Do you think a Philosopher's Stone might have some value, too? I think Y Combinator should look into it. Maybe an Elixir of Immortality?
An automatically parallelizing compiler that works in general is one of the holy grails of computer science. They have been extensively researched for decades and we have little to show for it. If anyone managed to make one it would instantly render the entire computer industry obsolete.
We have systems that work in specialized cases with a whole lot of manual intervention. Even then, the executable is often less efficient than the serial version.
I also think it is an unrealistic suggestion, in case that didn’t come through in my first comment! Haha.
But I’m sure the hoped-for result was just another one of those specialized tools, specialized for some Y Combinator niche. Which is also probably an unrealistic idea for a team that isn’t interested in that sort of thing, but at least isn’t totally ridiculously stupid.
And the SEC is also saying "you don't get to ignore the rules just because you don't like them". Whatever the rules should be, it's clear Coinbase is on the wrong side of what they are now.
There is nothing in the law that explicitly prevents the registration of a cryptocurrency. The problem is that the people making them are not able to answer the kinds of questions the SEC asks. How many cryptocurrency companies do you know of that could pass an audit? Even when ICOs aren't out-and-out scams I have never encountered one transparent enough for me to want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Why should the SEC bend over backwards to create new rules that allow exactly the sort of opaque, unaccountable offerings it is their job to prevent?
Everything about this screams "system working as designed to protect the public".
Would you kindly point out a company that tried and failed to register an ICO? I have done a little research and been unable to find any that even went through the motions. Perhaps the specifics matter.
Hmmm, I see that Stacks has 2 seed rounds, a series A, and a VC round all separately listed prior to the token fundraising. Good to see you were able to be partly successful at traditional raising, at least enough to afford the lawyers and the filing fees, before you had to raise from tokens. Not every one has those opportunities or connections.
Sure - Greyscale is a Cryptocurrency holdings company. They have tried several times to make a Bitcoin ETF, but keep getting strong armed by the SEC to the point that Greyscale had to sue them for reasons why they were not allowed to register the bitcoin ETF. The SEC isn't even letting crypto companies register their crypto ETF's.
There is mountains upon mountains of evidence that show that the SEC is biased towards crypto and that killing it will be done by way of confusion and corruption through dumb lawsuits.
> How many cryptocurrency companies do you know of that could pass an audit?
This is, quite simply, zeitgeisty prejudice. Most well-funded cryptocurrency companies have passed audits. I've worked for or with four crypto companies and three of them were audited (also all of them still exist).
You aren't allowed to count "fraud cryptobros from miami creating an ICO" if you don't count "fraud fratbros from harvard/yale creating a hedge fund". And if you do count both, then you'll notice that the proportion of fraud is roughly the same everywhere, we just allow ourselves to notice it in some places more than others.
> Why should the SEC bend over backwards to create new rules
Because you don't apply old rules to new contexts if you're a responsible government, especially if you're claiming jurisdiction over those new contexts. Registration and filing processes created for the paper era simply don't cut it for regulating self-executing financial instruments. Why doesn't the SEC have a registration smart contract? It is the SEC's responsibility to adapt to the times.
> Would you kindly point out a company that tried and failed to register an ICO
What do you not understand about "there is not process"? I've been a part of two companies who have tried. We have had "conversations", aka we try to reach out and a different attorney occasionally gets back in touch with us and rehashes the same conversation every six months. The longest effort went nowhere in four years. There is no registration, there is no process, there are no boxes we can check on the existing forms which govern what we do.
> Most well-funded cryptocurrency companies have passed audits.
This is true in practice but untrue in spirit. Any nonsense project can pass an audit by hiring an equally nonsense auditor.
> You aren't allowed to count "fraud cryptobros from miami creating an ICO" if you don't count "fraud fratbros from harvard/yale creating a hedge fund". And if you do count both, then you'll notice that the proportion of fraud is roughly the same everywhere, we just allow ourselves to notice it in some places more than others.
This is blatantly untrue. Yes, there are plenty of forms of fraud which occur in hedge funds, but the public is shielded from many of these, because the most obvious forms of fraud were recognized and regulated decades ago. There's practically no such protections around crypto, and as a result, a whole host of obvious scams have flourished.
If you talk to almost any crypto investor, most of them have been scammed at some point. The same is not true of investors in traditional markets.
You can absolutely legally register your cryptocurrency as a security. The requirements just make it a non-starter.
There's is nothing inherently different between cryptocurrencies and securities. The accounting is irrelevant. If you promise people that their money will increase in value if they invest, then you need to register as a security if you want to sell to retail customers. You can continue selling the unregistered securities all you want to professional traders.
Tesla's system can be used to achieve nothing in actual operation. It makes constant mistakes and requires an ever-vigilant human to take over in a fraction of a second when it does. There is no advantage over manual driving, let alone manual driving with modern driver assistance.
We know Tesla cannot match Mercedes. We don't know whether or not Mercedes can match Tesla. Mercedes isn't reckless enough to let untrained fanboys play with defective software in two-ton vehicles on public roads.
"We know Tesla cannot match Mercedes" - how? You know this?
"reckless" "untrained fanboys" "defective software" - what is this tone? Why is it reckless? Why do the fanboys need training? Why do you think the software is defective? These are significant unjustified claims!
To me, it seems each company has a different strategy for self-driving, which aren't directly comparable. Beta testing with relatively untrained people on public roads seems necessary for either strategy though.
