Was there a big run of 4.7 inch eink screens recently? Lilygo has a similar set of products: 4.7" screen powered by ESP32 with different battery connectors, touch screen overlay, and a few case options (some of which are basically just repurposed phone bodies). Theirs comes out to ~$50 if you get touch + a case
I’ve never used PyTorch before... is this running within my local machine, or is there some API in here that’s also sending data to Google to also train their models? Asking a privacy point-of-view..
The python notebook is hosted on google colab which will execute on free (for you) google servers. If you’re concerned about privacy probably do not upload your personal chat logs. You could also download the notebook and install resources on a machine you control. There looks like alternative datasets to test for Obama and movie dialogues
I'm not sure the exact point of the grand parent post -- but for a multi-unit building with the units titled as condos (which would usually have an owner's association) the rules for getting conventional financing in the US (I'm spacing on what those are called) dictate a certain percentage of the units must be owner occupied, lest the loans are not re-sellable in the secondary mortgage markets.
Condo HOAs will thus sometimes try to pass rules or amend bylaws to establish rental restrictions of various sorts -- most commonly setting a minimum lease term, but sometimes trying to set percentages of units that must be owner occupied, limiting the numbers of units that can be owned by a single owner, or establishing a time frame a unit must be owner occupied before it can be rented.
My understanding is that most of the new apartment buildings they are building around me in Oakland and trying to rent out are "pre-converted" or already titled as condos -- but as the investors are renting them out generally there is no HOA to speak of as there is one owner. But, should market conditions change, common areas and separate titles are already established so less paperwork would be required to sell off the units.
I'm asserting that buying a detached house that falls under an HOA is something that should generally be avoided. With a house, there are rarely shared resources that actually need to be managed so any potential benefit is minimal at best, and bad HOAs can be a nightmare, so the risk is high.
I'm also lamenting the fact that developers building new neighborhoods of detached houses (e.g. in places like Austin) are apparently putting almost all of them under HOAs, perhaps because of some legal meme that doing so somehow reduces risk for the developer, or increases sale prices. I think this is an unfortunate trend.
Ya, I have a detached house. I’ve noticed the trend with HOAs being established by the builder. You’re right that there’s minimum shared property generally. Fortunately, every HOA I’ve been in has been good. On the other hand, I’ve looked in areas without HOAs and people didn’t take care of their property or yards, which drove their neighbor’s home value down (the deals seemed good enough to buy, until you drove up and saw your future neighbors).
Yes that sounds counterproductive. Multi-family buildings obviously need a central organisation because things like the elevator, roof, etc are shared infrastructure that requires funding from all occupants. A detached house can be fully owned by the occupant or the landlord. There is no need for middlemen.
> there is no objective logical foundation for differentiating between "me" and "not me": firstly, by showing that, given determinism, everyone/thing is part of a single unalterable process, and secondly, by showing that there is no single objective standard for drawing the line between a thing and the things around it.
I don’t see it. Does he address the fact that dozens of other philosophers over the years have argued the opposite?
> ultimately predictable consequences of the universe's creation, which if omniscient he should have foreseen.
Isn’t this just free will? Is that the nondeterminism that the author is ignoring?
>I don’t see it. Does he address the fact that dozens of other philosophers over the years have argued the opposite?
He creates an axiomatic foundation out of definitions that most philosophers of the time would have found reasonable (nowadays they're also reasonable, just takes a bit of work to get past the language choices he made, as mathematical logic didn't exist then so it's phrased in terms of geometric and theological language). He then uses this foundation to show that there's no objective measure for dividing individualness (what is me, what is not me) and responsibility (what was caused by me, what was not caused by me), essentially a proof that given the axioms no such measure can exist. Similar to how one might give a proof that e.g. there is no way to assign a Lebesgue measure to every subset of the real number line. Note this is just a very rough summary; his actual proof is long and dense.
>Isn’t this just free will?
