He writes in the description about what he was going for as far as making it seem like part of the actual game while still referencing their romantic history, and how well it worked (good for them!).
That's me! I made that 17 years ago, still happily married. Took me like two weeks of full time tinkering. It involved a lot of trial and error messing with a hex editor.
As I remember it, this was an option you could enable in Netscape Navigator back in the dialup days. In practice it meant that every time you went to a new website you'd have to click ok on a dozen popup menus asking for permission to store each individual cookie before the page would load. I'm sure there are ways to make that process go a little more smoothly but in practice it's still probably something that most users would immediately turn right off.
If I remember correctly the UI for this existed long after Netscape Navigator. According to [1] it was removed in Firefox 44 in early 2016. I had expected that they only removed the UI but left the functionality available via about:config but that doesn't seem to be the case.
EDIT: According to [2] and [3] it seems the behavior was triggered by about:config network.cookie.lifetimePolicy set to 1 (ASK_BEFORE_ACCEPT), but the meaning of 1 apparently has changed over the years. At least setting it to 1 doesn't trigger any cookie dialogs in my Firefox 70.0.1 (64-bit).
In the dial-up days I remember turning on ask to set cookies. It was fairly common to need to deny 10-20 cookie requests even back then. Now there are extensions to manage website trackers that deal with more than just cookies. Extensions are a ton better than having the user agree to each cookie that is sent.
>there is a follow up paper to the DL via Hessian-free optimization paper by James Martens that develops a variant of AD which calculates a special curvature quantity which is useful for efficient second order optimization
This is putting the cart before the horse. Competition is what drives down prices. When companies aren't allowed to zero rate content then they're all offering more or less the same product so they have to compete with each other on price.
Also keep in mind that zero rating is itself an explicit admission that network capacity and overhead aren't factors in the price. The whole deal is that the wireless company lets customers on those plans use unlimited data at no extra charge as long as it's for zero rated content. Allowing customers at that same price point to use that same unlimited data without arbitrary restrictions would ultimately be just as profitable.
Isn't low speed steady traffic easier for the network to handle than bursty high speed traffic? Someone streaming music for 8 hours will use about a gigabyte of data total but only needs a 256 kbits/second connection. The network could deliver that over older 3g infrastructure.
The same thing could be accomplished without zero-rating if they made their data plans something like N gig of high speed data and unlimited low speed data, and then the phones provided some way for applications to specify whether a given connection should use high speed data or low speed data.
For some applications that would be easier for the developer. Music streaming apps could always ask for a low speed connection. But what about file download apps? Whether they should use my limited high speed data or my unlimited low speed data is probably not something the app can determine on its own, because it depends on how much of a hurry I'm in. So a lot of apps would probably need to expose this decision making to the user.
That wouldn't have any net neutrality issues, but I bet it would be a UI nightmare.
(Actually a lot of carriers do kind of do that. A lot of unlimited plans are N gigs high speed unlimited low speed, except rather than trying to optimize which is used on a per connection basis it simply uses high speed until you've run out and then uses low speed for the rest of the month).
>Also keep in mind that zero rating is itself an explicit admission that network capacity and overhead aren't factors in the price.
No, that's not what that means. You can easily take special means to get direct peering to zero rated partners or install CDNs so that zero rated traffic does have any impact on peering links. Congestion at the last mile is only a small part of what an ISP deals with.
For wireless carriers it’s all about the last mile. You can only get a certain amount of data within a certain amount of spectrum. Yeah I know I’m butchering the explanation. It’s been over 20 years since I studied it.
If zero rating wasn't allowed then the ISP would still be doing that sort of thing with popular content providers anyway, just the ones that their users prefer instead of the ones their users are being railroaded onto by the ISP itself, so as far as I'm concerned it's a wash.
These problems are all tractable using traditional computer vision methods. There's a sizable body of published academic research from the past couple of decades that addresses tackling these and other computer vision problems in the specific applied context of video analysis of soccer games. Considering the amount of knowledge out there I'm kind of surprised that any clubs at the premier league level are still in a position where they aren't able to extract useful information from their library of game footage. With so much money at stake I figured that even if clubs weren't developing their own analytics tools in-house there would be no shortage of third party tools out there by now.
>I have people inside a Premier League club just waiting for me to be able to throw OpenCV at an archive of video
How extensive is the footage in their archives? i.e. is it just what winds up in the broadcasts, do they keep every second of footage of every game taken by every camera in the stadium, or is it something in-between?
