This is a creative art project. Obviously, it doesn't work, and cannot work as designed. Most consumer night-vision cameras emit near-infrared light with LEDs at around 750-900nm, which is the wavelength this spaulder is designed to pick up. This is the same wavelength of EM radiation your TV remote uses. If your phone camera does not have a filter for IR light, you can see this kind of radiation as a white glow through your phone.
Cameras generally emit IR only while in darkness. Sunlight, or even incandescent lightbulbs, will emit so much infrared light that any nearby security cameras would be blotted out.
A functional 'security spaulder' device would need to be far more complex. Maybe a combination of IR, network packets, and other indicators would work.
A GPU (or a cluster of GPUs) might be able to process, say, 10,000 frames in one second. This does not mean that the same GPUs can process one frame in (1/10,000) of a second.
Even with an infinite number of parallel GPUs, there will be an amount of latency required in copying memory to the GPU, running a job, and copying it back. After the frame is compressed, sent over the network, and picked up by the client, further delay (possibly tens of milliseconds) is added on before pixels appear on the screen.
I might not fully understand the use cases of multiple cursors, but if you were trying to accomplish the same thing (change every other occurrence of "item" to "item odd") in vim, you could do it with 'n' and '.'
/item (search for 'item')
cwitem odd^C (replace with the new text)
nn.nn.nn. (next occurrence, next occurrence, repeat last command)
But I wonder - if they spent it, would it still have the same value?
Imagine one year, everyone spent all their income on stuff - earned and unearned. How much would an ipad cost?
There is a limited capacity to raise ipad production - building new factories takes time. So the cost of an ipad would increase.
Right now, all that wealth is locked up in various markets, increasing the value of property and various past what is rational. If it suddenly came out to play, surely we'd see things people need to live increase more than the poorest can afford.
Is wealth that is never going to be spent really wealth?
This argument is reduced to absurdity because it suggests that everyone will get things cheapest if one Scrooge McDuck accumulates all the wealth and simply sits on it.
That's exactly the argument that was had in the Western world starting with the '70s inflation "crisis", and this was indeed the conclusion people came to: radical inequality is an acceptable price to pay for low inflation. And now we're suffering the consequences of having an overly deflationary labor market.
Haha, just won- and the algorithm happened to be one that was posted on the front page of HN earlier this week! It just goes to show, there's no reason to get work done when you can be reading articles on HN- it could turn out to be important.
But I have to say, I haven't heard of Quixey before- it looks like they're building a search engine for software. Are they just trying to replace platform-specific app markets, or is it something trickier than that?
"Mr. Bo went to Oxford University... The current cost of that is about £26,000 a
year. His current studies at Harvard's Kennedy School cost about $70,000 a year... A question raised by this prestigious overseas education... is how it was paid for."
I agree with the article's sentiment. That said, would the Wall Street Journal express similar outrage at the son of an American senator attending Oxford? What about the daughter of a German finance minister? Is it really surprising that a wealthy, well-connected Chinese kid went to school at Oxford? I have to wonder just how unbiased the author is.
The issue isn't about whether it's surprising that a wealthy, well-connected Chinese kid goes to a school like Harvard or Oxford. The question is, how did a leader within the Chinese Communist Party get wealthy to begin with?
But the American senator or German finance ministers aren't supposed communists who should only be earning around $22,000 per year from their positions. This is all what this article is about.
Chinese ministers barely even claim to be communist these days; anyone in the government who takes communism seriously is seen as left-fringe. It's true that they seem to be miraculously making more money than their official salaries, but that's also true in many countries, including Europe and the US. Some are shadier than others; it ranges from outright dirty stuff (taking bribes, insider trading) to gray-area stuff (accepting free trips and gifts) to semi-legit stuff (giving paid speeches and doing private-sector consulting on the side). US Senators get paid $174,000/year, for example, yet their average net worth is $14 million. Some of that is wealth accumulated before entering office, but a typical Senator also makes quite a bit more than their official salary when in office. Though I can certainly believe that the scale of shadiness is much higher in China.
As a matter of fact, in Europe and the US, when it becomes known that a public official spends much more money than what he/she should be able to afford, it is a scandal. I'm not saying that there is no corruption in the West, just that it is by no mean a double standard to talk about (alleged) corruption in Communist China, as it was said in the comment I was responding to...
I would argue that ELIZA, and the chatbots that have been programmed since, are not solutions to the Turing test.
Have you ever tried holding an actual conversation with a chatbot? They almost invariably fail the real-life Turing test within two or three messages. They parse natural language incorrectly, they can't keep track of the topic of conversation, and they often reply with non-sequitor errors.
Certainly, chatbots can appear to act with intelligence in certain situations. Given enough back-and-forth communication, however, a human will always realize that the bot is just parroting words and phrases that are statistically relevant to the human's questions.
I don't think it's unreasonable to define Turing test success as the ability to consistently fool ordinary human beings through intelligent communication- and that, so far, has not been accomplished.
>"Given enough back-and-forth communication, however, a human will always realize that the bot is just parroting words and phrases that are statistically relevant to the human's questions."
That however is not the Turing Test at all. Here is what Turing actually wrote:
I believe that in about fty years' time it will be possible,
to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about
109, to make them play the imitation game so well that
an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent
chance of making the right identi cation after ve minutes of
questioning.
From my understanding, the premise is that the 'index' generated from each crawled site will be some set of metadata smaller than the site's actual content. So instead of many robots, each crawling through all the data on your site, there could be one bot, which updates a single (smaller) index that all search engines can access.
I agree that Google's index is probably optimized to work with their search algorithm. From what the author claims, though, this doesn't mean that Google would be losing anything by allowing other engines to use the index, as "all the value is in the analysis" of the index.
There's also significant value in knowing when to re-index sites due to changing conditions. For example, if some new iSomething is announced, re-indexing apple.com as well as a number of popular Apple-related news sites would be very helpful in keeping the index fresh. There's also feedback from the ranking algorithm in determining how often to re-index, how deep to index, etc etc.
Cameras generally emit IR only while in darkness. Sunlight, or even incandescent lightbulbs, will emit so much infrared light that any nearby security cameras would be blotted out.
A functional 'security spaulder' device would need to be far more complex. Maybe a combination of IR, network packets, and other indicators would work.