Google could have given its users the same advantages of AMP without AMP just by saying: we'll penalize slow and cluttered websites in web searches, in favour of fast and clean ones.
That would have been equally painful for the developers, but not for the users.
They actually do penalize slow and cluttered websites but not enough. I've seen some companies websites download 20mb for a simple landing page and still come up higher than other pages that are way faster.
They should penalize more instead of forcing us to use AMP almost as a power move from them.
Those are typographic eccentricities, to be pedant :)
And they're not even that uncommon on the Internet and amongst tech people. (See the Jargon file[1], for example.)
But I get your point: pedantry is often needless, and sometimes even lacks proper justification (see taejo's comment). But it's difficult to stop seeing errors when you see them, so I would forgive the parent for being that Hacker News guy.
It's something poor students/learners do. You spend all your time looking for minor errors in instruction or text so you can 'win' while missing the actual lesson or overarching idea. I am definitely not innocent of this as a former high school dropout lol. Cheers.
A better description would be “I know what people that happened to share your current IP address downloaded on BitTorrent”. Given that providers either implement dynamic addressing (unless the user pays for a static address) or NAT, it’s not accurate at all.
We don’t understand something. It’s a complicated phenomenon. So it’s impossible to replicate? I think the “argument” is so silly it doesn’t need to be disproved. If one wants to prove something impossible they’d better avoid logical fallacies. A priori we can’t say that it’s impossible, nor that it’s certainly doable.
Except that like flight it’s already been done - by evolution. I’m very confident that people will be ‘proving’ that it’s impossible like this article, right up to the day we actually do it.
I meant that it's dubious whether we can reproduce a brain-like machine until we'll understand the matter well enough to either prove it possible or impossible.
Anyway, I feel like you. If it's been done once, it can't be impossible in any meaningful sense.
Further, the argument from lack of understanding would work only if knowledge (and science) could not advance any further; but that's tough to prove -- not to say that it's used over and over in faith vs. reason debates to the point it's become annoying -- so the argument is quite weak.
You can generate that input only when needed. So whenever the sorting algorithm asks whether A[i] > A[i+1], you can perform the comparison there and then. So the answer to your question is yes.
The input is always needed, the neural net is an iterative algorithm that views the "local information" gathered from the array on every time step. It's asking continuously whether e.g. `A[i] > A[i+1]`.
No, the neural net needs to receive a feature vector before each instruction in order to sort the array. So whenever you want to sort things, you need to create that vector over and over.
> Blog posts, sign-up pages, curated lists, and other reading material can't be tried out, so can't be Show HNs.
It's a list, but it's not intended to be consumed the way a list of books or other resources is meant to. It's a list of useful scripts that can be tried right away.
Then there is the ambiguity as whether the host will always offer you to switch or just when he hasn't revealed the car.