I succeeded in understanding the Kalman filter only when I found a text that took a similar approach. It was this invaluable article, which presents the Kalman filter from a Bayesian perspective:
Meinhold, Richard J., and Nozer D. Singpurwalla. 1983. "Understanding the Kalman Filter." American Statistician 37 (May): 123–27.
Prospective users are understandably concerned that perma.cc will go out of business. No institution can guarantee that it will exist in perpetuity. But perma.cc has at least published a contingency plan: https://perma.cc/contingency-plan.
"Please note that this is a statement of Perma.cc’s present intent in the event the project winds down. Perma.cc may revise or amend this page at any time. Nothing on this page is intended to, nor may it be read to, create a legal or contractual right for users or obligation for Perma.cc, under the Perma.cc Terms of Use or otherwise."
So, yeah, nothing is different than anyone else, other than they have a "cunning plan" that can easily get shitcanned at anyone's whim
> New users are able to create ten free links on a trial basis. After using the trial, individuals must either be affiliated with a registrar or sign up for a paid subscription.
Not what people are asking for. What you're ruling out is the equivalent of expecting cryostasis subscribers to sue if there's ever a service interruption.
Conventional business models as currently implemented are fundamentally misaligned to the timescales associated with this product category. Products like these need a level of stability that can only be accomplished at the charter level of the corporation -- it needs to be fundamentally incapable of reneging on promises made.
Without that kind of reassurance, why should anyone trust this service with their links? The exchange is incredibly unequal. They receive full, permanent control of the content, access, and monetization of all things which I cite. I receive... a promise that my links will do what they already do, but maybe last longer.
Right, which makes this whole contingency plan worth less than the ink and paper it is written. It's their weasel words of saying they know that their entire marketing plan of "permanent" anything is outlandish. However, this is the exact type of marketing that attracts VCs. Might as well add "making the world a better place" in there too
You can create an obligation for yourself or make a binding statement of intent.
Indeed memoranda in the UK, created when registering a company, require it. You state the intended services. Companies weasel around it by making broad milquetoast claims.
A statement binding the organisation to release their data and cede all copyright should the site be terminated, for example, would demonstrate good faith and go a long way to reassuring people that it wasn't wasted effort.
I can't tell whether your post is a joke. Yes, Tessier-Lavigne was forced to resign. But Stanford let him stay on as a professor. That was terrible: they should have kicked him out of the university.
There's at least one huge respect in which tech is different, at least in the USA: worker compensation.
In the book, Tracy Kidder writes repeatedly about how Data General (the company at the heart of the book) is proud of its austerity. It doesn't pay well. It's proud of having an ugly, austere, warehouse-like building. It puts its critical engineers in the windowless basement of this building. Kidder is describing a world that's very far from the FAANG of today, at least were compensation is concerned.
I worked for a guy that converted half the office into a store with windows so shoppers could "watch us work" ... things haven't changed much, for non-FAANG.
Offices were pretty much for managers. The standard was (high-walled) cubicles. Although a lot of the people involved here were in hardware so a lot of their work was in open labs.
That was Aaron Sorkin’s story in The Social Network, but it seems to have been a fiction. Steven Levy’s history of the company is much more detailed (and Levy is trying to be faithful to the historical record, unlike Sorkin) – and it argues that there’s no evidence for this Sorkin story about Zuckerberg‘s motive.
It's a very public place in the United States. It's not clear that people should expect or be entitled to much privacy in these public places.
We also know that, regardless of the degree of privacy to which people should be entitled, they're not legally entitled to much privacy in these places. Federal court rulings have been extremely clear on this point. In these places, we don't even have the right to not be photographed.
>they're not legally entitled to much privacy in these places.
While I think this is a really cool project, I also agree with the privacy issues. CA is a two party consent state, and recording a conversation (which this is likely to do) like this is likely illegal. While a person might not have a expectation of privacy about someone just hearing the conversation, they are protected by law if they are recorded without their knowledge.
NB: I am not a lawyer, and the above could very well be wrong.
Edit: As I was informed below, I was wrong on the legal points.
There is no right to privacy in a public space. It is not illegal to record an area where individuals would not have the expectation of privacy, even without their consent. Therefore, this is not illegal.
If this were a restaurant, that would be a different story.
> Exceptions (one-party consent required): (1) where there is no expectation of privacy, (2) recording within government proceedings that are open to the public, (3) recording certain crimes or communications regarding such crimes (for the purpose of obtaining evidence), (4) a victim of domestic violence recording a communication made to
him/her by the perpetrator (for the purpose of obtaining a restraining order or
evidence that the perpetrator violated an existing restraining order), and (5) a peace officer recording a communication within a location in response to an emergency hostage situation.
No legally protected right. This doesn't mean it is ethical, and given that it is a protected right in other jurisdictions shows it deserves more consideration and should not be hand waived away.
If "it's legal" is the argument being used to defense a behavior, it's safe to assume it's not actually a good one.
No, "it's legal" is the argument being used to defend the "it's illegal" and "you're not allowed to" argument. The argument to support the project is that it's cool af.
We’ve needed this – easy, direct eye contact – for quite a long time. I keep waiting for someone to develop it. I think that Apple has a relevant patent, but I don’t know how much content is in the patent, and I’ve never heard that Apple has done anything with it.
> Having been in relatively low-pressure parts of academia (polisci, behavioural economics, behavioural genetics), I can't say I've ever seen clear fraud
LaCour? Gino? The Ariely study mentioned in the article?
Meinhold, Richard J., and Nozer D. Singpurwalla. 1983. "Understanding the Kalman Filter." American Statistician 37 (May): 123–27.