Since GCC is lacking such an essential optimization, you should consider have one of your junior interviewee contribute this basic optimization mainline.
You can make frequency inertia with solar (even without batteries if you accept running with a constant reserve so with reduced efficiency). Spain showed that there is a learning curve, that's for sure, but their issue was a "simple" oscillation problem that can be fixed by adjusting frequency-follow rate and grid-disconnect rules. It wasn't like a peak of energy consumption or loss of energy production that only a rotating mass could compensate.
80% accuracy could mean 0 false negatives and 20% false positives.
My point is that accuracy is a terrible metric here and sensitivity, specificity tell us much more relevant information to the task at hand. In that formulation, a specificity < 1 is going to have false positives and it isn't fair to those students to have to prove their innocence.
That's more like the false positive rate and false negative rate.
If we're being literal, accuracy is (number correct guesses) / (total number of guesses). Maybe the folks at turnitin don't actually mean 'accuracy', but if they're selling an AI/ML product they should at least know their metrics.
It depends on their test dataset. If the test set was written 80% by AI and 20% by humans, a tool that labels every essay as AI-written would have a reported accuracy of 80%. That's why other metrics such as specificity and sensitivity (among many others) are commonly reported as well.
Just speaking in general here -- I don't know what specific phrasing TurnItIn uses.
The promise (not saying that it works) is probably that 20% of people who cheated will not get caught. Not that 20% of the work marked as AI is actually written by humans.
I suppose 80% means you don't give them a 0 mark because the software says it's AI, you only do so if you have other evidence reinforcing the possibility.
you're missing out on the false positives though; catching 80% of cheaters might be acceptable but 20% false positives (not the same thing as 20% of the class) would not be acceptable. AI generated content and plagarism are completely different detection problems.
Is there a survey of SoTA of what can be achieved with CSI sensing you would recommend?
What is available on the low level? Are researchers using SDR, or there are common wifi chips that properly report CSI? Do most people feed in CSI of literally every packet, or is it sampled?
Now many people use https://ps.zpj.io/ which supports some hardware including SDRs, but I must discourage using it, especially for research, as it's not free software and has a restrictive license. I used https://feitcsi.kuskosoft.com/ which uses a slightly modified iwlwifi driver, since iwlwifi needs to compute CSI anyway. There are free software alternatives for SDR CSI extraction as well; it's not hard to build an OFDM chain with GNUradio and extract CSI, although this might require a slightly more in-depth understanding of how wifi works.
> networks don't care as long as they get their cut.
Pretty clear this is the case, almost all of it could be stopped overnight with a simple whitelist to people you know and a blocklist of countries and regions where you’ll never ever need to take a call from.
...and perfectly legal services too, e.g. joinmassive.com, brightdata, etc.
(they're used for gathering listing data from e-commerce sites, job boards, etc.)
They do this so they are harder to track & block. If they were sending over Wifi then they have to hide the IP, so they have to use VPNs, which are often blocked, etc. But with their solution they have a standard SIM on the standard cellular network, so it's nearly indistinquishable from a regular cellphone.
Well you can't really do -600C sand (or anything), so the benefits of sand VS water largely diminished. "just" freezing water already gives you around 300C equivalent of sand (if my napkin is correct).
Also the point of this plant is to exploit the counter-correlation of cheap electricity and cold. Usually there is a bigger correlation between cheap electricity and heat.
You can use heat to create cool by using absorption materials. It's of course way more complicated than with heat. But anyway with that, stored heat in sand could be used to create district cooling.
You misunderstood-- temperature is physically limited to -273°C, this is not an engineering problem. You have a smaller usable temperature range in a "cold storage" than with heat from fundamental physics alone.
Useless anecdote that tail-recursive can be a foot gun even in Scala.
I did a (screening) job interview at Datadog, they asked for "give the spare change back on that amount of money" exercise (simple variant), "in whichever language you want". I did my implementation in tail-recursive Scala (with the annotation). I ended up trying to explain that tail-recursivity doesn't explode in memory for the rest of the call (and failed)
> I ended up trying to explain that tail-recursivity doesn't explode in memory for the rest of the call (and failed)
I count that as a successful interview – They sent an interviewer who doesn't understand how tail recursion enables tail call elimination, and is either unwilling or unable to listen when is is explained to them. Sounds like the company would be a bad fit for somebody whose go-to approach is to implement the solution that way.
I've always struggled with not seeing this as 'sour grapes' on my part when I think like this. No matter how many friends and peers tell me I dodged a bullet. Even with my experiences with ignoring red flags. Rejection still sucks.
This is not a reject, is a not match. Write code like you want to read and if it’s not OK for a company it’s just not the good company (like if you are scala programmer and they want only ASM coders). Be proud of your code.
