neurobro

Not sure about bad labels, but semi-supervised learning is the term for training on data with a lot of missing labels. Essentially the algorithm makes predictions on the unlabeled data and uses its highest confidence predictions as additional training data. Generative models can also "dream up" entirely new training examples. There is a risk of amplifying the confidence in bad predictions, but it works well overall (better than using only the labeled portion of the data).

What do you mean by "low latency"? Low latency before the user sees anything? Low latency before the user can interact with the app? Low latency navigating to the next page? It's hard to answer every conceivable question in a headline.

Everything is vague to some degree. The hand-wringing over "performant" is just a meme.

In context, I would expect "performance" to refer to how quickly a scene can be rendered, and another buzzword, "scalable", to refer to the size and complexity of scenes that can be drawn. "Beautiful" probably means "lots of detail and snazzy effects."

Actually, the article says "scalable across platforms", which is confusing to me. Maybe they mean scalable to different screen sizes?

It is a word because people keep using it. That's where words come from. Apart from the number of characters, it is no better or worse than other words/phrases having the same meaning. Sometimes the precise meaning is clear from the background context. Sometimes additional details need to be supplied outside of the title or bullet point where it is used.

What does "it" mean above? Devoid of context, it could be just about anything.

With a few exceptions like HD video hosting or sites doing a ton of computation for every request, the best response to point 1 is to just lighten the site, which reduces the load from bots and also improves the UX for humans. Rate limiting can also help in some circumstances. Or maybe consider... charging money.

If you don't force botters to take extreme camouflage measures, bots are easily filtered out of logs (and offer a potentially useful metric of their own).

If a business is threatened by "competitors" simply scraping published information, it's probably already doomed from the start. And I would posit that most site owners with this mindset originally got their data by scraping other sites, which is why they feel vulnerable. Compete over elements that are actually valuable!

It looks like it was designed to fit perfectly above the fold on the screen, but then some manager (to put it mildly) came along and made them insert a useless grey bar at the top, pushing everything else down. Nothing a little "Block element..." can't fix, though.

It's not Mozilla's job to adjudicate license infringement, but the GPL doesn't give permission to lie about who owns the copyright as that extension apparently does. Regardless, Mozilla probably should hold "recommended" extensions to a higher standard if deceptive copycats are able to make the list.

Looks like a typo for 2008, considering "recession" and "over the last 11 years".

> They already have data from both the National Disk and Community Disk online and are currently investigating copyright issues before releasing the URL to the general public.

> ...

> It is likely that the Domesday Project will not be completely free of copyright restrictions until at least 2090 (assuming no further extensions of copyright terms).

Copyright is a huge impediment to the long-term preservation of digital cultural artifacts, mitigated by the people's willingness (and technical ability, for now) to ignore it.

Plenty of young people are involved in "maker" and "hacker" activities using radio communications on the unlicensed bands. The cost of entry is on the order of $10 compared to $1000 for a half-decent HF station that's less versatile and less interesting. That's where amateur radio needs to provide value to stay relevant, not drawing youngsters into weird club meetings to hang out with a bunch of ancient totally-not-CBers.

I shopped at RadioShack just one time in the '90s. I bought some walkie talkies, and the cashier insisted that I provide my name and address to make the purchase. I said I didn't want junk mail. He assured me that it was only for recordkeeping purposes and that my info wouldn't end up on a mailing list. Within weeks, I started receiving RadioShack catalogues and flyers. I'm pretty sure they spent more on postage, paper and ink over the next few years than I had originally spent on the walkie talkies.

ES6 arrow functions are very convenient and look remarkably similar to Example 1, so learning that syntax is probably inevitable in the long term. And I doubt someone who has never programmed before would understand either snippet, although both would be simple to explain. I haven't used CoffeeScript, so I can't say whether I'd find it better/worse than JavaScript for my purposes, but this article wasn't convincing at all.

> Fucking SQL. I don't want to learn your stupid DSL.

I really like one change in LINQ syntax (and probably various other SQL-inspired DSLs), which is to invert the basic query structure, enabling better IDE support:

from thing in things ... (yay, now my editor knows what a "thing" is and can provide better code completion and type checking for the remainder of this deeply-nested behemoth of a query that probably should be expressed as hundreds of simple statements instead of cramming half of the day's work into a single "statement" with no obvious rules for indentation because, after all, run-on sentences are notoriously annoying to read and generally should be avoided).

That alone is worth investing a few minutes to learn something new.

Maybe in the '90s. Today's students are busy cooking up ways to use ambient radio signals ("illuminators of opportunity") as passive radar to see into houses.