The idea of functional core is cool. I find domain-driven design a better guide for implementation. In a nut shell, there are three types of objects: value, entity, and service. Both value and entity are functional and stateless objects. A service object maps between stateless objects and may cross the domain boundary (such as network, IO, etc). When I do this in java, a service object would have interfaces returning CompletableFuture of Value or Entity objects.

InfoQ has a very nice summary of DDD book: https://www.infoq.com/minibooks/download/domain-driven-desig...

This is the github repo featured in the video: https://github.com/bf4/toot

Im in seattle. Where can I find japanese coffee? :p

Try a shakerato at Cafe Ladro. Not japanese coffee, but the shakerato is mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

There should be mentions about CAP theorem, and tradeoffs about consistency vs availability. Sometimes you dont care as much about CAP-consistency than availability or scalability.

I found this equally true for the other side of argument too. Some people choose to ignore that Polymorphsim is a dynamic typed behavior. (Its general being multiple dispatch.) And the faith to compiler seems not come from the understanding of what a compiler is. The author of the original post doesnt seem to recognize Java is also a slow, interpreted language. Haha.

oh wow. like a real time streetview monitoring the society?

Seems like it, the captured photos (in 360 degrees) will be compared within milliseconds with the list of the wanted criminals in the central database. Even when the car is moving with 120 kmph.

What's the false positive rate? I have a feeling that the base rate fallacy is going to make this technology far too interesting.

Not exactly a technical answer...

does the Chinese government really care? I ask because this is the type of thing that only enters a conversation when 'effectiveness'/'accuracy' becomes a discussion down the line. I doubt that China gives a s* frankly, which makes this even scarier...the data used to show it works will like be bad by design.

It's a quantum leap in surveillance tech -- the latency for nation-wide tracking of individuals will be phenomenally reduced. HUMINT resources can be more effectively allocated and target acquisition times can be reduced.

That said, the false positive rate is guaranteed to be high at first but the tech will be improved, furthermore the data will be correlated with other's rather than sole-sourced.

Sure they won't mind if there's collateral damage, but it's useless if it wastes time and effort by leading to the wrong person too often.

The Chinese state can throw basically unlimited resources at dealing with false positives. Doesn't seem like a problem for them.

Any place that uses the death penalty as quickly and frequently as China isn't too concerned about false positives.

Really important question, but unfortunately the article doesn't mentions it. What do mention is that for a successful identification only the three-quarter of the face is needed.

Would this work just as well on western faces as asian faces?

We published a paper on this a few years ago! Short answer: algorithms exhibit different accuracies on different races, genders, and ages.

B. F. Klare, M. J. Burge, J. C. Klontz, R. W. Vorder Bruegge and A. K. Jain, "Face Recognition Performance: Role of Demographic Information," in IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 1789-1801, Dec. 2012.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA556941

Computers certainly can be racist when it comes to visual recognition tasks. Different races do look different, after all. For example, there have been several cases of face tracking software failing to detect black people.

In the case I think you're referencing, they were detected, just not as people.

It's a bit of a cop-out just to say, "shucks, computers do the darnedest things!" Humans coded, tested, and deployed that service. They let something fall through the cracks, the awful implications of which detract quite a bit from all the good the service might ever accomplish.

There are a bunch of different examples out there, just search for "face detection black people." In one example, Google Photos tagged a pair of unfortunate folks as gorillas. In another, HP had some webcams that tracked faces but couldn't track black people. Kinect had a similar problem. Nikon had a "did someone blink?" message that produced a lot of false positives with Asian people.

My point isn't to excuse it, and indeed I'm not even trying to address the moral dimensions of it. My point is just that if this is a Chinese product developed for use in China, it's entirely possible that it won't work well on non-Asian faces without additional work.

Sorry, you're right. I must have been aggressively misunderstanding in this case.

That's alright. I didn't know about the gorilla case until I went looking for it there, so that's something I learned.

Don't worry, anyone not looking Asian enough is automatically suspicious.

Someone has to program them.

We had Godel on the limitation of logic and Turing on the limitation of computation. I think AI will only change the way human calls intelligence. We used to call people who can mentally calculate large numbers genius. Lots of that has to be re-defined.

Ban the sea trade and the tea. History repeats.

I stil think it would be better to guide programming using principles, not practices. To avoid fragile code, remember the open closed principle. To avoid wrong abstraction, think single responsibility and substitution principle. The author is right about interface segregation. :)

Pay $10 to become VIP level one. It removes ads in browser. $20 for VIP II: rendering css on your page. $30 for VIP III: able to run javascript. $40 for ES5 support.