I mean, he looks uncomfortable, but you would be surprised at how much people can tolerate when there is no alternative. Here is an interview I found [0].
I think he looks better than every 90 year old. But he also mentions that it still is terminal.
It's been used, along with every other divergence and distance you can think of.
In practice, which divergence you use doesn't seem to be very important. The KL is the one with the most theoretic foundation though, i.e. will work with infinite data. The important aspect seems to be that neural networks are Lipschitz bound, and that that is the most important constraint preventing collapse.
> To get there, you often need to slow down your brain's electrical activity, moving from active Beta waves into Alpha or Theta waves through meditation or deep focus. This blurs the boundary between the inner "self" and the outer world.
Quantum Mysticism, a.k.a what if we write about spirituality as if we would report pop-science.
It's been a while since I came across one as flagrant as this article.
Not sure if it matters, but that is at least not true for nazi-style fascism. In there, they had a very strong rule of law for most people. But, there was a dual, a parallel system where there was no law at all, it operated outside of the legal system. You could win a trial and be exhonorated, only to be taken away by the gestapo at the door of the courtroom.
It was important for the nazis to keep businesses running, and have most people continue their lives without noticing major changes. Most people would not come into contact with the second system, and barely knew it existed. But if you entered the second system, you often would not come out alive.
This way, they could transit into an authoritarian system without hurting the economy. They knew this and planned it, and it turned out to be correct.
If you can be whisked off to a separate system where you don't have legal rights, you by definition don't have rule of law. Literally the singular, most core principle of the concept is that all persons are equal under the law, whether they are royalty or Jewish. "Strong rule of law for most people" is an inherently contradictory phrase.
If you want to read more: the concept is called "the dual state" [1] after the eponymous book [0]
I agree that the phrase is somewhat contradictory, but it is the best way to describe what was going on. As long as you were within the confines of the normative state, you experienced a rule of law. But as soon as you stepped into the prerogative state, anything could happen. So a "rule of law", except that it didn't apply to everybody, but only to most people. And importantly, the existence of the prerogative state is mostly hidden when you're in the normative state (so unlike a king, which everybody knew was outside of the law)
It was not strong rule of law at all. Germany was chaotic messy place back then. And in addition, courts were right wing biased long before nazi.
Also, the existence of parallel non judicial system makes it literal opposite of strong rule of law. It is not a rule of law when a SA thug can beat and imprison you for winning over him in cards - which was the literal situation in Third Reich.
> Most people would not come into contact with the second system, and barely knew it existed.
Everyone knew about the parallel system. The fear and terror were base of power. There were no attempts to hide it and many attempts to publicize it by nazi.
Moreover, the whole thing started by repression and arrests of high profile political opposition. People do notice that famous writers are in hiding, that the leaders of the strongest party run away, are in prison and then dead. It was impossible to not know about the parallel system or widely publicized repressions. But, a German in question might have been someone who agree with those or benefits from those.
This is the answer, Ive seen it in practice. You just have to show id at the door when your ticket/QR gets scanned as normal, and the names have to match. Obviously only works for over 18 events though, unless you purposely sell under and over 18 tickets seperately.
On the other hand, airplane ticketing is also notorious for stuff like overbooking flights with the assumption people won't show up and then in the rare circumstances where too many do show up, forcing people to give up their seats (in some cases even by force). I don't disagree with your thinking, but I'm hesitant to consider "what airplane tickets do" a good model for just about anything.
Concertgoer Bill of Rights - get bumped? Massive stipend, hotel room, free VIP ticket in future, & transportation+entry to a partner venue in the city with other music.
They haven’t all universally built in overbooking as a critical part of their competitive price structure or whatever, and we can stop it before it starts.
I still appreciate your point here too though; when I'm concerned about a hypothetical change in a system ending up negative in the long run, failing to account for existing precedents for mitigation is something I want to be corrected on
Anything requiring transferring "to friends" will be attempted to be used for scalping of course.
I suppose if we're requiring showing ID to attend anyway, it's not a lot worse to add an online ID verification step in order to be allowed to be a "sender" in the transfer system, and an identity is only allowed to have like 5 distinct "friends" in a rolling 12-month window.
Part of me thinks that Ticketmaster/Live Nation probably makes so much money from their own in-house scalping operation that they don't want to fix any kind of scalping problems for fear they would be somehow obligated to not participate themselves.
> Part of me thinks that Ticketmaster/Live Nation probably makes so much money from their own in-house scalping operation that they don't want to fix any kind of scalping problems for fear they would be somehow obligated to not participate themselves.
My dad used to joke about how many signs he'd say at baseball games saying scalping is against the rules but somehow hearing loads of StubHub ads whenever he would listen to a game on the radio.
The problem with scalping is scale. A single person reselling a single ticket is completely fine, because that is not a viable business model for enough people to distort the market. Just limit the number of tickets someone can buy to 3-5.
Or they just hire other people to move tickets around.
It works at a small scale: 5 people, 5 tickets each, and $100 profit on each seat after everyone else gets paid? That's not so hard to keep track of, and it brings in $2,500.
It also works at a larger scale: 50 people. 5 tickets each, and $100 profit on each seat? Keeping that all in-line is definitely sounding like Real Work, but it also sounds like a tax-free $25,000.
Yes, but you can't know if the transfer happens at a profit. You can always ask the person to pay you extra on top of a "monitored" transfer.
UEFA limits this for football games by allowing you to purchase only two tickets and changing only one name, and the two tickets must go together. Or you sell back the ticket to the organization and they sell it back to random fans.
If something happens to your family, maybe the last thing you should think about is grieving that you lost some juicy, juicy money on tickets which you couldn't use?
It's not your fault. But it's not their fault either. It's the same for events as for most other reservations: You don't get your money back if you miss it.
My first thought is a bunch of 12 year old girls that want to see Taylor Swift. They won't have national IDs. On the other hand, how does it work for children's airline tickets? Again, they won't have national IDs, but we know that children fly all the time -- with and without their parents.
Some festivals work just like that, you upload some ID when buying your ticket which they see when you enter the venue. Feels really nice and stress free.
A theory that skips the parameter space, and understands grokking theory, comes up with an unexplained update rule, which notably works on a per-parameter level by dropping the updates for most parameters.
I suspect there is going to be a lot of handwaving to actually go from eNTK to that new update rule.
I also doubt it helps in the non-grokking regime, given the focus of the theory, which is where all the practical applications I have ever heard from live.
Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy reading this essay. It's well written and reasonably argumented without going into details.
The handwaving required is just to assume a diagonal preconditioner, and the optimal preconditioner under that constraint corresponds to the new update rule. (See section F of the paper.) And of course a diagonal preconditioner works on the per-paramer level.
See the first minutes of this video, where he has a spectrum analyser: https://youtu.be/-DyrBDsKA5s?si=mRJPT2ecy6NqpB4N
reply