I love labs were they are like “we use three tools. A toothpick you can get at any restaurant, a device invented in the middle ages that hasn’t changed and is still made by like 30 people tops, and the million dollar magic machine that we don’t really understand”
Actually less than that because only around 10% of the gold created this way (assuming a natural distribution of Hg isotopes) would be stable, so you’d get a bunch of β particles too. I don’t even know how Au-201 would act, and it would comprise 30% of the output.
The ol’ “philosophy is just applied history, history is just applied psychology, psychology is just applied biology, biology is just applied chemistry, chemistry is just applied physics, physics is just applied mathematics, mathematics is just applied philosophy.”
Which I saw as graffiti in a university bathroom back in Ye Olden Days and has stuck with me ever since.
The only areas of machine learning that I expect to live up to the hype are in areas, where somewhat noisy input and output doesn’t ruin the usability, like image and audio processing and generation, or where you have to validate the output anyway, like the automated copy-paste from stackexchange. Anything that requires actual specifity and factuality straight from the output, like the language models attempting to replace search engines (or worse, professional analysis), will for the foreseeable future be tainted with hallucinations and misinformation.
Man i dont know. I had an introductery lecture into ML and we were told of some kernel stuff, where you look at a space that could be infinite dimensional and that you do some math to project into low dimensional feature space, where your seperation still works because of your kernel function.
That isnt some black box art form, that is clearly black magic.
A lot of those academic “printed on demand” books are like this, too. Very annoying. Yea they’re out of print and old library physical copies cost over $100, but the “new” ones always look like this but faded instead of over saturated.
Treasure your badly-scanned papers from 1980, and be thankful you didn’t have to do historical research by sorting through bad scans from the 1980s of printouts of microfilm archives (yes, instead of scanning the microfilm) of photos of the original documents that were photographed in 1961 at a 45° angle by a lazy archivist who used the cheapest film he could get his hands on. And the scans have blotches that make some pages literally unreadable because the microfilms were allowed to sit exposed to moisture for 25 years before being digitized. No I’m not bitter and my collegiate education wasn’t a waste, not one bit of either.
science_memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.