> But then you have to store the entire before & after locally?
Yes, there is difference between two (as you say) and there is integrity (modification detection). In the case of comparing new assets in a pipeline to those that were created earlier, it sounds plausible both copies would be present.
> That's the entire point of using a hash for change detection.
This is called integrity protection. Change detection is the incorrect term to use here. Please see what I referenced earlier for first and second preimage.
Counter-anecdote: I was diagnosed sixish months ago, prescribed medication about 3 months ago. The meds don't have the same high of alcohol or weed, but there's definitely an occasional deep sense of calm and wellness - one that's hard not to want, being my chronically depressed self. Definitely enough to set off my "never abuse this, it will end badly" mental alarm
Otherwise though, it checks all the usual boxes - way easier to sit still and be quiet, way easier to do the thing I intended to do when I sat down to do it, way easier to get in and out of focus. Also improved my sleep schedule a surprising amount - between it and melatonin, I've moved from 6am-3pm to ~12am-8:30am, which is wildly outside any of the expectations I've seen set for pharmaceutical remedies, and puts me firmly in 'able to hold a normal adult job without killing yourself through sleep deprevation' territory.
Honestly almost annoying it has such a positive effect since the practical difference between that and addiction are pretty minimal on a short-term basis. I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea of having to go without it or something filling the same brain-holes for a long period of time precisely because I'm basically worthless without it, in a way I didn't really come to appreciate until after starting medication.
I've always assumed that this is the "right" response?
When people talk about stimulant medication and ADHD, the reactions tend to fall into two categories: Hypes you up, stimulates you, makes you talk fast and move fast, etc... Or calms you down, soothes you, allows you to think clearly, methodically, etc....
I bring this up because it's concerning to me that the "right" response is setting off "never abuse this" alarms. Is it the right response, or is it not?
Personally, I get that same sense of calm and wellbeing. It's why the drug works. My mind quiets down, my ability to hold attention increases dramatically, and my sense of well being ensues. I speak slower and calmer. I am less likely to argue with my spouse. Yes, I feel "good" but I've always assumed that's what its like to feel normal. Normal people get their prefrontal cortex for free, mine is unlocked through a drug.
I think film and TV are partly responsible for this idea. From experience/observation euphoria (sense of wellbeing) is the primary effect of stimulants, not acting hyper. The rest are just a soup of possible effects that vary wildly.
That kind of makes me question the entire dogma of ADHD medication that stipulates a calming effect is indicative of a true ADHD patient, while a hyperactive effect is indicative of abuse / non-label use.
I’ve always assumed that because I receive a sense of calm, well being, and presence of mind that I must actually be ADHD since everyone else takes these meds and bounces off the walls.
Now I’m thinking maybe that isn’t true, and maybe I’ve rationalized taking meds because it’s easier than forcing myself to sit for hours and get quality work done. Uhg.
I don't think your last point is a good thing. It sounds like the problem with Academia is the source and requirements of the funding, rather than the work itself.
I'd much rather academia had ample enough funding where people could work on what they wanted and what they felt was useful without the need to appeal to large businesses or metaphorically knife-fight for grants.
> I'd much rather academia had ample enough funding where people could work on what they wanted and what they felt was useful without the need to appeal to large businesses or metaphorically knife-fight for grants.
That can only ever be a temporary state of affairs unless you deliberately keep the population of researchers small. Competition for scarce resources exists except in high growth domains and growth does not stay high forever. Realistically an even larger majority of PhDs than nowadays would get expelled to industry and other places academics don’t care about like unemployment.
The academic/business split is weird. In business, you're much more likely to be unknowingly treading on known ground, but the visibility of lessons learned is, in most cases, incredibly narrow. I've worked on compilers blindly implementing features I know other competitors have worked on but can't cheat off of, and I've worked on systems programming issues that probably pushed at the state of the art, but whose lessons wouldn't go outside my team in any case.