Mercedes' system does not do most of the things Tesla's does, right? Such as stop at stoplights or make turns, or do anything at all off-highway. It's a significantly different product, and since they didn't try to do many of the things Tesla is trying to do, it's pretty difficult to claim that those things aren't necessary because Mercedes didn't do them, when they haven't even attempted to deliver the same feature.
So, in the absolute best-case scenario cherry-picked from thousands of videos, Tesla's system is capable of going twenty-five miles without making dangerous mistakes.
"Supervised" does not mean the models need babysitting; it refers to the fundamental way the systems learn. Our most successful machine learning models all require some answers to be provided to them in order to infer the rules. Without being given explicit feedback they can't learn anything at all.
Humans also do best with supervised learning. This is why we have schools. But humans are capable of unsupervised learning and use it all the time. A human can learn patterns even in completely unstructured information. A human is also able to create their own feedback by testing their beliefs against the world.
Oh, sorry, I’m not that familiar with the terminology (I still feel like my argument is valid despite me not being an expert though because I heard all this from people who know a lot more than me about it). One problem with that kind of feedback is that it incentives the AI to make us think it solved the problem when it didn’t, for example by hallucinating convincing information. That means it specifically learns how to lie to us so it doesn’t really help
Also I guess giving feedback is sort of like babysitting, but I did interpret it the wrong way
> One problem with that kind of feedback is that it incentives the AI to make us think it solved the problem when it didn’t,
Supervised learning is: "here's the task" … "here's the expected solution" *adjusts model parameters to bring it closer to the expected solution*.
What you're describing is specification hacking, which only occurs in a different kind of AI system: https://vkrakovna.wordpress.com/2018/04/02/specification-gam... In theory, it could occur with feedback-based fine-tuning, but I doubt it'd result in anything impressive happening.
The customer base was alienated because Bud Light made one (1) custom can of beer. Not one kind of custom can, literally only one can.
Strangely, Bud Light has made special cans for pride month for years now and no one much cared. Strangely, people are boycotting Bud Light specifically and Anheuser-Busch is largely ignored. Strangely, major beer companies have had much more prominent partnerships with trans people with no similarly hysterical reaction.
This is not a story that makes sense. Even from the perspective of the modern American right it doesn't make sense. It's just a herd of people freaking out for no reason.
The explanation is that Bud Light is viscerally associated with Dylan Mulvaney, who shot videos promoting the custom can. Bud Light's masculine, blue collar customer base does not want to be associated with Dylan Mulvaney. However, they are not sophisticated enough to extend the association to AB-InBev's other products. It's not hard to understand.
As I said, this doesn't make sense even within the modern American right. Bud Light has been loudly supporting trans rights for years now with no backlash I can remember. Why did associating with a transgender person for a single video result in more outrage than years of deliberate political activism?
It's a random social media outburst. People latched on to one trivial event because that's what happens on the Internet. There is no rational explanation.
>The third Skywalker trilogy started off with a bang in late 2015 with The Force Awakens, only to end with a whimper four years later as fans deserted the franchise.
The Rise of Skywalker grossed over a billion dollars at the box office. The current crop of TV shows are some of the most popular things on TV. That isn't what I'd call "desertion". Disney can milk Star Wars for years to come.
It wouldn't surprise me if they've already made back their investment. The five Disney Star Wars movies have made over $4 billion gross. That's not accounting for the parks or merchandising.
I don't see any doom and gloom here for Disney. Things are bad for the moviegoing public, sure, but Disney is doing fine.
Exactly, people need to stop pretending Star Wars is something it isn't.
It ain't high science fiction, it ain't some coherent canon of beautiful authentic story telling.
Apart from Rogue One and Andor, it's space shows for kids. The plots never made total sense, the acting was always corny, the writing wasn't exactly tight. All the way back to A New Hope.
It's pew-pew-pew blasters in space, bad guys vs good guys, etc.
I hated the sequels, they were awful, each in their own unique way. Abrams makes garbage stories from whatever he touches these days. But he makes garbage that makes money, and that's really what it's about.
Public hands over $$, gets to see shiny space battles with a dose of nostalgia. That's what they're paying for, whether the true fans complain or not.
Myself, I hated the prequels, too, but I rewatched them recently with my adolescent son, though, and he was fine with them and, yeah... because as cheez and corny and incoherent as they were, that's what Star Wars is.
Only he doesn't make as much money as his employers expected. Star Wars Episode IX should have made Avengers Endame box office, and it barely cracked a billion. Yes, a billion is a ton of money, but I'll bet Disney had projections and Rise of Skywalker fell short. His resume certainly looks pretty slim post-Star Wars.
Well, good, I hate what he did for both Star Trek and Star Wars, and his story telling style to me epitomizes everything wrong with Hollywood. Glib, shallow characters with no depth that I don't care about, and routine plot shortcuts.
But, again, Lucas was hardly a masterful writer, too. The prequels were pretty awful, IMHO, and of the original 3 I only really like "Empire Strikes Back"
An automatically parallelizing compiler that works in general is one of the holy grails of computer science. They have been extensively researched for decades and we have little to show for it. If anyone managed to make one it would instantly render the entire computer industry obsolete.
We have systems that work in specialized cases with a whole lot of manual intervention. Even then, the executable is often less efficient than the serial version.