iujjkfjdkkdkf

When I click through I only see a 4MB zip file. Where is the dataset?

It's great to have this kind of data available. So much computer vision research is done with a small number of datasets, e.g. imagenet, and there are lots of gaps to fill in on how sell these techniques apply to industrially relevant data like this.

WSL2 has quirks that make it not the same as running linux natively. For some workflows this may not matter but I have seen it evaluated for some use cases where not everything worked.

Also, windows is, for lack of a better word, obnoxious, in the way it bothers you about updates (and other messages of various kinds), and forces you to restart frequently and kn its terms.

The few times I have used windows recently, I found it the opposite of "just getting out of the way and letting me work", and I fear that even if wsl did work smoothly for what I was doing, just the fact that windows was running in the background would degrade the experience.

I was linux only until last year when someone convinced me to try a Mac. I have been very happy with it: it's way less intrusive than what I had pictured (I think prejudice against commercial OSes from my windows days). Memory and CPU issues that seem to crop up in ubuntu using desktop apps are not present - I had a lot of trouble using e.g. zoom and g-suite on ubuntu without having either lockups or full blast cooling fan. And I still have a unix-like OS that I can do my usual development, ssh-ing, and file manipulation on.

I currently have a Mac for "office productivity" stuff and ubuntu for development, but if I had to only have one computer, it would be a Mac.

There is another comment in the thread where someone suggests that maybe its time we do away with april fools. Personally, I think most of the jokes are dumb (and honestly mostly closer to the kind of inoffensive-to-all anodyne crap that can still be distributed as a "joke"). But I find it horrific that people think doing away with it is the answer (it's also possible that person is trolling I suppose)

Anyway, I've said before, this reminds me of "The name of the rose" where the inquisition era zealot couldn't accept that religious men should laugh, because if they can laugh, they could laugh at God and the whole power of the church would fall apart. There is an echo of this in the current lack of tolerance for any humor that derives from making fun of something, grounded in the misunderstanding that finding humor in something means disrespecting it.

I'd concede that it's not cool, if true, that banks and tech companies have so much power over people that a fake invoice someone knows they aren't responsible for makes them afraid for their survival.

Haha, I guess I'm a minority. Other commenters thought it was "morally reprehensible", "fraud", and are "livid". I'll try to do a better job of seeing how evil those around me really are.

I think most agree it was a bad joke - there is no 'absurdity' to it. Even when you find out it is fake, it's not really funny, it's more like "oh, why did you do that".

That said, I'm amazed how angry commenters here seem to be getting over it. Yeah, they tried to do something funny, it wasn't, it backfired and annoyed people. But at the same time, lighten up. Not everything needs to be a rage-inspiring transgression.

I'm curious about the co-CEO thing. That seems like it is universally something that doesn't work and is just what happens when nobody wants to make a tough decision. Is there any context on why it might be the right move here?

We had an Apple IIe, but our first x86 was a 386 with 2MB ram and a 25MHz processor. I think the HDD was 40 MB.

There is definitely some validity, even if it just boils down to "understand how your ML models make there decisions and make sure you're cool with that". I think the challenge is that a lot of the "ethical ai" agenda seems to be getting set by people that understand neither ML not ethics and end up focusing on superficial issues that are not actually related to ML and are more about "now that you've written your decision criteria down, you may not like what you find". Maybe that's what you're seeing, that what could be more of an objective science gets wrapped in a social movement so it ends up looking a lot less legitimate

This whole thing has transcended any kind of logic, and there does not seem to be a rational way to discuss the tradeoffs with people. I think this is just the first "crisis" - actually the mildest thing that could happen and still be considered a global pandemic - to land in the milieu of social media and polarization that the world had become already, and this is the result. The pandemic is really just a fashion accessory for a lot of people, a way to talk about how they're doing their part, look down on others they perceive to be the cause, and add as a hashtag to their posts.

In an earlier, less connected world, there would be other more sensible jurisdictions to go to, and people to speak out and debate rationally about why the ridiculous overreaction we've seen is in nobody's interest. But these days, I think we're all fucked. I think we lost a war a long time ago without noticing, and this is what we're stuck with.

I can't believe people are accepting it in canada either. I'm hoping that people will start to push back more as restrictions move from temporary to systematic, but so far I see very little evidence of this. Possibly just because the media refuses to cover it.

I think that's part of the point. Initially I couldn't understand why ostensibly right wing premiers in Ontario and Quebec were to pro-lockdown. But when you see how much the interests of bigger businesses are being served, basically removing all their competitions, it makes more sense.

There are fewer lobbying efforts on behalf of smaller business (and none on behalf of people who just want quality of life) to the bigger businesses with a direct line to the government get the covid rules basically written for them.