Not OP, but as a native English speaker and former scientist (though not in this area), I would interpret "x does y on English tasks" to mean "we tested this in English and don't know if the effect generalizes to other languages".
In this case we do know if the effect generalizes to other languages. It cannot fail to; the larynx, lips, tongue, and jaw are almost all there is. For example, vowels are conventionally defined by jaw position ("height"), tongue position ("frontness"), and lip configuration ("rounded" or not).
You might miss some things like creaky voice or ejectives, you'll probably miss aspiration, but all that does is give you a worst-case scenario analogous to a native speaker trying to understand someone with a foreign accent. Extremely high accuracy will be possible.
Sure, in the same sense that it would be "unscientific" to conclude that someone's amputated leg didn't regenerate by chance, because the sample size is only 1.
If you know how you're recognizing English, and you know that other languages do not differ from English in relevant ways, then you know you can recognize those other languages. Pretending you don't know something you do know is not scientific.
This seems like damned-either-way. If they had only tested English and asserted that it was universally applicable to all languages, it’s likely you (or someone else) would rightfully object that it’s annoying when English speakers assume that’s all there is.
That's not a similar claim. Anyone can be annoyed by anything; the idea that it's "unscientific" to state that a method of recognizing English by measuring the positions of the lips, tongue, and jaw alongside the activity of the larynx will apply to every other spoken language in the world is ludicrous on its face. It will, because those measurements capture nearly every dimension of phonetic variation that exists. No one could believe otherwise, except apparently for metabagel.
You don't know, though. You have a good working hypothesis and you can make reasoned predictions, but it remains untested. The core principle of science is that we test our hypotheses.
Well, no, they're minor elements everywhere. You don't need to be able to capture every phonemic distinction in a language to get a near-perfect transcription, as witnessed by the fact that people understand foreign accents without difficulty. The much larger problem in understanding foreign speech is the odd word choices and lack of grammaticality, but those problems don't arise when you're transcribing native speech.
For some comparisons, think about the fact that Semitic languages are traditionally written without bothering to indicate the vowels, or that while modern English has a phonemic distinction between voiced and unvoiced fricatives, this has a very uneven correspondence to the same distinction as it exists in the writing system. In the case of the interdental fricatives, the writing system does not even contemplate a distinction. And there's nothing particularly problematic about this; if you delete all the voicing information from a stretch of English speech, it stays about as intelligible as it was before. (A voicing difference in stops is not even audible to English speakers. It's audible in fricatives, but no one is going to be confused.)
> For some comparisons, think about the fact that Semitic languages are traditionally written without bothering to indicate the vowels, or that while modern English has a phonemic distinction between voiced and unvoiced fricatives, this has a very uneven correspondence to the same distinction as it exists in the writing system.
And there's a very uneven correspondence between vowels as they exist in speech, and as they exist in the English writing system. Thought dissent mannequin swipe them or bite roar a lie.
You're right that usually, in English, you can understand a sentence with aspiration information stripped out. But just because it's not (usually) significant in English, that doesn't mean that's universal across all languages! Wikipedia has a short lists of languages where aspiration makes a difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirated_consonant#Phonemic
> In many languages, such as Armenian, Korean, Lakota, Thai, Indo-Aryan languages, Dravidian languages, Icelandic, Faroese, Ancient Greek, and the varieties of Chinese, tenuis and aspirated consonants are phonemic. Unaspirated consonants like [p˭ s˭] and aspirated consonants like [pʰ ʰp sʰ] are separate phonemes, and words are distinguished by whether they have one or the other.
x1798DE captured my intent well. For example, tonal languages like Mandarin or Cantonese may be more difficult to decode if vocal cords aren’t vibrating, and languages with more phonemes that have both a voiced and unvoiced version might be more difficult. I still think decoding will be possible for general language, but that’s a hypothesis whereas I know it’s true for English.
> and languages with more phonemes that have both a voiced and unvoiced version might be more difficult.
I had the understanding that English is unusually rich in phonemes that occur in both a voiced and unvoiced version. But as I've mentioned sidethread, this just isn't very significant as far as transcribing English goes.
English has an almost full series of stop and fricative phonemes that exhibit voicing contrasts:
- Bilabial, alveolar, and velar stops /p, b, t, d, k, g/, though the distinction between /t/ and /d/ disappears intervocalically in American English. [In practice, English speakers differentiate these phonemes more by the contrast of aspiration than by the contrast of voicing.]
- Interdental, labiodental, alveolar, palatal, but generally not velar, fricatives /θ, ð, f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ/, along with palatal affricates /tʃ, dʒ/.
- Nasals and approximants are always voiced.
Compare a language like Mandarin Chinese, where there are between zero and one pairs of phonemes that contrast by voicing (the sound represented by pinyin "r" may be a voiced fricative otherwise equivalent to "sh", or it may be an approximant; there is no contrasting voiceless approximant), or Spanish, where only the stops feature this contrast.
What are the languages that have more voicing contrasts than English does? It would almost be necessary for such a language to distinguish between voiced and unvoiced vowels. (Some quick research suggests that Icelandic at least has a comparable number of voicing contrasts, but it is not obviously more than English and appears to be actively shrinking.)
> tonal languages like Mandarin or Cantonese may be more difficult to decode if vocal cords aren’t vibrating
More difficult, yes, but in the sense that decoding may take more computation, not that the error rate will go up.
Again, we can already observe that e.g. Mandarin speakers do not have trouble understanding text that carries no information about tone, nor do they have trouble understanding songs, where lexical tone is overridden by the melody of the song.
(What happens here depends what you mean. If you want to decode speech into pinyin with tone marks omitted, the lack of ability to measure tones will fail to be a problem by definition. If you want to decode into Chinese characters, you'll need a robust model of the language, at which point lack of tones will also fail to be a problem - the language model will cover for it. If you want to decode into pinyin with tone marks, you won't be able to do that without using a language model.)
