - which can work on both CPU and CUDA...
It's great, but how can one trust the unofficial clients? They aren't from a well-known developer, and AFAIK, you can't check that the build is from the same code as the GitHub repo.
That site is half hypotheses made up by the author, and half irrelevant things like "this study proves that you won't die sooner if you cut 2 hours of sleep". Nothing in there indicates that sleeping less won't lead to less physical ability.
I only skimmed for references after the comparison with junk food, hunger, and cavemen. It truly sounds like they are making this up as they go along.
For example all-cause mortality in the linked there biggest meta-analysis is actually lower at 6 than 8 hours (graph[0]) and only slightly higher than at the optimal point. This isn't the same as general ability but it's likely correlated and all the evidence seems to point in the same direction.
Where are these ads? I never see pornographic ads in my daily browsing.
> The dopamine response to seeing porn is similar to crack (4).
That doesn't prove anything about harmfulness. I think it was already obvious that humans are hardwired to be attracted to sex. Nothing in these links suggests that this response creates to an addiction similar to hard drugs.
> Pornography is categorically more dangerous to society than ads, tracking, and privacy invasions.
He was making a point about the proliferation of porn. It's not so bad if your settings turn off NSFW on various sites. However even then, it's often in your face. I won't go into details though.
Porn isn't sex. The repeated exposure to a huge volume of media can't be compared to a physical experience. It's more comparable to a drug.
"yourbrainonporn.com" is about as reliable as quoting D.A.R.E. for information on drugs. In other words, it holds literally no weight and is likely religion-driven "family values" propaganda.
Just to correct myself, the page I linked to is actually about making the case for the link between dopamine and addiction. The effect of porn on the brain is made indirectly.
A lot of other things are also highly addictive though, like social media. So where do you draw the line? Also, why are some people so much more addicted than others?
That seems like equivocation on the word "unavoidable." There's a big difference between saying "ads are unavoidable because they are displayed on nearly every computing device you use" and "porn is unavoidable because people actively want to see it."
Nope, by any measure, smart kids are way smarter than most adults I encounter. People who throw basic logic out the window because they want to believe that something is a certain way for emotional reasons often behave worse than kids.
Not all kids of course, but I think I've known more reasonable kids than reasonable adults overall.
> Stupid people are happier then smart people.
I know people who are much smarter than me and seem genuinely happy all the time.
I think it's more about how strong one's social mesh is, how happy people in one's entourage are, and one's own approach to life. If you're very smart and surrounded by smart people who you also like, you're happy.
That's what happened in my high school years in France, which still changes clocks twice a year. Wake up in complete night, take the bus and wait for classes to start under yellow lightbulbs, then go out in the sun for the first time in the day at noon.
I don't understand why people are afraid that this will bring what was already happening.