I'm a big fan of https://www.revolutionspodcast.com/ by Mike Duncan (also did History of Rome). Episodes are broken up into different series, each series covering a different revolution. Current series is the Russian Revolution. Episodes are around 25-30 minutes usually.
I'm a software engineer for one of the major tech companies. Quitting next month to study AI & machine learning full time for a year. Hoping to jump head first into the autonomous vehicle area. Should be financially independent by 40 (I don't spend much), but don't plan on ever really "retiring". Will be nice to work on what I want without worrying about salary...
Punt GIF is probably a better GIF, but I have a far stronger emotional response to the spring game grin. The first time I saw it, it finally sank in that Harbaugh was our coach and all was right in the world again. Go Blue!
Agreed, it will not be an instantaneous shift. Autonomous vehicles will replace different market segments at a time (e.g. semi-trailers travelling on interstates will likely be one of the first).
The concerns in your second paragraph are certainly warranted. My only counter to your arguments is the need to incorporate projection of certain technologies going forward. In this case, I believe that the inclusion of sensors into new cars will allow us to passively map a large segment of the US road systems over the next few years. Also, the recent advances in deep learning are particularly promising for more intelligent driving by autonomous vehicles (computer vision has progressed leaps and bounds over the last 2 years in particular).
I may be a bit optimistic, but I don't believe it's unwarranted.
This is a great point. I'm pretty heavily invested in the area so I certainly have some bias on the subject. Obviously time will tell, but my educated guess is that the data collected will be compelling enough to get the regulators moving quickly. If driverless vehicles are as successful as I think they will be, the market forces pushing it forward will be enormous. Lowering property damage, medical bills, costs of shipping, and of course lost lives would have a massive economic impact. But of course, I could be naive and completely wrong.
Totally agree. I think that will emerge around the same time as autonomous taxis begin rolling out, just because of how much money is being poured into that market segment by Uber, Lyft, Google, Tesla, etc.
It's a matter of probability. Is the autonomous vehicle more likely to cause a crash than the guy texting while driving? How about the teenager snapchatting? We tend to overestimate our own abilities. Humans aren't fantastic drivers. Autonomous vehicles won't be perfect, but they don't need to be, they just need to be better than us (which from what I've researched, they already are or will be very soon depending on the situation).
The technology is getting close. Advances in deep learning and improved sensors has allowed a huge amount of progress to occur over the last few years.
As for the regulators, it may take more time. What will happen is that the cars will be running simulations while humans drive. This data can then be used to show the percentange of accidents that would have been preventable if an AI was driven (and the number that would have occurred if an AI was driving). Once that data is available and shows a significant improvement in safety, it will be far easier to argue for fully autonomous vehicles.
I'd expect to start seeing autonomous vehicles on the road around the end of the decade. Autonomous semi's will likely quickly follow.
FYI: I've been studying AI/machine learning for the past 6 months with particular interest in autonomous vehicles.
Care to elaborate on that? Self driving cars will become more common once the data shows they're significantly safer than humans. Why wouldn't that be a good thing? 1.3 million people die in car crashes/year. It's insane that we're OK with that, and wouldn't welcome changes that will reduce that number.
Am I missing the reference? I can understand the latter two, but Cook can clearly throw. Cook to Burbridge was their entire offense against us, and those were tight windows against Lewis.
Totally agree. Was the first class I struggled in at UM. Getting a 19 on the midterm was a big wake up call, but it was also the class I learned the most in.
Apple can't update a locked phone. They could roll out a software update which would remove some of the safeguards in place, allowing them to remote decrypt a phone if they so chose in the future, but software updates can only occur when the phone is unlocked.
Problem with that is, if Apple can decrypt the phone remotely, then they've just opened up an avenue for other hackers to try and exploit.
Ignoring the very real possibility of our own government misusing this power to gather private information about US citizens, the threat of criminal organizations and foreign governments doing so is very real.
Almost all Android phones are based on the open-sourced Android project, but are modified by the individual manufacturer/carrier. Just because there's no obvious backdoor in the open-sourced code doesn't mean the Android phones you can buy don't have them. Food for thought.
