While I still need to read this paper in detail, I'm not sure their only change is to this scaling of the update.
The `koan` CBOW change has mixed effects on benchmarks, and makes their implementation no longer match the choices of the original, canonical `word2vec.c` release from the original Google authors of the word2vec paper. (Or, by my understanding, the CBOW mode of the FastText code.)
So all the reasoning in that issue for why Gensim didn't want to make any change stands. Of course, if there's an alternate mode that offers proven benefits, it'd be a welcome suggestion/addition. (At this point, it's possible that simply using the `cbow_mean=0` sum-rather-than-average mode, or a different starting `alpha`, matches any claimed benefits of koan_CBOW.)
Ah, but I've now looked at their code, and it's not the only change! They've also eliminated the `reduced_window` method of weighting-by-distance that's present in `word2vec.c`, Gensim, and FastText.
What if that's the real reason for their sometimes slightly-better, sometimes slightly-worse performance on some benchmarks? Perhaps there are other changes, too.
This is why I continue to think Gensim's policy of matching the reference implementations from the original authors, at least by default, is usually the best policy – rather than using an alternate interpretation of the often-underspecified papers.
Paying puts your transaction near the head of the queue. This matters more when there's a backlog. If you're willing to wait for things to clear up, you don't need to pay. https://bitcoinfees.net/
> Wikipedia develops at a rate of over 1.9 edits per second, performed by editors from all over the world. Currently, the English Wikipedia includes 6,167,378 articles and it averages 598 new articles per day.
Note: edits sometimes affect multiple pages (in extreme cases, edits can affect millions of pages. The lua script (which is a wiki page editable like any other) Module:arguments is used on over 25 million pages).
There generally is a bit of a long tail effect. Popular pages get edited a lot, but they also get viewed a lot. It can be expensive when everyone is viewing and editing the same page (Micheal Jackson's death is a famous example that caused downtime, although changes were made to make things more robust so it wouldn't happen again)
No, I think he means using the tuner to tell how well you sing intervals, etc. Find a center pitch, sing relative to that and keep track of how off you go from the correct notes.
Your last comment really resonated with me. This year I started thinking about how we relate ourselves to food, and I've come to think that we live in a very food-centric society. We have TV shows, instagram accounts, magazines and influencers all dedicated to sharing the best meals, recipes and restaurants. It is also very hedonistic. If you eat, it must be something delicious and picture-perfect, otherwise it's a missed opportunity. Don't bother cooking if you're not a MasterChef-level cook, it's better to just Deliveroo.
It's okay to sometimes cook bland food, or food that doesn't look that great. It's just food after all. And honestly we cook and eat so much. We don't need to consume as much as we do.
After gaining a few kilos last year I decided to stop following so many cooks and recipe channels. Suddenly my obsession with food was gone. Before, if I wasn't cooking, or eating a meal or a snack, or thinking about going to a restaurant, I was watching cooking videos or reactions to meals. After cutting it off, I only thought about food when I was hungry, and I could spend the rest of the day with more important things. After that I started counting calories and I was surprised how little food we actually need to survive, especially with a sedentary lifestyle.
There's a part of a Louie CK special in which he talks about what would happen if God came back to Earth and talked to Man about what he'd done to his creation. "Why do you need money for?" "I need money to buy food" "What do you mean buy food? Just eat the shit on the floor!" "Yeah, but it doesn't have bacon in it". And honestly we place so much importance on what the food is. It's just sustenance, eat some leaves and you'll be OK.
When I got sick, I became mentally allergic to fat and sugar. I thus spent monthes eating only raw vegetables. There are so many subtleties in taste and texture you can finally 'see' when they're not coated (or drowned even) in sauces.
The pleasure you get is also different in that it doesn't create much of a crave feeling. And you rarely binge on salad or carrots.. your brain will naturally give up and say enough. When anything is sweetened you see yourself in a never ending loop.
Agree. Your stomach will tell you that you’re full when it’s volume is expanded to where it thinks it’s full. Could be all water, carrots, or fried chicken for all it cares. The effects on your health though depend on what it actually was.
More than volume there id also a taste factor. Non sweetened produce have nice flavours and less nice ones, after a while something between your tongue and brain says 'no more'
Oh man, I couldn’t disagree more about not needing to cook or make sure things taste good. That’s just knowing how to properly use spices, textures/temperature contrasts, and healthy ingredients. But I do agree that probably not many people know the sort of cooking I’m referring to here. Healthy food for me is nutritious, low to moderate in salt, and Whole Foods plant based. Portions matter too of course.
I think our relationship with food is profoundly linked to the culture we come from.
For me, food is first and foremost a social experience and something you share : everyday lunch with coworkers, dinners with my family, having two hours lunch with my extended family on the weekends. It would be kind of sad to eat bland food together while we could be enjoying something pleasant.
There's this quote from Kundera's The unbearable lightness of being. Perhaps it makes sense in this context.
We all need someone to look at us. We can be divided into four categories according to
the kind of look we wish to live under.
