OCR is not the task being solved here, though. This is supposed to help you when dealing with complex layouts where text is not just read left-to-right, top-to-bottom.
But I agree that accurate OCR is kind of a prerequisite for adaptation.
That name reminds me of PUBG and Proton-GE (specifically the GE part). Both awkwardly named after one person's internet handle. If sufficiently shortened, and ideally also pronounceable, I think it can work. With that in mind, "CSAS" might not be the best, though maybe people could pronounce it "Sergeant Sea-Sass". Then the biggest problem I see is the # of syllables, but if you've already established context, you could probably shorten it further in subsequent usage to "Sea-Sass" or CSAS only, which is only about as bad as "LDAP".
With something with more bandwidth than an RTL-SDR you may be able to at least capture the data but having dedicated hardware for the target signal is the easiest if you're looking to tune. I've seen POC Analog TV signal decoding but not digital signals in software beyond some exploration and general signal analysis.
I wrote '"racist"', because the proponents insist that "all members of class X are also Y" (there where X does not imply Y as an "analytic judgement" - it is not entailed from the nature of X but accidental to X ... yet seen by the proponents as a constant property of X): that is the character of racism. "All wood is odorous", etc.
Those who insist that "all humans are <slur>" are "racist" against humanity (against the "human race", if you wish).
That spirit is in the refusal to see exceptions and to recognize that there can be exceptions.
Isn't "prejudice" a better word? It's the base underlying idea of assuming some bad quality about an individual based on their membership in a group that they can't change. It's just strange for me when one 'ism' out of thousands is taken as the defining form of prejudice. Maybe it's just me, but I find it prevalent in US-centric communities, where racism is the agreed-upon baseline discrimination, from which parallels are drawn to the other forms.
While 'prejudice' is in a way forced to be related to a group, because we suppose it triggered by a perceived pattern, which constitutes a group (but it could be a group of accidentally linked members as opposed to supposedly naturally linked members, as in "race"), the term 'prejudice' means "judging before the ability to express a fair judgement".
> one 'ism' out of thousands ... taken as the defining form of prejudice
It was meant to be specific in this case (in the context of this submission): they look at the median, and go (with fallacy) "look at the median, judge the group"... As you can see, that is not prejudice but bad judgement given samples of the group: that is racism.
When people say "humans are <some fault>" that is bad judgement disregarding the possibility of exceptions, not bad preliminary judgement. It is poor judgement, not prejudice.
I find it especially worth of denunciation not only because it is sloppy thinking (which must be curbed): also, some people may use it as an excuse to remain in avoidable mud. When people say that something "would be necessary", they may avoid the really necessary steps to avoid that something.
(dropped the snark)
Racist means grouping according to race, or potentially geographic origins. The word for what you're describing is probably closest to discriminatory, or prejudicial.
However, misanthropic is probably more correct as the paper applies to all people negatively.
And in fact there are people that go "all humans are <broken with some specific fault said to always show>". They have made "one big race". Historically the term (with predecessors like 'racialism' has had even other related nuances, e.g. superiority), but the matter does not change. I picked the term in its spirit.
> prejudicial
Prejudice can hit individuals and groups of disconnected individuals; "racist" is for prejudice against some (in theory) internally connected group.
> discriminatory
The opposite: the proponents do not discriminate (they do not make a distinction recognizing that some individuals are different from the supposed median in the group). (You are thinking of 'discriminate' as "hitting a group vs other groups".)
> misanthropic
Misanthropy is not necessarily attributing specific (undesirable) qualities to the group.
--
Now, since the occasion is there: could you please do me a favour? I never understood what "snark" instead is meant to mean, what people want to say with that. I asked other times (it is used in the guidelines), the only reply I ever got is sniping. Could you be so kind to explain what "snark" and "snarky" are supposed to mean? A non analytical reply (as opposed to this very branch of posts) suffices.
No they are not randomly wrong or right without perspective unless they have some kind of brain injury. So that's against the title but the rest of their point is interesting!
I think at this point in the wave, the criticism starts to pop up here and there, but it's still decried. In 12-18 months, the momentum of the white hot VC injections over the last few years will sustain the wave for a time. By 27 or 28, the unicorn payoffs in the space will arise, and by 30 "everyone" will know that AI has been overhyped for a while.
This person is just trying to get ahead of the game!
That no one is offering this says something very profound to me. Either they don't work and are too risky to entrust a company to, or leadership thinks they are immune and are entitled to wield AI exclusively, or some mix of these things.
reply