fair

Oh right, I forgot that funding and companies manifest solely from engineers’ desires to build things. Silly me.

Right, I didn’t mean to imply that the practice was uncommon, just that using it as a defense of ego so readily was eyebrow-raising. I’m no academic, but I feel like I’d lose respect for my advisor had they used the paper I worked hard on as a way to boost numbers used as personal defense in some petty squabble in a public forum.

Big moves like founding SpaceX

SpaceX

SpaceX

Yeah, even if he is advising or contributing, the way he put it sounds very disingenuous like he’s trying to inflate the number for his argument. Which MIGHT mean there likely was not many with immediately recognizable significance in that time (don’t yell at me, I have not taken the time to verify this).

Either way, the way he responded comes across as very “I’m published, you’re not, neener neener!” which is not a good look for anyone with a doctorates.

Also, genuine question, how significant was the contribution of LeNet-5 to the field of deep learning vs Neocognitron?

Because he is not your run-of-the-mill tech billionaire.

He’s an asshole, yes, but you don’t see Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos or anyone else make the kind of big moves he does.

He founded SpaceX, which is arguably more important than anything else he or any of Silicon Valley are typically involved with.

Removed by mod

If you don’t recognize the number, answer in a funny accent. That’s how you defeat the voice harvesters.

ring ring Sombrero repair, como es?

ring ring [deep voice] Investigations.

ring ring HJECKIN?

ring ring [high pitched voice] OOIIO BO IMA SO GLAD YE RANG DOLLINGA

ring ring thinkyefurcullinpapajhonzzewoodyalacktatryourpapalopadoussoosageasperigusdoughdopoloostoday?

ring ring [monkey noises]

ring ring OOOOOHHHHHHHH COME ON EILEEN, I BEG OF YA PLEASE

ring ring [raspy voice] Jerome?

ring ring [dictation voice, right up against microphone] THANK YOU FOR FALLING KMART. PLEASE LET US KNOW WHAT YOU ARE CALLING ABOUT SO WE MAY DIRECT YOUR CALL

ring ring [moaning so intense it would make Sarah Grey blush]

ring ring WEAR MAH CHIL’ SUPPORT AT JEROME

ring ring [play Gilbert Garfield directly into microphone]

I just checked and they actually disabled AI Overview. LMAO

You’re remembering correctly, every other logic gate can be built from NAND gates, which is the foundation of this sort of minimal-instruction-set exercise. Beyond that, you need to be able to move data and change your program counter (jump, often conditionally). Then, if you want parity with modern instruction sets beyond just being turning complete, you need return and interrupt for control flow.

lol why?

Bookmarking your comment so I can come back to it in a couple hours, if I hopefully remember to.

But yes, almost. I don’t think the interrupt is necessary and the return isn’t under certain architectures. I have a doc on my computer somewhere where I was investigating what the absolute minimum was to make a turning complete machine and, to my recollection, there was only 4-6 instructions that were absolutely necessary. The ones I remember off the top of my head are NAND, MOV, JUMPIF, and then I believe I included NOP in accordance with some principle. RET and INT were convenience features in this design.

there is an additional layer to this joke for those who understand turing completeness. And it elevates it to a whole other level of snark.

deleted by creator

Works fine for me on first glance, with ETP set to strict. Perhaps due to the recent domain cut-over in the web stack?

I dismiss modern social sciences because they have made it impossible not to dismiss them by making absurd claims that are easily refutable and arguably do nothing to better society-- how the fuck is hiring or granting tuition assistance based on applicant’s identity equate to social progress, when their identity makes up so little of their effectual background?

If race is a social construct, then tell me why the fuck they insist on making things about race more than it ever was before instead of embracing objective equality?

This incongruence is the exact reason extremist groups have no trouble finding new members-- anyone embracing these half-cooked, bad-faith movements is actively driving neutral parties into the arms of the extremists. By treating the neutral party as the enemy, you make them your enemy. I affiliate with no social groups because of how awful they are, but I assure you I will always undermine DEI however I can in my day-to-day job duties simply because those behind the movement threw the first punch.

I see humans as humans. And I don’t give a flying fuck what anyone else says they are. They are humans, they will be treated like humans the same as all other humans are treated, no better, no worse, and their identity means zilch.

commenting before I go to bed to point out you have contributed nothing to this discussion, instead using the opportunity for an attempt at being offensive.