laminutederire

Member
  • Content count

    1,049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

  • check
    Agree 125
  • info_outline
    Informative 8
  • tag_faces
    Funny 40
  • thumb_up
    Thumbs Up 56
  • thumb_up
    Likes (Old) 0

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About laminutederire

  • Title
    Veteran
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

649 profile views
  1. How about random forests? And how about ensemble methods? Personnally I liked playing with random forests, gradient boosting classifiers, and SVms , and making a mean of those and tuning that.
  2. The figures aren't the same though. It's just marketing, so they may have copy paste the diagram without adjusting the scale because they don't care, because the ones who are serious about it will read the figures.
  3. The thing is with those documents is that there aren't that much loopholes. Loopholes are based on the idea that the rules have to be followed to the letter, while such conventions want to build the foundation of a common ground we agree on, which will give the logic on which to judge one's acts. It's more about morality than law. Because of that it is harder to enforce, but it is even harder to find loopholes. It is like rules in the playground. They're not set in stone, but if you relentlessly break them of purposefully go against the moral rules of it and you are basically left to be playing alone for quite a while. Here it's the same except sanctions are for instance "OK China you want to copy intellectual property ? Then we'll leave you in your corner of the world and just ignore you and stop funding you because you're too unreliable to deal with"
  4. To be fair, human rights already are supposed to prevent them from doing most of that. This is the new torture of modern times with the constant spying to the point you basically never feel not being spied on no matter how careful you are. But it is also the new slavery, in the sense that it is sheer exploitation of humans without any consent on people's part. Both of these are banned by human rights but remain present because the reality can be twisted to make it look good, or at least good enough. But those points aren't what that guy from Microsoft want to eradicate. He just want to protect companies, and to do that he has to give some benefits to the customers.
  5. The point here is more that people won't necessarily wait for custom 1080ti to come out and then buy the FE edition, and therefore giving all their money to nvidia.
  6. That's something they can act upon indeed.
  7. It doesn't work that way. And as people pointed out, it's less impacting on earth when underwater than when outside. The water around will be warmed a bit, but this will created a slightly different equilibrium near it. The 10MW of power a data center consume is nothing compared to the power the seas receive from radiation of the sun. Radiation flux approximation and Oceans surface value give you what you need to compute that the radiation power from the sun is about 246 160 000 000 MW assuming half the ocean doesn't receive anything. In reality a big chunk of that is absorbed by air or reflected. If you assume 1/1000th of that only is being absorbed, it's stille a long way to go for data centers to be even comparable.
  8. Those are ethics rules. If they do not respect it but still get away with it, they'll leave with moral sanctions which can be arbitrary. It's more about, play by our rules or go play somewhere else. Screw civilians and we'll ban the fuck out of you so fast your CEO will whine back at home like a child. Protecting civilians here is not about what their business model is. It's about protecting them in times of war. Like don't use our software flaws to screw up banks, railroads, airports, power plants, telecommunications or even hospitals and critical businesses like postal services, or part of the food industry. You know so that you don't put into jeopardy innocent people.
  9. How so? I don't play battlefield as often so I am genuinely interested! Sure, it's just that with politics and current launch hypes, I feel obligated to point out its legit potential compared to all the rumours our there
  10. It seems legit enough to be put on counter strike steam page
  11. At first it'll begin with spinbots so there shouldn't be that much false positives I guess
  12. False positives are okay if they continue to peer review demos of matches before actually banning people, maybe?
  13. Hi, I haven't seen it being covered in this section of the forum, and it qualifies as news to me: As PCgamers's article states, Valve is toying with machine learning as a way to overcome cheating in Counter Strike. Their strong feelings about this approach being the best one stem from the unavoidable realization that fighting cheats the old fashioned way is equivalent to a never ending arms race, fixing anti cheat to detect cheats which will be made relevant again when programmers of said cheats finally find what have changed. Cheating in online multi-player has always been a concern, especially in competitive games such as counter-strike. It is always welcomed to find new smart ways to fight against it, and it is a feature many competitive players ask for continuously. Will this however be enough? One can argue that rising the game price to throw off cheaters from the perspective to rebuy the game would be enough. Other can argue that machine learning algorithms could be fooled as well by someone knowing how they work. From what I learned about the subject, the objection that it can be fooled is valid. It however remains that it is a complex enough algorithm, which may only be messed with by really talented programmers with strong mathematics background, which are less common than only really talented programmers. In addition, if the learning is unsupervised (as with neural networks or some other methods), it becomes harder to understand how it is choosing to flag players and therefore to fool it. What place can it have in the future though? Indeed, it is noteworthy to point out that those algorithms alone could ban legit players all the more easily. Should it be the only way to ban players? As of now it seems it will only be a support to the peer reviewed system. It is a pioneer approach, which has its drawback for Valve at least. Their spokesperson pointed out that it will need huge computing power to account for enough matches to train it upon, and then on the ability to watch every game to flag cheaters. Enough to need additional datacenters, since the servers cannot cater to this need. Should they try to do the calculation on the client side as well to relieve them from part of those calculations? I don't know if this fits the format, but I tried to speak of everything they said in the article and to add from my perspective to ask you guys what you think about this!
  14. Legally, in France we are protected from that thanks to ancient laws (1978 if I remember right). Anything stored in your machine cannot be even read from outside without it being potentially illegal, unless it's telemetry.