In academia, though, there's a whole host of obstacles to doing anything useful and interesting that have nothing to do with "the problem at hand". So while you can be more confident in the relative novelty of what you're doing, as well as the broad applicability of said work (since the whole point is publishing) the scope of things you actually can work on is incredibly limited until late in your career.
I blame religion. Not all religion, not every religious person, and not exclusively, but looking back - there was a strong emphasis that "we're all awful people really at our core, and the only reason anyone is half decent to anyone is because they don't want to burn in hellfire" in my religious teachings (protestant Wesleyan, primarily).
I bought into that for a long time. Then I dropped religion, and realized I didn't really want to be an awful person, just as a rule of thumb. It wasn't too much of a jump to realize most people weren't awful most of the time, and it's only a handful that, for whatever reason, didn't get the memo. Even if many people manage to convince themselves otherwise.
This is an article written by an angry user whose usecase isn't well supported.
Like, it's a valid gripe I guess, assuming you think music storage and streaming should be perpetually free even if you didn't buy any of it on the platform, but it just doesn't apply to 90% of the userbase - who do license their music through a monthly subscription rather than buying it outright.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly excited about the shutdown of Google Music - but it's hard to take this author seriously.
This doesn't need to happen, but this is the logical conclusion when we ensure most of the housing market is controlled by landlords rather than owned directly by the people living there. Also, when you turn housing into an investment vehicle. Also, remove any and all public housing alternatives. Also fail to build enough housing to create competition in the housing market. Also demolish housing stock serving poorer residents. Also fail to provide the transportation network to make transit from the suburbs cheap and easy. Also concentrate a bunch of upper-middle-class people in an area suffering from all of the above problems.
I played through the game and did the pre- and post- game study.
At the beginning, I tried pretty hard to genuinely gauge reliability, and was more willing to use some nuance (maybe I don't think the tweet is written fairly, but it touches on a genuine trend, so I'll give it a 3/10). There was also one that I just let slip by me (HBO tweet with some random characters that I realized probably weren't intentional markers to dodge trademarks after I instinctively hit 10/10 reliability, and also you can't go back and correct yourself).
After the game I was just so worn out I didn't feel like giving any credence to anything. Looks like you're kinda emotional? 1/10. Talking about an opinion instead of a fact? 1/10. From a celebrity? 1/10. It also looked like they weren't throwing in many or any tweets that were supposed to be "credible" or "reliable" in the feed.
I'd be interested in seeing the results 2 or 3 weeks out, and with a more even mix of "credible" and "non-credible" tweets. I have the suspicion the results won't stick, or at least won't stick well.
The whole point is that the algorithm doesn't know about obstacles or success as a concept baked into the algorithm. Likewise, this is pretty initial research, meant to inform and promote
In other words, this isn't meant to be super useful by itself. It seems tailor made (as many of these things do) to play super-simple 80's video games and literally nothing else, but it's an interesting proof of concept. I'd also be interested in different iterations on this general pattern - for instance, something that didn't translate directly from screen + button -> prediction, and instead had some interstitial systems - translating from screen -> entities, then predicting entity state of entities given button presses. It'd also be interesting to see how this performs with ML algorithms designed to learn on the fly instead of through training from a static set of data (at least, this looked like it learned through back propagation - I skimmed).
But I can see broader practical applications for this in, for instance, recommender systems trying to break users out of the closed feedback loop that people tend to end up in when going down certain rabbit holes (e.g. watch one Flat Earther conspiracy video and suddenly that's all you see for a week because the recommender system knows that people who look at one will look at more). The point being: the real test comes when this strategy is exposed to more diverse problem spaces, it's just that those are harder to model and we need to weed out the pointless stuff first.
Tbf, the problem comes in when developers (or someone - developers are probably just the most visible) make a pile of cash for coming in, pushing renters out of a small numbed of relatively affordable units, ploping down a building with a large number of completely in affordable units, and causing a huge headache for everyone living in the area in the process.
I'm generally for development, but the way it's carried out in many cases tends to screw over existing residents while benefitting mostly just people-who-dont-live-there.
But then you have to store the entire before & after locally? That's the entire point of using a hash for change detection.