"This required techniques sensitive enough to detect variations in the movement of the star as small as 30 centimeters per second."
This kind of precision sounds insane. It sounds like far more of an achievement than having found Earth-sized planets. Is there any layman explanation of how they do such a thing?
I'm wondering if this is more like "citizens do not have this right" rather than like "citizens do not, and should not, have this right".
There is obviously nothing in the Constitution about recording public officials, and I assume there isn't a statute against it, so that means it's relying entirely on case precedent, right? Which I understand is still law, so I'm as baffled by the ruling as anybody, but I also feel that if I were taking this case on for the first time, I would find myself ruling that citizens don't have this right -- even though I would desperately hope and agree they very much should. Does anyone feel that if there was no case precedent, they would still believe they had this right due to freedom of "speech" (or something else)? What would be your legal justification?
> the ones confusing technology with science, and insisting that GMOs must be perfectly safe
I don't know if I fall in that group (I don't think I confuse the two and I don't really talk about GMO much) but my prior belief would be that GMO products are probably safe, through some kind of hand-wavy mathematical argument: it's like modifying a program to do what you want; chances are if you mess up, it'll crash quickly and won't work rather than working almost-as-intended while injecting nefarious input into the next program.
Would LOVE to read evidence to the contrary though. So please share your citations.
lmao idk where u come from but no evidence means no ground for argument. even if you made a point that you cant find evidence. If you accept that lack of evidence is evidence, then a i have a proposal for you that begins with r and ends with eligion.
Is it that much computation to simulate an entire game? You obviously don't need to render the graphics or anything, it should just be a list of events that occur, which doesn't seem all that slow to process.
Until today's release of the headless Linux client, you still had to run the full StarCraft program, which gets expensive fast. And it massively complicates the workflow to have to play through every game serially to recreate the state rather than simply reading random rows of data from a 300GB dataframe on disk.
No, total. For comparison they quote the replay files at what was it, 5GB? It's a classic space-time tradeoff, but in deep learning right now, hard drives are far cheaper than CPUs/GPUs. Playing out the games as you need individual datapoints would probably be at least twice as slow, while anyone can easily store 300GB these days.
@wfunction: yes, TorchCraft includes a serializer that compresses the useful game state into a relatively small struct. That is then further compressed with other tricks and zstd.
Oh but how does that work? That's ~6 MB per game which sounds like just a list of actions rather than precomputed data per frame. Is it compressed somehow?
FYI, there are two things being discussed here. There dataset linked in the comment above is for Brood War. The headless client released today is for SC2.
I am aware of that. The point remains the same: both Brood War and SC2 are expensive to run, so you really don't want to and it's worth spending disk space to cache the results of playing out a replay files. This will probably also be true of the replay files DM/Blizzard will be releasing even with the lite client.
I don't know about you but the last time I saw a class take on extra teaching load to help students "catch up" and not sacrifice on other teaching goals was... never. You seem unrealistically hopeful that things are going to work out the way they claim.
I am assuming a catalog "filled" with live action Disney films would mostly have those one-off concept movies they created for their channel than pages upon pages of movies standing peer to Pirates of the Carribean.
Still interesting enough to kids but let's not pretend like it's not padding; those movies were often very formulaic, "relatable kid with a weird life or circumstances goes on a journey" - not really worth the price tag for a subscription.
Whoever in Gizmodo redacted or allowed the reduction of the 25+ citations should be fired.
That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks actively malicious, and it wasn't matter what side you're on. You can't remove all the support someone provides for their position and hide it behind a short and vague disclaimer while presenting it as though it's materially equivalent to the original. If their evidence is bad then you include it and let people be the judges. Or just don't report on the story. What you don't do is edit it in accordance with your own opinion and misrepresent it as the original.
People need to call this crap out and shame Gizmodo, and Gizmodo needs to come clean about the honest reasons for the redaction and respond harshly enough that it doesn't happen again. The last thing we need is biased journalism, or an impression of such.
The only link that I could find in his memo that could classify as a random WordPress blog was a summary of an article posted in a peer reviewed journal.
First of all, he had far better references than random WordPress blog posts, and second of all, that is completely irrelevant and doesn't excuse you from providing an accurate representation of the original.
This kind of precision sounds insane. It sounds like far more of an achievement than having found Earth-sized planets. Is there any layman explanation of how they do such a thing?