tw1010

Yeah I don't buy this idea at all. People freaked out over the ability to edit photos in dark rooms decades ago. Trust didn't deplete because pictures got tied to identities which in turn is tied to reputation (or by verifying "hey is that picture of the president k-wording a person with a gun real" with a trusted institution or something), etc.

There's other cool stuff that will come of this but the fact that this is the idea mentioned every single time shows a severe lack of imagination in our sphere.

People generally seem to have difficulty thinking about the diversity of types of lives on a population-level scale.

I have such trouble trying to figure out which of these many algorithms that are released will end up having a significant impact on a 5 year horizon. But this I have a rare hunch about that it could be quite significant (at least the direction in which it's trying to push).

Thank you

Curious: why isn't all porn sites sued for this? I don't quite get why they're only going after PH? Is it because it's harder to win a case against 1000 websites? Is it because it's more overhead to go after multiple sites and they expect the biggest return on investment only going after the biggest one? Anyone smarter than me who has a take?

I used to be sceptical that the concept of overtraining was a thing, but it definitely is. Just saying that running every day consistently might not necessarily be good for you in the long run. Listen to your body.

Pet peeve: when people take phrases intended for one thing and uses them for a slightly modified purpose. I take Branson's "screw it, let's do it" mantra as something entreprenurial, a call to break the rules (and stuff like that). Using it in this purpose feels more like "screw it, let's work even though I'd rather stay in bed", which is different emotionally, and kind of saturates the sayings power.

(Maybe nikes "Just do it" would fit better, but I get that its associations to big corporations isn't as well suited for the startup atmosphere we're surrounded by.)

I'm hearing this advice so often that it's pissing me off.

The book is BS. (I've read it.) There, I said it. It's always "this book is hugely thought provoking" (pointing at you Daniel Gross), and never ever and expansion on why or what insights it actually contains that's interesting. It has mildly interesting sentences that feels deep (mostly because they're confusing). The book has developed into some BS signalling device like Infinite Jest used to be. Everyone has read it, no one understands it. Everyone goes "oh yes, that's such a deep book, nothing has changed my mind like it since sapiens", and then we're all supposed to go silent to independently ponder it's many layered-ness, but in reality that's just what we do because we wouldn't come up anything remotely insightful if pushed into a corner. Frankly, the fact that this book is pushed so much makes me totally reconsider oft-repeated meme that "tech is low virtue signalling" (or low corruption). Clearly not.

(There, rant over. I'm overplaying how mad I actually am, I just feel like we need a few more rants against this book strewn about whenever this book is mentioned. Please, anyone, prove me wrong and a horrific narrow-minded dimwit by writing something more in-depth about what you think it contains and how it's insightful, I would love you infinitely.)

Like I said above, "typos" in sequences of calculations are obviously problematic, and lead (almost always) to mistakes in the final result. In this case that's not applicable since there's no "second arithmetic manipulation" following the typo:ed one. (The author replaces the incorrect one with the correct bayesian equation in the next section.)

There's value in collaboratively discussing half-baked ideas in public before any real applications have been produced.

Imagine this article as just another in a stream of posts trying to "think aloud" about BNNs, without any immediate pressure of applications for it.

I didn't say it was one of the most common mistakes, I said it's one of the most common mistakes I have observed. Purely subjective.

Not really, it's one of the most common mistakes I see in bayesian calculations. If the author was basing a lengthy series of calculations on that first step, it would be worse (but in this case the expression is quickly replaced by a corrected version for the classification discussion).

It's not "not getting the basics right", it's a simple typo. A thing like that shouldn't invalidate a whole article (unless you have skin in the game for the opponent argument).

Why does HN have a pattern of dismissing whole articles due to simple typos? It's as if we're so habituated to skim and do tldr-reading that our brain is working overdrive to find the slightest excuse not to have to do any type of reading beyond surface level.

I mean the boring answer is that people have patience and energy constraints. They arbitrarily ignore the whole group because VC isn't adjacent enough to their life goals, or something, to warrant the energy necessary to pick out the patience-stealers from the insight-givers.