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).
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.
I understand the concept of "it's a word because people use it" - but what does it actually mean? No one can give a consistent defininition because it's nebulous jargon with no clear or specific meaning. Without fail, every single usage is obfuscating or otherwise hiding the intended meaning.
Check out this Unity blog post I just came across: "Achieve beautiful, scalable, and performant graphics with the Universal Render Pipeline"
What exactly are "performant graphics"? Does that mean high frame-rate? High-poly? Extremely vibrant colors? HDR? Can run on a 486 with software rendering?
It doesn't tell me anything, and is essentially "vocabulary clickbait" - it "sounds good", without really communicating anything. This is why I despise this word.
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 seems pretty obvious to me in context what the word means. You could play that game with literally every word in the sentence.
What does "achieve" mean? It's that way out of the box? If I invest in a special team of Unity developers it's possible? They'll give it to me if I work hard enough?
What does "beautiful" mean? High poly? Vibrant color? Critics or fans say it looks good? There's an object beauty score that it has high marks in?
> it is no better or worse than other words/phrases having the same meaning
It is demonstrably worse than phrases like "low latency" which clarify the desired property of the system being discussed.
I'm not a huge fan of "high performance" but at least I kind of know what "high performance computing" means (usually systems that are capable of processing massive data sets with high throughput.)
In contrast, "performant" as it is commonly (mis)used doesn't seem have a precise meaning other than "good according to some unspecified metric."
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.
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.
> 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.
Projects like this should be "hacked" and the data released into the wild. It's insane that we so willingly lock up vast amounts of culture and media behind copyright law which hasn't even been around in its current form for 100 years, yet its impact will be felt for centuries to come.
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 think a big challenge with that is the no-crypto-on-airwaves policy. It severely limits what you can control/observe over radio if everyone in the same area can do the same.
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.