Spinoza essentially shows that if free will is defined as "being 100% the cause of some action", then free will does not exist. Because any action we take, is determined by who we are at that moment, and who we are at that moment depends on actions we took in the past, and this causal chain can be traced backwards to who we were as a baby, when we could not make decisions.
Another way to look at it. If the universe was deterministic, and I had unlimited computing power and storage for simulation, then I could exactly predict someone's actions in life (assuming consistent laws of physics). If it was nondeterministic, then there are some things I couldn't predict, but these things would all be the product of chance, so how could they increase the degree to which any particularly individual is the cause of some action? They would just increase the degree to which randomness was the cause of some actions.
Congrats SpaceX team! I hope they post the view from the Crew Dragon vehicle of the Falcon 9 breaking up. That seems to be the one view that was missed (in addition to splashdown from the aircraft angle)
There was a post here recently that if you bought pretty much any stock last year, you wouldd profit, so I'm not sure what this is? Is this just if you bought one share on 1st Jan and sold on 31st Dec?
> There was a post here recently that if you bought pretty much any stock last year, you wouldd profit, so I'm not sure what this is?
It was hard to figure out the real numbers of profit you can have with a single trade and multiple trades on one stock within a year. So many reports say "AMD was the best stock of the year 2019", but when you look at the report it looks like they used a different metric (maybe percentage). So it is just a try to give people a better overview about the numbers.
> Is this just if you bought one share on 1st Jan and sold on 31st Dec?
The anchor link shows the maximum profit, meaning you can buy and sell as many times as possible between 1st Jan and 31st Dec. In the section above you find the analysis for the metric as you said.
> Saturn's hexagon is a persisting hexagonal cloud pattern around the north pole of the planet Saturn, located at about 78°N.[1][2][3] The sides of the hexagon are about 14,500 km (9,000 mi) long,[4][5][6][7] which is more than the diameter of Earth[8] (about 12,700 km (7,900 mi).
Why do the two photos at the top of that article look so weird? They look like 3D renders almost. Is that what it actually looks like to the eye too, if one looked at Saturn from a spacecraft orbiting around it?
They look like bad 3D renders because there are no walls and no sky in space, so all the light comes directly from the sun and shadows are absolutely black. The image looks different than with the naked eye though, because they filtered certain wavelengths. https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/cassini/pia18274
Shadows in space are often very high contrast, as there's no ambient light. Simple 3D renderers don't handle ambient light either, as simulating it can be very computationally expensive (instead of e.g. one light source, pretty much everything in the scene acts as a light source with the light it reflects). These images in particular are also in near-infrared, so they may look a little different to colour images of Saturn you've seen.
A near-perfect sphere? sure! Only looks-like-a-circle from some distant projection.
Vortices in a near-2d-flow like a river will absolutely be circular, vortices need to be coherent in some plane in order to sustain themselves.
The specific circumstances here must be that that the water is on the edge of freezing during downstream flow and there is a naturally-very-long-lived vortex in one region for it to initially form the ice-disc. Must also be followed by some very-gently-bounceing-off-the-edges, and the river never getting too thin for it to get stuck.
Less lumpy than a billiard ball. The mountains and trenches only seem significant because the whole thing is so big. Totally not a perfect sphere though, yeah.
The myth is springs from the fact that if you had a smooth earth with a radius of center to Mariana Trench, and another smooth earth with a radius of center to Mt. Everest, you could shrink both of them by the same factor and fall within allowed billiard ball specifications. That says nothing about smoothness, only about the allowed size of ball.
If you actually shrunk the earth we're living on, the ball would still be rejected as quite too rough.
If you shrunk the earth down to the size of a billiard ball and the imperfections where only as rough as the bumps in medium sandpaper then that's still pretty darn round even if it wouldn't be acceptable under official billiard ball specifications. I never could get behind the idea that it would be smooth as a billiard ball but to know you could feel the ridges is pretty neat and yet it's very very round.
I think what you mean is "not that medium". You can find this sort of shape at the astronomic and the microscopic scales, just not usually at human scale.