>But groups like Senior House, which define themselves by being different, also run the risk of becoming highly conformist, Packer says. The punk rock movement is a particularly vivid example of this phenomenon. “They self-describe as being different, but from the outside they all look the same,” he says.
They don't want to look different from each other; they want to look different from people like him. It's really not that complicated. Spinning that into alarmism against the idea countercultures in general like this guy does is just ridiculous, and there's absolutely no way he's doing so in good faith.
Why would anybody define themselves as different from someone else? That’s just giving that person control over yourself. Identifying yourself with your own positive affirmation is difficult and scary and maybe the most important thing you’ll ever do.
What else am I supposed to do, curl up and die? <- a note on my tone: I say this with a shrug, not a sneer. And yes, it's reductive, but that's because that's what I personally have found that the question ultimately reduces to.
I'm glad that the general public is growing more aware of privacy issues but the more cynical part of my brain tells me that, since the government and a very large industry share an interest in eroding privacy as much as possible, putting stronger privacy protections into place won't be easy no matter how many people say that's what they want. I want to feel confident betting on privacy, I really do, but I won't until I see some evidence that growing public awareness is getting politicians to address privacy issues directly instead of brushing them aside to focus on other, politically sexier issues.
I think the debate comes more and more often in the public opinion, and I believe privacy will soon become something people will demand when they buy hardware and software, just like memory capacity or battery usage.
But we don't need to wait for politicians to move on this issue, we can already do a lot without tem! There is growing research on privacy-by-design algorithms, on which we work at my company Snips (https://snips.ai), which will ultimately prevent governments and companies to use data without having the explicit permission of users, what we believe is their right!
Which (if any) of the Dune sequels are "good" is one of those Kirk vs. Pickard or Joel vs. Mike caliber sci-fi debates that gets unreasonably heated since people get very attached to their opinions on creative works that resonate with them on a personal level.
(For the record, I don't really like the first two sequels but I really really love the 3rd-5th sequels; I realize it's a big ask of new readers to get that far just on my say-so though.)
If you've already sloged through Dune Messiah and Children of Dune then you should consider giving God Emperor of Dune a chance because it's very different from the first two sequels. The setting has dramatically changed, so there is a lot of new worldbuilding; the overall narrative shifts to focus on a new central character; there is a return to the more philosophical content of the original as opposed to the strictly expository content of the first two sequels; and the writing itself is (in my opinion) much more lovingly crafted than the prose in the first two sequels which seemed to me as a reader as if it was rushed like he just wanted to spit it out and be done with that part of the narrative. I know I'm really just evangelizing on the basis of my personal reaction to the books but again, if you've alrady read the first two sequels, pop into a Barnes and Noble or something and give the first few chapters of God Emperor a chance.
If I would attempt a re-reading of Dune, would it be advisable to skip those two sequals? It's been over 10 years since I read Dune and among the few things I remember is that I found it a painfully slow read full of details I wasn't interested in and words I couldn't bother to learn.
My English is a bit better now, and I like to think I've become a bit more patient ;) So perhaps I could attempt it again and see if I appreciate it more.
I think you can just skip the first two sequels... The emperor god of dune still reads fine without remembering those two sequels perfectly.
Incidentally I agree, while the first two sequels are interesting they are a bit of a slow read and they don't feel as well written as the later books. Frank Herbert really starts to get into his stride with the Emperor God of Dune.
The books by Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson are better avoided like all works by Kevin J Anderson (who is IMO a very mediocre writer)
I enjoyed the last 2 books of the series, although not nearly as much as the originals. It was nice to have an ending to the story. I think they're ok for Dune fans.
Because reasons, I actually started reading the series from the 4th book to the 6th and only years later I acquired the first 3 pieces of the story. I enjoyed the 4-6 books a lot without reading the other books before because they actually make sense standalone.
So basically yes, you can start reading from the 4th without a problem.
I've heard people say they find inspiration in the Litany Against Fear (Fear is the mind-killer...) but I prefer the stripped-down version introduced in the 5th sequel:
"Face your fears or they will climb over your back."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_HMLvLB7b0 "I proposed by hacking Chrono Trigger (Oct 24, 2008, 6m 57s)"
He writes in the description about what he was going for as far as making it seem like part of the actual game while still referencing their romantic history, and how well it worked (good for them!).