Apple has access to some data about your phone use (obviously). They have records on their servers about your use of some apps (mainly Apples apps), but the data on the phone itself is encrypted and limited to the device. The hardware in the newer iPhones simply do not allow remote decryption.
Warning Technical Details: There's a security enclave (hardware) that has a private key unique to the device, which is used to decrypt the phone. Apple doesn't have that. Only way to break into the phone is to use the owners thumb print (assuming touchId is used) or brute force the PIN/password. The brute force won't work in the newest phones though since there's a feature in the hardware to wipe the phone after 10 unauthorized attempts in a row.
The phone in this case is the 5C. That's important because it's security mechanism is different than the 5S, 6, 6S. For those phones, Apple has designed the hardware so that even they can't update the OS to bypass the security.
I'm 100% on Apple's side on this one. Creating a backdoor of any kind (and that's exactly what the US govt is asking for, whether they want to word it that way or not) creates security exploits that can be used by criminals and foreign governments as well. Ultimately this will only hurt your average user. Criminals (at least the smart ones) use sophisticated encryption techniques not used by mainstream tech companies, since they're willing to trade ease of use for increased security.
Recent Comments
The audio for the podcast seems to be from a podcast last year. Anyone else having the same issue?
I'm a big fan of https://www.revolutionspodcast.com/ by Mike Duncan (also did History of Rome). Episodes are broken up into different series, each series covering a different revolution. Current series is the Russian Revolution. Episodes are around 25-30 minutes usually.
Ah, I thought there might be a stream featuring Spieth. Thanks for clarifying.
How are you watching Spieth?
No, they're bundling this into the $99 price of Prime membership. At least for this year anyways.
MOAR 1st HALF WAGNER!
Mattison was talking to Sam Webb today and mentioned Lawrence Marshall is moving to 3 Tech.
Coaches must have been confident given how Aaron Banks recruitment went. Rough to go 0/2 on them.
2016 has been a weird year
"and then the hot girl in class sees you without your pants."
That seems like a good thing, no?
Speight with deep accuracy: check!
One small data point: MSU WRs not getting much separation on the few passes down field.
WR falls over with no one around him, false start, throw to tacopants. Top notch competition Sparty.
Wow Furman is bad at football
"Michigan holds OSU under 25 poinds and under 4.0 YPC"
Isn't the margin of victory supposed to equal the line? Cumong Brian...
I never tire of the look people give me when I tell them I grew up in Flint
I'm a software engineer for one of the major tech companies. Quitting next month to study AI & machine learning full time for a year. Hoping to jump head first into the autonomous vehicle area. Should be financially independent by 40 (I don't spend much), but don't plan on ever really "retiring". Will be nice to work on what I want without worrying about salary...
Punt GIF is probably a better GIF, but I have a far stronger emotional response to the spring game grin. The first time I saw it, it finally sank in that Harbaugh was our coach and all was right in the world again. Go Blue!
Agreed, it will not be an instantaneous shift. Autonomous vehicles will replace different market segments at a time (e.g. semi-trailers travelling on interstates will likely be one of the first).
The concerns in your second paragraph are certainly warranted. My only counter to your arguments is the need to incorporate projection of certain technologies going forward. In this case, I believe that the inclusion of sensors into new cars will allow us to passively map a large segment of the US road systems over the next few years. Also, the recent advances in deep learning are particularly promising for more intelligent driving by autonomous vehicles (computer vision has progressed leaps and bounds over the last 2 years in particular).
I may be a bit optimistic, but I don't believe it's unwarranted.
My thoughts exactly. I really wanted a breakdown on the mental gymnastics it took to make that leap
I think ruin is a bit strong, but massive changes are coming. There will be a lot of restructuring certainly.
2. How did you
1. No Politics
2. How did you manage to pull Hillary Clinton into this discussion?
This is a great point. I'm pretty heavily invested in the area so I certainly have some bias on the subject. Obviously time will tell, but my educated guess is that the data collected will be compelling enough to get the regulators moving quickly. If driverless vehicles are as successful as I think they will be, the market forces pushing it forward will be enormous. Lowering property damage, medical bills, costs of shipping, and of course lost lives would have a massive economic impact. But of course, I could be naive and completely wrong.
