Indeed.co.uk is an excellent job search engine but from what I have noticed it's flooded with ads coming from recruitment agencies. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a lot of those job postings would be replicates, posted by different recruiters/agencies.
Also, there seems to be quite a lot of confusion about node.js around recruiters/job postings. It is often being treated as another *.js library and put under front-end category.
My native language is Polish too. I wouldn't be 100% sure that this guy is a fake. Polish is indeed a hard language - pronunciation is tricky and there is a lot of conjugation struggle to get through (even names are changing suffixes dependently on context).
What I think happens on the video is that the guy has a list of different phrases/words (prepared for this particular situation) and maybe some pronunciation notes. That's ok, I would do exactly the same. You just cannot memorize all the necessary core words in one hour but you can use them easily if you have a reference material (plus you keep the conversation going and practice more).
He does standard mispronunciations that every non-native Polish speaker does at the beginning. However, you can hear that when the lady replies in Polish, there is nothing to indicate that he actually understood what she said. He gets the questions after she gives him some hints in English. If he was preparing just for an hour for this skype call it is certainly an excellent starting point.
>My native language is Polish too. I wouldn't be 100% sure that this guy is a fake. //
Agreed on that second part. I'm skeptical too but having seen Benny's Youtube videos and knowing that he already speaks a dozen or more languages and that he has reportedly learnt them enough to be conversational in months ... I think he has a handle on how to make specific sounds already and probably knows a lot of cognates.
He's not just a random guy, he appears to be trying very hard; I wouldn't call it fake without further evidence; he clearly has a great talent and many people appear to have had success using his methods (which he passes on for free).
I like the idea. There is many ways to extend e-mail functionality by building additional layers on top of it. But imagine having a group e-mail conversation for a large number of people where just a fraction of them is using the featured e-mail client. How would you communicate this additional information to the other? More e-mails? Or just completely skip it?
My first attempt at a solution, were I to actually try something like this - say, with my hypothetical chrome/firefox extension called LikeMail - would be to send out a canned email with custom headers.:
"enobrev has read and 'liked' your message with the LikeMail chrome extension! Download it _here_ so you can do the same with your emails."
Then on the recipient's client, if they have LikeMail, consume that message and hide it, while showing the appropriate signaling in the inbox, etc.
Definitely a clunky workaround, and can easily be considered spammy, I suppose, although if that automated message were customizable, maybe less so. I think the reason for the email (as opposed to skipping it) is to convey the info the action of "liking" is meant to convey. Essentially if I hit "like" button in LikeMail I'm trying to tell the sender "I read and liked your email". Sending nothing would go against that intention.
Not necessarily all of the fake likes are always from fake accounts. I have witnessed some of my facebook friends 'liking' a big number of pages without their consent, automatically. Most probably as a result of phishing they became a part of some big click farms.
I really like it. It would be cool if the score would be based on how quickly you answer too. Also, I would be very interesting to find correlation between how many/what languages user speak as native/learned to how many languages they can recognize. For example, it's funny how knowing just one Slavic language helps you not only to recognize any other ones (or in some easier cases understand a lot) but also spot the small differences in accents or vocabulary.
The best thing I ever did for my accent was doing some simple low paid part-time jobs in restaurants and night clubs in UK. As a foreign bartender, waiter or a bouncer you are forced to speak and most importantly to be confident in a foreign language.
By 2100 we should be able to scan this info from a frozen brain. If we scan your brain and then build and run a computer simulation of it, someone who remembers being you would wake up and feel alive.
Let's say we are actually able to do that by 2100. Somebody is scanning in patterns and current state of my neural activity. He copies that into a simulation - more than once. Which of the simulations will be me? All of them?
If we keep writing down common sense datums until 2100, we can make computers as smart as people.
Would it make them smart or just filled with hard coded knowledge? I would expect that in this case the goal would be to create a system that is able to acquire common sense knowledge on its own from a given environment and reason from it. What we might consider as common sense in our daily lives might not be fully applicable in different situations.
I will be your resident biologist tonight (not working in cognition/memory but I will try to make a more general point).
Putting aside the philosophical problems for a moment, the notion that the only relation between a brain and a mind is the pattern of neuronal connections is pretty naive.
The formation and maintenance of memory is controlled at multiple levels: single atoms (ionic gradients determining the polarization of neurons), small chemicals and hormones (e.g. neurotransmitters in the synapses and signalling peptides), DNA (epigenetic control, mainly methylation), proteins (constant synthesis and degradation in the process of memory consolidation and long-term potentiation) and finally cells (pattern of connections between neurons).
I highlight these different levels because they are formed by compounds that are very different from a biological and chemical point of view. You can't just snap-freeze them all in their place. And freezing is the easy part -- how do you thaw a brain and preserve the state of all these components (all of which have different thermodynamic properties)?
Assuming you don't want to thaw it but, as the article suggests, 'scan it' you would have to be able to determine the conformation and activation state of each involved protein and compound, along with all their density gradients in intracellular spaces... Not by 2100, sorry.
Biology is hard because it's all relations, thresholds, gradients and fuzzy logic. To escape this probabilistic haze into a clean world of ones and zeroes -- I read HN.
The links that you provide make o lot of bold, unsubstantiated claims (outright dismissing protein shedding as 'trivial' borders on funny) so I am not sure whether you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. They are also from the 90's and the understanding of the physiological complexity of the brain has changed a bit since then.
Ahh, the swampman! I always thought of this problem when watching characters in StarTrek using teleportation, didn't know it was an existing, famous problem.
IMHO the teleported person ceases to exist at some point and a _new_ , identical person is being "created" by the transporter device. It's more of a gut feeling, hard to explain in words why I feel this way.
It's kinda intuitive, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong.
Imagine you fall in coma and sleep long enough that all your body cells have been changed. Do you wake up a different person? I don't think so.
What you perceive as yourself is the experience of being aware of everything you have learned in the world. An identical brain, whether created by teleport or running in simulation, is you just as much.
So yes, both simulations will be sure they are you (and in a sense, both will be you—if we allow the simulations, we must abandon the idea of there being only one “you” at the moment). The funny thing, these simulations will immediately diverge by obtaining different experiences, and thus can be thought of “forks” of you.
Imagine you fall in coma and sleep long enough that all your body cells have been changed. Do you wake up a different person?
I believe you do. In fact I believe you are a different person moment-to-moment. The concept of 'you' is simply a mental convenience. This is exactly why Buddhists deny the 'self.' It's not that you don't exist- it's just that there is no single thing that remains unchanging, and the idea of a 'you' that exists through time is illusory.
I occasionally find myself wondering whether it is the same "me" that wakes up in the morning as falls asleep the night before. So is it really the same instance of my consciousness that boots up in the morning as was shut down the night before?
Not the most productive thing to think about as you fall asleep :-)
Yep. It's a consequence of information entropy. Both start receiving different stimuli or have other subtle differences that make each different like twins. The ethics seem to be that each should have rights equal to exist (run) as egalitarian as any other, regardless of origin. Stopping is deleting is killing.