The first category longs for the look of an infinite number of anonymous eyes, in other
words, for the look of the public. That is the case with the German singer, the American
actress, and even the tall, stooped editor with the big chin. He was accustomed to his
readers, and when one day the Russians banned his newspaper, he had the feeling
that the atmosphere was suddenly a hundred times thinner. Nothing could replace the
look of unknown eyes. He thought he would suffocate. Then one day he realized that
he was constantly being followed, bugged, and surreptitiously photographed in the
street. Suddenly he had anonymous eyes on him and he could breathe again! He
began making theatrical speeches to the microphones in his wall. In the police, he had
found his lost public.
The second category is made up of people who have a vital need to be looked at by
many known eyes. They are the tireless hosts of cocktail parties and dinners. They are
happier than the people in the first category, who, when they lose their public, have the
feeling that the lights have gone out in the room of their lives. This happens to nearly all
of them sooner or later. People in the second category, on the other hand, can always
come up with the eyes they need. Marie-Claude and her daughter belong in the second
category.
Then there is the third category, the category of people who need to be constantly
before the eyes of the person they love. Their situation is as dangerous as the situation
of people in the first category. One day the eyes of their beloved will close, and the
room will go dark. Tereza and Tomas belong in the third category.
And finally there is the fourth category, the rarest, the category of people who live in the
imaginary eyes of those who are not present. They are the dreamers. Franz, for
example. He traveled to the borders of Cambodia only for Sabina. As the bus bumped
along the Thai road, he could feel her eyes fixed on him in a long stare.
Just a question: why do you use the third person when describing yourself? I've seen it in resumes and some formal settings, but never on a personal homepage. Also I find it a bit odd.
The danger about making these lists is that you may end up thinking that you have to get a high number of reasons to make your claim seem valid. I would not be surprised if the author started stating five to ten reasons and then thought that 23 was a good number for the reference, therefore proceeding to fill up the article with whatever nonsense. That's the only process I can think of that nets you "they sell your DNA to other companies", "scientists can make gifs with your DNA" and "companies buy ads" to be arguments in the same hierarchical level.
Some of them are pretty serious consequences of using their services: some of them involving the company's practices, and others involving the dangers of developing this industry. Both should be considered in separate to get a clearer picture of the issue. This article is treating it as BuzzFeed treats a new game of thrones episode, therefore depriving it of any legitimacy.
I'd like to see more elaborated on three points particularly: the privacy implications of having your DNA shared, the accuracy and precision of the purported results and the possible dangers of applications of this industry.
The quickest way to lose a good faith debate is to exaggerate your side. From that point on the debate shifts to be about your exaggerated claims, you're now on the defensive, can't put forward whatever legitimate points you might have, and even those points are now put into question due to your lack of trustworthiness. This article is guilty of that.
I’d never considered that but it’s an interesting concept. When you’re deciding what to wear you only have half the number of shoes to look at so have a smaller physical area to search and compare. Once you’ve chosen it’s fairly straightforward to find the matching one in the second container.
One downside would be if you have a few very similar pairs of shoes, that would undoubtedly make finding the matching shoe much more difficult because you couldn’t immediately home in on it.
I don’t think I’ll try it, but certainly something new to ponder.
FWIW, us adults haven't adopted her process. But it worked especially well for her as she optimized for her biggest issue at the time, which was figuring out which shoe goes on which foot. Now she can tell almost instantly but the 2 boxes remain. :)
Agreed that it is, but still not a valid reason to start throwing up junk items just to make a magic number. Undermines the validity of the entire piece.
If someone comes to you and makes a succinct 3-point argument and someone else comes to you and make those same 3 points plus 20 tangentially related, low-quality, possibly irrelevant points, who has been the more persuasive?
If you have 2 strong points and 12 weak ones, you're generally much better off making a 2 point argument than a 14 point one.
>If someone comes to you and makes a succinct 3-point argument and someone else comes to you and make those same 3 points plus 20 tangentially related, low-quality, possibly irrelevant points, who has been the more persuasive?
If I'm not superficial, either both the same (if those 20 are totally useless), or the one with the better arguments. Those "20 tangentially related, low-quality, possibly irrelevant points" could still have some point worth considering.
Everyone has limited time and (presumably) attention. You don’t go around adding paragraphs of lorem ipsum or random bytes/words to your replies. Why not? Some of that could have some point worth considering.
you think it's a good strategy to arrive at a magic number of items? if you have 9 items, stop there, instead most articles on the web will bullshit one more and do a headline 10 x ...
The difference is antivaxxers are arguing against something that has a known and demonstrated benefit for reasons that offer nothing in return.
What is the benefit of commercial DNA testing? Some dubious genealogy that might be mildly entertaining? If there's an actual health benefit to DNA screening, it should be done by a health professional where the information could be subject to HIPAA.
Your opinion will be outdated in a few years. You drop dna wherever you go. When your phone is able to read it it will be used as part of your id. It is not private information the same way your face isn't private when you appear in public.
What we need to do is stop companies from claiming they own your dna because you sent in a sample.
I am personally in contact with hundreds of people who have made powerful familial connections and relationships with genetic relatives as a direct result of commercial DNA testing.
I got lost at the thief part. I agree that knowledge sharing is good for both giving back to the community and as a goal in itself. But why does it make sense to call a thief someone that contributes to a community, even if done for self oriented goals?
You can do both of those things in vim. I don't mean to be nitpicky, I'm just mentioning in case someone reading this didn't know and uses vim. You can set scrollbind and convert splits (off the top of my head I think it's Cw Ch and Cw Ct).
