Besides the course you are taking (is it an in-person class, or online perhaps?), are there any resources for learning Sanskrit that you'd recommend? I have the same long term goal as you! I'm looking to self-study the language since there aren't local courses where I live.
My course is the famous one by Samskritabharati (https://www.samskritabharati.in/). It's a correspondence program, but they do conduct introductory contact classes as well. They also deliver materials overseas. Samskritabharati also has online video lectures (http://www.samskritashikshanam.in/), but they are in Hindi.
There's also the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan in India (http://www.sanskrit.nic.in/) who have a two year introductory correspondence course. I believe they deliver overseas as well. I did the first year of their course with the help of a tutor I hired from urbanpro.com, but (as with all things GoI) I found the experience to be far less satisfactory than Samskritabharati's.
Two "Western"-style books that I would recommend are:
* Devavanipravesika (An Introduction to the Sanskrit Language) by Robert Goldman
* Samskrita-SubodhinI (A Sanskrit Primer) by Madhav Deshpande.
One thing I want to do is to work through these books once I am done with Samskritabharati just to cement the things I have learnt.
The nice thing about Samskritabharati's course is that it doesn't just teach the language, but it also introduces you in a gentle (but unapologetic!) way to the whole tradition that flourished through it's medium. They also publish books in Sanskrit, which may also help you in your education.
Beautifully presented! Thanks for sharing, these notes are inspiring, I especially like the simplicity of the presentation's design paired with interactive elements. Too often I find material with the latter to be extremely busy. As someone interested in instruction, I'm taking notes from this!
How much money do you realistically see this generating? With how much effort for marketing and polishing? I would be impressed if OP could calculate even 1 dollar per hour and come out with a profit.
I never (no longer, that is) see tweets that other people like. I think there is a setting to disable them from appearing now. At the very least, whenever one appears you can click the little arrow next to it and select "see less often" (or equivalent).
>Do you want an unsorted list of all websites that contain your keywords?
Yes, because then I could apply my own ranking. More realistically, it would be useful as various web services could select from among various forms of ranking as desired by their users. Right now, the internet as a collective is at the whim of the particular ranking Google elects to use. If they don't like you, too bad, you lose.
What's more, I would even settle for a sorted list of all websites that contain my keywords, but Google provides no such thing. Google's algorithm has changed significantly in just the past few years, making it very difficult to do research of unusual topics, no matter how broad or specific you make your search. For instance, just today I was looking up information related to an event in the life of Andre Gide. After you get through a few pages (maybe 150 or so useful links from the grab bag of what appears), Google makes it such that you can explore no further. Entering a new term with a slight variation can yield a set of another ~150 results with no overlap with the previous search's results, making any kind of exhaustive research quite frustrating.
> Yes, because then I could apply my own ranking. More realistically, it would be useful as various web services could select from among various forms of ranking as desired by their users. Right now, the internet as a collective is at the whim of the particular ranking Google elects to use. If they don't like you, too bad, you lose.
Since Taleb delights in make his mathematical writing as opaque as possible, it's a useful read in just to know exactly the claims that Taleb is making in his paper.
In regards to the very specific claim that the volatility of an option's price decreases asymptotically as the uncertainty of its underlying increases? No, that's entirely correct.
In regards to Nate Silver's forecasts more generally? I don't know - it's hard to get past the tone of his arguments to understand what his actual disagreement is.
He is wrong in that the sentence of his that I quoted contained two statements: "when the volatility of the underlying security increases, [1] arbitrage pressures push the corresponding binary option to trade closer to 50% and [2] become less variable over the remaining time to expiration." His calculation proves [1], but it's [2] that is the basis of his criticism of Silver. And it's just not true, as can be seen even in a simple random-walk model.
"[2] become less variable over the remaining time to expiration ... And it's just not true, as can be seen even in a simple random-walk model."
Dear @aubreyclayton, I'm genuinely interested in seeing how you arrived at this conclusion. Would you kindly share the proof, or at least explain the logic behind it. Thank you.
If that's foreign to you, you might be interested in this write-up I did about election-forecasting in which I considered the same example, just in discrete time rather than continuous time:
http://nautil.us/issue/70/variables/how-to-improve-political...
