If someone likes more lecture style explanation I can recommend 3blue1brown's material on YouTube. He explained in a pretty good an accessible way imho.
I didn't learn artificial neural network stuff from there. I knew those concepts but I didn't know the matrix formalism applied to it. So this was really nice to understand why GPUs are good for this. Math-wise it was really nice watch.
It's amazing what a rich-get-richer effect products and content that really manage to solve problems in a high quality way get in comments sections around the web. (E.g. 3B1B.)
I'm not really sure why you're being downvoted. You're right that 3B1B really does manage to solve a problem in a high-quality way, and it's amazing how much of an effect that really has on people, especially considering the relatively niche topics that 3B1B goes into. (You'd think that his "Essence of" series would be more popular, but the one-off problem analyses have ridiculously more views in general.)
In some ways, it is a "rich-get-richer" effect. But creators like 3B1B expend a lot of time and resources to do what they do, and the word of mouth he gets is an acknowledgement that the work he does is worth the money and views we provide.
The web has allowed the sharing of high quality content across the world for little to no cost, but has also created so much noise for the average user that they have little to no hope of finding the high quality content on their own. Comment sections across the web fix this problem by promoting producers that offer a superior product. This encourages everyone to make better content.
No. It can check whether the operands will cause overflow and issue an error instead of silently giving a bogus result.
It's a performance hit though.
I don't think you'd want a banking app written with assumption that you'll never have more than MAXINT amount of dollars, and adding few more will roll you back to 0 or even put you in debt... silently... because well it works this way, and designer didint think you'll hit the limit. If it ever happened you'd like a siren to go off.
> It can check whether the operands will cause overflow and issue an error instead of silently giving a bogus result.
Yes, and it could also decide to wipe your hard drive because of the latitude given to it by the C standard. Many compilers have an option to enable some sort of special behavior when a signed integer overflows, but such extensions are non-standard.
The problem is that UB is invoked on runtime for particular inputs... And it silently makes program unreasonable after this point.
That is not good. It's hard to reason about such a program, in other words can you trust results of such a program? How do you know whether your input caused Ub at some point or not?
The burden of sanitizing the input is on the user (either programmer or the data provider).
Checking this is usually a performance tradeoff, so it was decided not to be done by default.
That's a documentation/sanitization problem, rather than a one involving the question of whether this program is well-formed. My response was that it is, given the input obeys the rules you've stated. How you enforce that is a different concern (or whether you dislike the preconditions and think this code could be more robust and have a wider domain, because it certainly could).
The article is tautological. It basically says that only some people get blackouts because they tolerate alcohol differently. It's like saying only some people blackout because only some drink.
I thought some people can't experience it. It seems they just didn't get drunk enough.
No it isn't. The article mentions alot of science to back this up. It starts with brain scans from mice studies, which suggest that blackouts are caused by cells in the hippocampus failing to make new memories correctly. It then mentions case studies of people who have brain damage in this area that also are unable to make new memories.
From there, it talks about twin studies which suggest there is a link between some genes and blackouts. What it's saying is that alcohol is processed slightly differently in some individuals so that it causes cells in the hippocampus to misfire and keep them from making new memories. This misfiring only seems to happen above certain blood alcohol levels. This is similar to how some individuals seem to be better (or worse) at processing alcohol, even controlling for other factors, which affects whether they pass out, or get poisoning, etc.
The bottom line is that alcohol causes different effects in the brain and turns off different parts of the higher functions at different blood alcohol levels. This can vary between individuals. In some people, they become more aggressive, or friendly, or lose their balance more easily than others. For certain individuals, they lose the ability to make new memories at high levels.
By your logic, the following two statements are alike:
- only people who drive cars can crash their car
- only some people who drive cars crash their car
I don't see that, and I don't see how the BBC article - claiming the same thing as the latter statement, is tautological. It has a whole list of known risk factors too.
We got good models for pretty good chunk of phenomena of scales from subatomic to galaxy wide and beyond. Astonishing is the fact that same laws give good predictions on both ends of the scale. I think that's the reason behind the assumption we have most figured out.
But in the middle happens most what we cannot comprehend. How does a cell know when to divide. How exactly the process goes. Why do we have consciousness? Having theories capable of describing atoms and stars we can't figure out the middle, this is fascinating.
Imho the issue is the complexity of system. Stars and atoms are actually not that far apart. In the middle the amount of effects with comparable magnitude and stable states are the greatest.
