Every time I see a photo of Pillars of Creation it makes me wonder if we would even be able to distinguish an unfathomably optimized engineered system from what we consider raw physics with our current understanding.
¿Por qué no los dos?
That's what I've always loved about creation; designed and ordered, with principles and physical constants that result in just so much gobsmacking beauty, from the macro to the micro scale, and yet, it can be intelligible to us in math and science.
Looking up at the night sky, I've always found it to be an awesome experience, in a very literal sense. Looking at these comparisons of the Hubble and Webb images (especially esawebb.org's slider) made me audibly chuckle because I've long been impressed by the Hubble images for all the stars it revealed beyond those visible to ground-based telescopes, much less simple stargazers. With Webb, it just blows my mind how many more stars there are out there; the deeper IR, big mirror, and nice shady spot at L2 result in orders of magnitude difference, and to think of all the stars outside of our Hubble volume that are receding too fast for us to ever witness from here.
We live in a truly amazing reality.
Make sure you've read the service terms[1] if you plan on building apps for speakers, cars, TVs or smart watches...
12.1 The following terms apply only to current and future Google Cloud Platform Machine Learning Services specifically listed in the "Google Cloud Platform Machine Learning Services Group" category on the Google Cloud Platform Services Summary page:
Customer will not, and will not allow third parties to: (i) use these Services to create, train, or improve (directly or indirectly) a similar or competing product or service or (ii) integrate these Services with any applications for any embedded devices such as cars, TVs, appliances, or speakers without Google's prior written permission. These Services can only be integrated with applications for the following personal computing devices: smartphones, tablets, laptops, and desktops
I have a hard time imagining who this wouldn't be a dealbreaker for. These terms also mean you can't use it for open source, and you can't use it if you don't know what the ultimate application is going to be. And you probably can't resell technology you create, because no one who buys it is going to want that restriction, either.
Don't forget huge retail chains. Infinitesimal improvements in their operations can leverage, especially when compounded, sizable improvements to profit margins.
For instance, as GigaMart, if your ML system finds that you are going to need widget-x in region y two weeks ahead of time, you can plan for that including the logistics and inventory.
Hospitals? I'm sure there are lots of things in the day-to-day operations that correlate with patient outcomes that currently go unnoticed.
Etc etc. It's not about creating a huge new invention, mostly it's about creating improvements to operations of current incumbents.
That's how my company would apply the platform to our work. My boss is there now, will be interesting to see what he find out vs what we're doing with our current IBM platform.
Health care. If you're running on-prem, it does a good job of integrating Kubernetes where it's not something my data scientists have to worry about. Also fairly easy to tie in our data mart and all of our databases - MS, Oracle, DB2, MongoDB, etc.
But why would you choose this solution with those terms rather than something without those terms, even if it is an in-house application if significant investment is put towards it that is an asset that your enterprise now has and those terms are now in your enterprise poisoning it. Actually I can think of the large enterprises I've worked for and Legal would probably not have allowed those terms.
No, because using it to get the prototype going is "using these Services to create (directly or indirectly)". Frankly, those terms look poisonous - you could be liable if any part of your service has origins in Google's platform. If you infringe on the GPL, you can remove the offending code. Here, you have no way to disentangle yourself from Google's trap.
I would imagine most prototypes would be made in a Jupyter notebook. I don't see any point in tying yourself to a platform intended for training/deploying models at scale if you're planning to switch off of it.
That's fascinating. When you have that many services, platforms, company divisions, etc you end up naturally competing with yourself, or enabling your competition.
To be fair, Amazon has a way of eventually becoming a direct competitor of many of the companies they initially present themselves as a middle man for.
My guess is owning the user time, e.g if you read article via AMP you don't even visit the original website anymore. Same with providing answers directly in the search results.
The long term benefits are that they stem the bleeding of everything moving inside mobile apps. They need content on the web to remain useful and developers have shown they're unable to make good mobile experiences themselves.
I think this particular move is more tactical than strategic. I think it provides a better experience for users and keeps Pinterest, one of the main AMP users, happy with Google.
Get 'em hooked on something 'free', then monetize it. Rinse and repeat. Just like they are building a browser that only blocks the 'annoying ads', now they are designing their email to let advertising through. So much for 'don't be evil'.
Things can be both monetized and 'free' and I don't think it necessarily has to be evil simply therefore. What I'm curious about is how they intend/could monetize it?
AMP is afaik an open web format, what's the "get 'em hooked" part here? Is it just a defensive play against Facebook's Instant Articles?
Tictail | Frontend, iOS, ML | Stockholm | Onsite | Full time
I'm a cofounder of Tictail, a startup building a marketplace and e-commerce platform with the vision of enabling anyone anywhere to work with their passion. Today we do so by removing barriers of entry (frontend/backend/Android/iOS) and connecting emerging brands with the right customers (ML). We are today the proud home of tens of thousands of shops and millions of customers globally.
We are looking for engineers with a passion for product to join our small Stockholm team (~35). If this sounds interesting there are some more details at https://tictail.com/careers
Our intention with the project was to initiate a discussion among the hackers at the hack and hopefully inspire them to keep in touch. Sorry about the lack of quality, but feel free to contribute: https://github.com/siavashg/lunchspire
We found it way too difficult to find new and interesting people who wanted to discuss the same topics as we did. So we created this during a quick hack at http://startuplocation.com/hack just to get the discussion started. However, if you are curious as to how and what this does with credentials here you go: https://github.com/siavashg/lunchspire
Pointing me to the source as documentation is just lazy. Entice me to use your project. Excite me about your goals. Interest me in looking at your code.
Besides, from a security standpoint, I have no idea whether the code in that repository is actually the code running on the site.
Ligthen up. It's a project done in 6 hours. Judge it at that. Why do you need to be so hostile? Don't use it if you don't want to.
And no I have no affiliation with the guys and think it's totally fine to be critical, but give the guy a break you speak to them as if they are immature brats.
Suppose that someone is able to buy up enough of your stock to essentially own your company, and they notice that the cost of doing so is less than the value of all of the things your company owns. Someone could make a profit by buying your company and then butchering it, keeping a few prime cuts for itself and selling off the rest.
This doesn't happen if the raiding company can't put together enough money to make the purchase, or if not enough of the stock holders are willing to part with their shares.