The article does not really explain what it means for it to be "cheaper" to rent than to buy here. Do they mean mortgage payment + taxes is higher than rent? Or do they mean that mortgage payment + taxes - equity is higher than rent?
It seems like accurately assessing the true cost of owning a home is complicated, to say the least, and it might not be terribly easy to compare it to rental costs across the whole country like this...
I used to get mosquito bites but I stopped getting them as an adult. I realized after a while that my skin stopped reacting to them even though the mosquitos were still biting me.
I recently managed to coax one into biting me to test my hypothesis. I felt it go into my skin and watched it suck for a bit, but it didn't get particularly engorged on it. No mark the next day. My son had a bitemark from a non-deliberate bite, though.
I think for some of us they literally don’t even bite anymore. They certainly have preferences in blood type. I also have super visible veins as a relatively thin athletic person, yet they just seem to have no interest in what’s on the menu.
It’s quite a luxury as someone who spends lots of time on trails. But I also feel somehow offended. What’s so bad about MY blood?
I believe they all follow trails of your breath, which is why they can be reliably found above your bed when inside
So its likely about how that smells
Or other trails toward you, while they probably would enjoy your blood in actuality even if they think they’re detecting something related to how the meal would taste or its nutrition levels by proxy
Yes thats the one, what word would you like to use for that sensory molecule detection
There is still some difference in who they choose to follow or act upon so I’m grasping for where that difference is. Could be something alongside the CO2
Humans exhale all kinds of stuff aside from just CO2, including moisture and other metabolic byproducts depending on what you’re eating. Probably some bacterial metabolic products from our mouths too.
I guess I’m less into the semantic difference between “smell” and “detect” and more whether it’s the CO2 they’re following or something else we exhale regularly.
Oh, that’s an interesting observation I’ve never realized until you pointed it out. I’ve always been the target of mosquitos more than anyone else I know, but it seems to get worse the fitter I am. Now that I’m a bit pudgy and out of shape, I haven’t had anywhere near as many bites.
But, to be fair for me being fit and being in the regions where mosquitos exist en masse is a related phenomenon. Out of shape me spends less time on trails than fit me.
The idea one of the preceding comments seemed to imply was that they sample a bit first.
> I felt it go into my skin and watched it suck for a bit, but it didn't get particularly engorged on it. No mark the next day.
So it might follow that with one resistant (R) and one non-resistant person (NR) exposed to a few dozen mosquitoes, NR will end up with lots of visible bites while R will be relatively unscathed - even though the mosquitoes might have sampled them each equally.
I know too that some mammals (e.g. mice) will sample a small amount of food (e.g. rodent poison), and then return later to try more if the food hasn't had ill effects.
I'm not sure that mosquitoes have anything like a memory capacity for this, but maybe something similar mediated via pheromones could be happening. (And something like pheromones could also signal to other mosquitoes that there's good eatin' to be had).
I think the argument would be that formerly corrupt enforcement entities, or entities with no track record, would use a blockchain as proof of their commitment to impartial enforcement going forward. "We know you don't trust us, but here is a public record that you know we didn't manipulate, so if we are going to steal your land we have to do it openly."
That said, the same thing can be accomplished by outsourcing the public ledger to a third party with a reputation for trustworthiness. The same way that countries that cannot make a credible commitment to not devalue their money will often peg their currency to the dollar or the euro.
A blockchain might go part of the way to solving that problem, but as you say there are other solutions (any public database can be monitored for record changes if that trumps privacy concerns, and non-blockchain databases can be append only) and transfers of property ownership aren't necessarily consensual and compensated just because immutable public records are made of them. And if it's landowners rather than an untrustworthy oracle updating the database with records of land transactions you create a new class of problem (if you lose a private key is that land yours in perpetuity? Or is it someone else's in perpetuity if they steal your private key or exploit a bug in a related smart contract and won't give it back?)
Which is where trusted counterparties like the one you suggested are a much better bet than an untrustworthy party enforcing and administering a record and its exception handling, even if that record itself is immutable.
I don't know if it's right for everyone, but the way I did it was to practice a bunch of leetcode style questions and send out resumes go for job postings at big companies.
That was for my first tech job. Once I had that one advertised on LinkedIn (and some open source participation, and some talks at conferences - not sure what generated interest), I started getting a steady stream of unsolicited emails from recruiters. Next time I was ready to switch jobs I just responded to the ones from FAANG companies and went back to practicing leetcode.
You can probably also just reach out directly to recruiters at big companies, or ask someone you know who works at a big company to put you in touch with a recruiter or recommend you.
It's unclear from the article, but the author may mean "Why do people talk about microdosing for these benefits and not about walking in the park?" The author even mentions that microdosing is not common.
Alternatively they may mean, "Why is microdosing so trendy but walking in the park is not?"
The author flatly states, a few sentences later, "On the other hand microdosing is not common."
While the author's wording misses the mark, from context there's absolutely doubt he's referring to microdosing being a more popular discussion topic in some circles, not more popular in terms of the absolute number of people actually doing it.
No idea if what OP is doing is or isn't fair use, but fair use doesn't require the content creator's permission, and in fact if you have the content owner's permission you generally don't need to invoke fair use at all (since they are in a position to simply grant you permission to use their content).
There is basically no chance that stealing the entirety of someone else's content (a full clip), no commentary, no parody, just a straight reupload onto their own account for views/subs is fair use.
It seems that this post and the attempts to draw a lot of attention outside of core dev is likely to hurt pydantic's position rather than help it (though probably it will do neither because the core devs / steering council aren't going to ignore an issue out of spite or something).
