oh, interesting, I assumed the data came from interruptions (that seemed obvious) but I'm surprised you had some specific negative measurements. How do you decide the magnitude of the number? Just counting how long both parties are talking?
To be clear, it wasn't my research, I got it from studying some linguistics papers. But it was pretty straightforward. If I am talking, and then you interrupt, and 300ms later I stop talking, then the delay is -300ms.
Same the other way. If I stop taking and then 300ms later you start talking, then the delay is 300ms.
And if you start talking right when I stop, the delay is 0ms.
You can get the info by just listening to recorded conversations of two people and tagging them.
I assume there was a lot of variance? As in, some people interrupt others constantly and some do it rarely. Also probably a lot of adjustment depending on the situation, like depending on the relative status of the people, or when people are talking to a young child or non-native speaker.
All that to say, I'd imagine people are adaptable enough to easily handle 100ms+ delay when they know they're talking to an AI.
Yeah, I recently upgraded to the 9a from the 4a for $250 USD and am still really enjoying Pixels. I might just be out of the loop on what's available, but I can't imagine many other phones at this price are competitive.
The A line is still a competitive midrange (at least when on sale) and if you enjoy the pixel experience there's nothing wrong with it at all.
However the regular pixel or the pro haven't been competitive in several years. This year is particularly bad because it's very close to iPhone price for less storage, less performance, worse battery life, and less easily accessible help (tech support/warranty/repair).
The usual comeback is the the pixel is fast enough so it doesn't matter. And it's kinda true. But it doesn't change the fact that it's poor value, midrange hardware for premium price.
I'm an American mathematician and have always allowed the codomain of a random variable to be any measurable space. I haven't noticed anyone mention random elements. I don't work in probability though, so maybe people directly in the field care more.
From what I saw as a recent grad student in probability, most texts do define a random variable to necessarily map into the reals, or the extended reals or perhaps a subset thereof, or occasionally the complex numbers, and the more general concept is a "random element" (when a more specific term is called for, there are "random vectors", "random graphs", "random processes", etc.). But this is certainly not universal even within probability. In any case, I don't believe it matters much -- it's hard to see how a mix-up here might cause any real confusion, though as always it is annoying that there isn't a common convention.
Interesting way to look at it. Your description of what physicists are experts at matches my math PhD pretty closely. I focused on mathematical modeling. I now work with a bunch of physicists, so I guess that checks out.
Yeah, if you work on the applied side of math it can be very similar to what people do in physics. But I was thinking more about pure math.
Edit: I think the main difference there is that in applied math they still prove that the models are mathematically correct. In physics they just show that the model align with experiments and skip math formalism.
I was with you on the generalities, but oh do theoretical physics suffer from math envy when it comes to formalism. Basically since the invention of quantum mechanics, has physics been dominated by “proofs” and “theorems” like the physical world is assumed to be axiomatically defined by Heisenberg’s and Pauli’s principles, and everything else is just maths.
No small part of the stagnation I sense in physics today stems from too deep a faith in the ultimate truth of the mathematical models we call theories. It doesn’t help the fact that we rely on Taylor expansions and perturbation methods for most experimental predictions.
The Higgs hunt and the passivity of the (experimental) physicists in challenging this stupid theory-driven search for new physics is emblematic of this era.
If only math was seen as a modeling language and not somehow truth/consistency itself, physics would be much better off.
Yeah, I saw that as well, met some professors in grad school that started talking about physics in terms of axioms and proofs instead of experimental results and models. At that point I lost interest and just went with math instead, if it is going to be math anyway why not go with the real thing.
The article says that biking increased and walking decreased. I don't think I can explain those things simultaneously with just "well we were in a pandemic during that time."
Pedestrian fatalities are up in pretty much every metro, so this isn't a meaningful signal. It's still worth pursuing banning high-fatality vehicles from urban areas.
You don't think increasing pedestrian fatalities could be linked to people choosing to walk less? I've certainly noticed in my area that drivers have been much more aggressive since the pandemic started and I walk less because of it.
A classical universal function approximator is probably not sufficient to approximate quantum systems
(unless there is IDK a geometric breakthrough in classical-quantum correspondence similar to the Amplituhedron).
IIUC Church-Turing and Church-Turing-Deutsch say that Turing complete is enough for classical computing, and that a qubit computer can simulate the same quantum logic circuits as any qudit or qutrit computer; but is it ever shown that Quantum Logic is indeed the correct and sufficient logic for propositional calculus and also for all physical systems?
> - The rotation operators Rx(θ), Ry(θ), Rz(θ), the phase shift gate P(φ)[c] and CNOT are commonly used to form a universal quantum gate set.
> - The Clifford set {CNOT, H, S} + T gate. The Clifford set alone is not a universal quantum gate set, as it can be efficiently simulated classically according to the Gottesman–Knill theorem.
> - The Toffoli gate + Hadamard gate.[17] The Toffoli gate alone forms a set of universal gates for reversible boolean algebraic logic circuits which encompasses all classical computation.
[...]
> - The parametrized three-qubit Deutsch gate D(θ)
> A universal logic gate for reversible classical computing, the Toffoli gate, is reducible to the Deutsch gate, D(π/2), thus showing that all reversible classical logic operations can be performed on a universal quantum computer.
