Readit NewsNeither is great, but at least the megacorp has a financial incentive to maintain some of my privacy.
Sounds like some crazy level of meta where your brilliance is applicable to any pair of mega corps...which I don't buy.
Geoff Hinton was a early member of this group of MIT, UT, UCSD, and CMU psychologists, CogScientists, and CS researchers
The core research of the PDP group is what became CNNs, which are what truly enabled LLMs (as most can trace their origins to the work done on BERT)
One of Hinton's earliest papers in the space: https://stanford.edu/~jlmcc/papers/PDP/Chapter1.pdf
Not trolling, genuinely impressed.
I feel like an application like collaborative editing would send so much requests that billing would have to be insane, right? Even for my hobby size projects which I would like to publish for fun, terrify me with possible usage costs.
Their hibernation web socket thingy is great, but the real thing that scares me is the overall web socket message cost.
You still have to protect the DO through some sort of auth and/or rate limits.
Don’t see how any of these issues are unique to DOs.
One hypothesis is that there is no spooky action. One particle was 'always' going to resolve one way, likewise with the other. Like inspecting 'heads' on one side of a coin 'forces' 'tails' onto the other side.
I accept that this coin-hypothesis has been disproved by people who actually know what they're talking about.
But to me, this implies that you should build your spooky FTL message by transmitting "Measured" rather than heads/tails:
Have an array of 8 particles at both locations. They represent measured/unmeasured rather than heads/tails. You got yourself a one-way single-use FTL byte.
For this to not work (which I'm sure it doesn't) you'd need to be unable to distinguish between a measured/unmeasured particle. To me this is equivalent of being unable to prove that there is anything spooky going on.
So how can you have it both ways? How can you theoretically know that something was sent when measurement itself would destroy any evidence of something being sent?
But you don’t.
If I have the entangled version of the MEASURED byte and measure, only I know I’ve measured it. The corresponding MEASURED particles on your side still appear fuzzy to you because you haven’t measured them. If you measure them, they will reveal their state which correlates to mine BUT that doesn’t tell you if I have already measured my side of byte or not.
In effect, the heads/tail coin on your side is still spinning even after I have grabbed my side of the tail/head coin.
You may get HEAD as your result but that only tells you that I will get TAIL when I measure on my side, not that I have measured it already.
If you and I agree to measure at the same time, then I will know your state by determining mine but this is the same as knowing your state because I know how a two sided coin works, not FTL.
Is there a central place for in-the-know CSS wizards to post and discuss their most recent next level demo?
Years ago there was something called like CSS Zen Garden or something but times have moved on I think.
Lots of options here.
We need embeddings to give relatedness across axes like synonymity etc.
What is fructose doing extra here? It’s like productising copy&paste which every modern OS has, no?
The Indian press knows it is a bottom feeder and doesn’t try not to be which gives space for critical thought to emerge (even if it masked as extreme cynicism - “everyone is corrupt”) which results in extreme skepticism of everyone.