Totally agree. I think that will emerge around the same time as autonomous taxis begin rolling out, just because of how much money is being poured into that market segment by Uber, Lyft, Google, Tesla, etc.
Not sure what you mean by every solar system, but here's my source: http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/roa…
It's a matter of probability. Is the autonomous vehicle more likely to cause a crash than the guy texting while driving? How about the teenager snapchatting? We tend to overestimate our own abilities. Humans aren't fantastic drivers. Autonomous vehicles won't be perfect, but they don't need to be, they just need to be better than us (which from what I've researched, they already are or will be very soon depending on the situation).
The technology is getting close. Advances in deep learning and improved sensors has allowed a huge amount of progress to occur over the last few years.
As for the regulators, it may take more time. What will happen is that the cars will be running simulations while humans drive. This data can then be used to show the percentange of accidents that would have been preventable if an AI was driven (and the number that would have occurred if an AI was driving). Once that data is available and shows a significant improvement in safety, it will be far easier to argue for fully autonomous vehicles.
I'd expect to start seeing autonomous vehicles on the road around the end of the decade. Autonomous semi's will likely quickly follow.
FYI: I've been studying AI/machine learning for the past 6 months with particular interest in autonomous vehicles.
Care to elaborate on that? Self driving cars will become more common once the data shows they're significantly safer than humans. Why wouldn't that be a good thing? 1.3 million people die in car crashes/year. It's insane that we're OK with that, and wouldn't welcome changes that will reduce that number.
Do you see Long as an ideal fit for boundary?
Am I missing the reference? I can understand the latter two, but Cook can clearly throw. Cook to Burbridge was their entire offense against us, and those were tight windows against Lewis.
Edit: I'm an idiot, I get it now
+1 For Stronglifts
Totally agree. Was the first class I struggled in at UM. Getting a 19 on the midterm was a big wake up call, but it was also the class I learned the most in.
The WWI and Mongols are my favorite series, though the WWII eastern front and Roman Republic series were also quite good.
I sometimes forget that Brian has a CS background and then he drops Bayesian model in a post on recruitment. Well done sir.
WTF is this lineup
Apple can't update a locked phone. They could roll out a software update which would remove some of the safeguards in place, allowing them to remote decrypt a phone if they so chose in the future, but software updates can only occur when the phone is unlocked.
Problem with that is, if Apple can decrypt the phone remotely, then they've just opened up an avenue for other hackers to try and exploit.
Ignoring the very real possibility of our own government misusing this power to gather private information about US citizens, the threat of criminal organizations and foreign governments doing so is very real.
Almost all Android phones are based on the open-sourced Android project, but are modified by the individual manufacturer/carrier. Just because there's no obvious backdoor in the open-sourced code doesn't mean the Android phones you can buy don't have them. Food for thought.
Apple has access to some data about your phone use (obviously). They have records on their servers about your use of some apps (mainly Apples apps), but the data on the phone itself is encrypted and limited to the device. The hardware in the newer iPhones simply do not allow remote decryption.
Warning Technical Details: There's a security enclave (hardware) that has a private key unique to the device, which is used to decrypt the phone. Apple doesn't have that. Only way to break into the phone is to use the owners thumb print (assuming touchId is used) or brute force the PIN/password. The brute force won't work in the newest phones though since there's a feature in the hardware to wipe the phone after 10 unauthorized attempts in a row.
The phone in this case is the 5C. That's important because it's security mechanism is different than the 5S, 6, 6S. For those phones, Apple has designed the hardware so that even they can't update the OS to bypass the security.
I'm 100% on Apple's side on this one. Creating a backdoor of any kind (and that's exactly what the US govt is asking for, whether they want to word it that way or not) creates security exploits that can be used by criminals and foreign governments as well. Ultimately this will only hurt your average user. Criminals (at least the smart ones) use sophisticated encryption techniques not used by mainstream tech companies, since they're willing to trade ease of use for increased security.
Source: Software Engineer
First time I've seen your avatar, well done sir
Bingo. Cole was a better Tackle than Magnuson, and is likely a better Center than Tackle. I'd have Cole as at least a 90.