The basic idea is that if you increase the volatility of a random-walk process, say by making the step-sizes larger, that won't actually make the probability of finishing above where you started any less (or more) volatile. The higher volatility means that from any given starting point your final resting place is more dispersed, but you're also more likely to range farther from home as you go. The two effects exactly cancel. Taleb's critique misses the second part of that.
No, it is not just interpolating. The underlying algorithm uses machine learning by applying a trained deep neural network. So there is value added besides a mere upscale.
You're ultimately right, though, and that a true HD is only going to come from the raw film content. What the neural network gives us are essentially plausible higher-res hallucinations.
Edit: as per the other comment, if the original exists only on video and not film, perhaps this is the best we're going to get.
> Edit: as per the other comment, if the original exists only on video and not film, perhaps this is the best we're going to get.
I don't think that's quite right, at least it doesn't jibe with what the DS9Doc people have been doing (which consists partly of remastering pieces of DS9 scenes):
I think the footage really was on film, but the issue was that it was composited with low-quality CGI effects, or something like that. So you can rescan the film, but you have to redo all the compositing (and probably with your own models because I'm guessing the original CGI didn't look that good). That's why a DS9 remaster is so expensive.
That's still interpolating, by the definitions I know.
The main difference here is that the interpolation algorithm on your TV is online. It's handling 30 frames per second, over 9 million pixels per second. Doing the interpolation offline (ahead of time), you can take as long as you want, look at multiple frames to try to make better guesses, try multiple things and use some fitness measure to pick a winner, even a frame or a pixel at a time.
No, if I interpolate a sequence 200, 400, 600, ... I might get 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700. I've not added info. If I look at real world situations and find that whilst the figures fall at the even hundreds it's more realistic that they fall in a range from 20 to 30 points below the hundred on odd-hundreds. Then I have added information, albeit statistically, and the resulting sequence like 200, 287, 400, 475, 600, 672 is no longer raw interpolation.
In this case they're using machine learning to add additional information about textures that isn't in the footage broadcast. They can add frames by interpolation, but the ML texturising and detailing is not interpolation.
Starting with a blob, if you interpolate you get a smoother blob, with this process you get a more structured figure.
It's more like hallucination than anything. You're just forward-projecting your assumptions on what things ought to look like and hallucinating detail that just isn't there.
It can still look nicer than naive upscaling though.
Is there any evidence for this? Showing bad 480p DVD rips alongside 1080p upresed video isn't really a fair comparison -- comparing it to a real TV upscaler's output would be fairer. And honestly, even the unfair comparsion doesn't show a whole lot of benefits to me.
Are you asking why did I change the exposure? Because I did, I was playing around. It was the comparison I had uploaded, I have a copy without on a different computer.
The article is paywalled, unless you have access through a university or other library.
The high price you'd pay for paywalled papers goes in large part to the publisher for no real tangible benefit. Most research, and likely the linked article, are funded either directly or indirectly through public funds like taxes. So it is especially obnoxious to see an interesting article like the one linked be locked down.
As for why it's bad etiquette on the front page of HN, the free-and-open ethos common among hackers (at least, old school ones...) would usually see someone link directly to a pdf, instead of this.
>Freedom of speech is a right provided by the constitution
No, it is not. It explicitly is not. Freedom of speech is one right among many other unstated rights held in common by the people. The first amendment merely prohibits Congress from passing a law that restricts it. The wording is clear that this freedom is something that exists inherently beyond the scope of the Constitution, and is certainly not "provided" by the document. We naturally have rights such as freedom of speech. It is from institutions like the government that restrictions are placed on them.
Also, the 9th amendment was included precisely to clarify and codify the fact that the Constitution, in enumerating the rights, is not itself granting those rights or even stating that these are the only rights people have.
The 9th Amendment does not mean that Twitter must allow your speech. In fact, at the time the 9th Amendment was drafted, it didn't even require the states to grant you a right to free expression; that right wasn't incorporated onto the states until Reconstruction.
> that right wasn't incorporated onto the states until Reconstruction.
Much later, actually; while the Supreme Court grounded incorporation in the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, which was part of Reconstruction, the doctrine of incorporation was articulated and developed in the 20th Century, starting, IIRC, with Gitlow v. New York in 1925.
Yes, it is. The idea of the authors (and those ratifying the amendment) that a moral right to freedom of speech exists independently may be (all or part of) the reason the Constitution expressly provides and protects the legal right to freedom of speech, by the legal right is provided by the Constitution.
