Second that. There were articles a year or two ago about TVs trying to connect to any open Wi-Fi they can find, without you asking them. But hopefully LG wouldn’t go that far.

At that point you just open up the back of the TV and drive a screwdriver into the WiFi chip.

Goodbye warranty

most papers have slides with audio, and some, including the awards ones will have short frontal talks. this will be released at some point after the conference, but right now looks like you'd have to be registered to see it.

Tbh, do not quite get the excitement around this picture. It was staged, and the stunt doesn’t appear to be particularly complex. A lot of logistics, sure. But seems like all there is to it is that someone just bothered to do it. So not clear what’s the additional value over photoshop.

> So not clear what’s the additional value over photoshop.

I think photography might just not be for you (nothing wrong with that)

I like photography doubly so as a craft, and forgive me if a heavily shopped stacked comp isn't making my heart quicken.

Care to explain? I actually do take pictures with a camera from time to time.

Again, this was staged. Also, when Tom Cruise performed his own stunts in Mission Impossible, that value I can understand. That is better than photoshop. Because they were hard stunts. This on the other hand seems to be standard.

The difference is THEY DID IT.

Photoshop is not real.

This was real.

This was recorded.

The value is in the authenticity and execution of a cool idea no one else has done before.

Try to reproduce it yourself, bro.

A lot of logistics, as mentioned. If you’d like to explain what’s in there beyond that, I’ll be glad to hear.

the novelty, you didn't do or think of that before. It was well executed and novelty.

You can't do it, you also didn't think of it before.

What value are you adding?

This isn't about me though, no point in making this personal. I'm just trying to understand what's interesting about this picture. You are saying that just because nobody took that particular combination before, it is enough of a reason, right?

What is interesting is the novelty on itself, but you already refused to understand that. You can't force someone to understand what they refuse because they think there's something else.

Is there a way to listen to the actual content? This is only a brief summary of the radio show.

This is funny, because I recently descided to try Pocket, owned by Mozilla, and it adds

>?utm_source=pocket_saves

to all saved links.

I never understood that feature and just hide it. We already have bookmarks right?

you mean Pocket? I was wondering how well the search there works. Turns out it is possible to search the pages themselves, but only with paid subscription. In the free version it only searches the titles and urls, like the Bookmarks.

Do you mean the boosting graphs in Fig. 1, 4 of that paper?

It looks though that they have a double descent on the train set too, so it might not be the same phenomenon.

Nevertheless, good to know, thanks for sharing! I knew both papers but never thought giving much attention to such details of the figures of the 1998 one. Is the connection between the papers well known, i.e. something people talk about?

I wasn't aware of it. I think it's mentioned in the 2016 paper that popularised the term, and I saw the date and went to read it.

Yeah, I do mean those graphs, it seems to be the same phenomenon at least.

This is like a workshop at a usual conference, no proceedings, right?

I haven't followed the original debate, so not sure if this was a part of the argument against LeCun, but it could be:

The issue is LeCun makes an argument about fundamental research, but is not exactly a fundamental researcher, and does not necessarily represent fundamental research.

As an analogy, if you are a researcher of general chemistry, persumably there is no issue. However, if your research is specifically about chemistry for improving bullets, and you produce working prototypes, then some might say you should be subject to some regulation as a part of the arms industry. I'm not saying this is the right thing, just that such a point could be made. LeCun is arguably much more the second kind of researcher than the first. The research he represents is "better ways to recognize faces", not "statistical properties of natural images".

To take another example, there is an enormous amount of regulation in, say, medical research. And in this case there are good reasons for that. Gebru could be possibly arguing for something similar in say face recognition.

Isn't it strange that the periods mentioned are integer multiples of days?

Don't known much about astronomy, but day as a unit of time is just a constant specific to our particular solar system. I guess a function of the sizes of the sun and the planets here. There should be nothing special about it. To think that 500M light years away there is something that has similar time proportions to be observed here as periodic is amazing by itself.

The period is 16.35 +/-0.18 days [1] so it's not exactly 16 days. The unit days is just the next best convenient unit to use for this range of time scale. 392 hours +/- 4 hours just isn't as intuitive as 16 days.

So the period is neither an integer multiple of days, nor exactly the same each time. There's some small variance involved - about 1%.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRB_180916.J0158%2B65

Not sure about that specific function. But the circle of ideas to which this function belongs can be loosely described as "how do we deal with non-smooth objects"? How do we construct them, measure and use them. Some such objects are sometimes called fractals, this function is a simple example.

There are concrete application examples, but in general one guy that was particularly interested in fractals in the real world was Mandelbrot. He published several influential books on fractals in nature (and in finance). Another famous name is Taleb, although imho he's much more a populariser than a researcher.