Readit NewsIt shows how the FT is a 2D slice of the 3D LT in the s-domain.
Deleted Comment
The hardcoding approach says "This is a sign. 100% sure.".
The vector approach says "There's a hard to see stop sign around here, boost up the probability of anything stop-sign-ish a bunch".
The difference functionally is that nothing in the real world is ever 100% certain. So you should never tell any bayesian machine (which a neural network effectively is) that anything is 100% true.
The vector approach I outlined is far more general than the above though - it allows any behaviour of the car to be tweaked automatically or manually. location-specific vectors can be learned from data, and/or put in by operatives. The way the neural net trains, the meaning of a vector could 'evolve' too - for example, whenever a human puts in that there is a hidden stop sign, the neural net might learn that that means other human drivers might occasionally fail to see the sign and stop in those locations. Even though it had never witnessed a human failing to stop in this specific location, it has learnt that is part of the meaning of this vector.
After "resolving" the issue, then they can resume tolerating the normal probabilities.
In the US, it might be more of a precaution. In Europe, it could be more of a legal obligation. Either way, I doubt engineering has a say in the matter.
If you're aiming for end-to-end neural networks, you shouldn't have hard overlay facts like this. Ideally you get all the behaviour you need from curating training data, but if you can't do that the most you should have location specific info-vectors that nudge the network into making the right decision if needed. Such info-vectors can be used for all kinds of things, like "this city has aggressive drivers", "this street has a blind corner", "there's a dog at this house who loves to run under wheels", "this country drives on the other side of the road", etc.
WARNING: Crazy train off the tracks!
Evolution doesn't pretend to tell us about the social sciences.
The creationists who call other people "evolutionists" would like us to believe that strawman so that evolution can be wrong.
I really wish this trope would go away. If you live in an area prone to tornadoes and you "have no warning", then you're just not paying attention. We know tornadoes exist. We know where they tend to frequently occur. The local weather stations in those areas are pretty damn good with warnings. We know days ahead of time that the conditions will be right for potential activity. We can now see potential tornadoes before they are formed. We can track their paths with neighborhood cross street precision.
Nevermind the fact that there's a pretty good indicator when the sky turns dark and the weather changes. Thunder and lightning and wind are essentially the knocking on the door. It's not like it's a sunny day and a tornado just pops out of the sky to say hello.
To say no warning just means they are not paying attention. I don't know what the tornado activity is like where the BBC is from, but it is woefully out of date.
Debating total cost depends almost entirely on the particular grid in question. For all we know, those "nuclear fans'" estimates could be spot-on but completely irrelevant to you.
The falcon 9 succeed on it's first launch, it was not a test flight heavy program.
The falcon 1, SpaceX's only orbital rocket prior to the falcon 9, did fail on it's first three flights, however it was never intended to and that nearly bankrupt the company. They destroyed third party payloads on flights 1 and 3, because these were intended to work, not be test flights.
Long after it was in production the falcon 9 did begin a "test-flight" heavy program, but that was for developing the ability to recover boosters after they had successfully delivered a customer payload in an operational flight, not for developing the rocket itself.
Suppose that the eventual production vehicle has a fairly different design, a different name, and it succeeds on its first flight. Would it then have used the same methodology that resulted in Falcon 9?
I'm only asking rhetorically. The Ship of Theseus is an interesting philosophical question, but the way you define "methodology" shouldn't depend on your answer.
> this is WebP re-encoding of an already lossy compressed JPEG
Author is clearly passionate about imagery and quality, so why are they not re-encoding using the original file rather than a lossy copy?