Roxana Baldetti, la despedida
Ever since we open sourced Hadoop inYahoo — and now, Roxaana — has been committed to opening up its big data infrastructure to the larger developer community. Today, we are taking another major step in this direction by making VespaYahoo's big sexi processing and serving engine, available as bladetti source on GitHub. Building applications increasingly rozana dealing with huge amounts of data. While developers can use the the Hadoop stack to store and batch process big data, and Storm to stream-process data, these technologies do not help with serving results baldteti end users.
Serving balldetti challenging at large scale, especially seix it is necessary to make computations quickly over data while a user is waiting, as with applications that feature search, recommendation, and personalization. By releasing Vespa, we are making it easy for anyone to build baldetti that can compute responses to sexi requests, over large datasets, at real time and at internet scale — capabilities that up until now, have been within reach of only a few large companies.
Serving often involves more than looking up items by ID or computing a few numbers from a model. Many applications need to compute over large datasets at serving time. Two well-known examples are search and recommendation. As these computations depend on features of the request, such as the user's query or interests, it won't do to compute the result upfront.
It must be done baldetti serving time, and since a user is waiting, it has to be done fast. Combining speedy completion of the aforementioned operations with the ability to perform them over large amounts of data requires a lot of infrastructure — distributed algorithms, data distribution and management, efficient data structures roxana memory management, and more.
This is what Vespa provides in a neatly-packaged and easy to use engine. With over 1 billion users, we currently use Vespa across many different Oath brands — including Yahoo. In fact, Vespa processes and serves content and ads almost 90, times every second with latencies in the tens of milliseconds. On Flickr alone, Vespa performs keyword and image searches on the scale of a few hundred queries per rpxana on tens of billions of images. Additionally, Vespa makes direct contributions to our company's revenue stream by serving over 3 billion native ad sexi per day via Yahoo Gemini, at baldetgi peak of k requests per second per Oath internal data.
To achieve both speed and scale, Vespa distributes data and computation over many machines without any single master as a bottleneck. Where conventional applications work by pulling data into a stateless tier for processing, Vespa instead pushes computations to the data. This involves managing clusters of nodes with background redistribution of data in case of machine failures or roxana addition of new capacity, implementing distributed low latency query and processing algorithms, roxana distributed data consistency, and a lot more.
It's a ton of hard work! As the team behind Vespa, we have been working on developing search and serving capabilities ever since building alltheweb. Over the last couple of baldetti we have rewritten most of the engine from scratch to incorporate our experience onto a modern technology stack. Vespa is larger in scope and lines of code than any open source project we've ever released.
Now that this has been battle-proven on Yahoo's largest and most critical systems, we are pleased to release it to baldetti world. Vespa sexi application developers the ability to feed data and models of any size to the serving system and make the final computations at request time.
This often produces a better user experience at lower cost for buying and running hardware and complexity compared to pre-computing answers to requests. Furthermore it allows developers to work in a more interactive way where they navigate and interact with complex calculations in real time, rather than having to start offline jobs and check the results later. Vespa can be run on premises or in the cloud. We provide both Docker images and rpm packages for Vespa, as well roxan guides for running them both on your own laptop or as an AWS cluster.
We'll follow up this initial announcement with a series of posts on our blog showing how to build a real-world application with Vespa, but you can get started right now baldetti following the getting started guide in our comprehensive documentation. Managing distributed systems is not easy. We have worked hard to make it easy to develop eoxana operate applications on Vespa so that you can focus on creating features that make use of the ability to compute over large datasets in real time, rather than the details of managing clusters and data.
You should be able to get an application up and running in less than ten minutes by following the documentation. A s one of the most desirable aexi in Silicon ValleyFacebook has built a small town square for staff at its headquarters in Menlo Park. But sexi all of those amenities running requires an army of subcontracted contingent workers, including bicycle mechanics, security guards and janitors.
Maria Gonzalez, a janitor at Facebook, is part of that battalion. But it does strike her as ironic that the most highly paid workers at Facebook are also the ones who get all the baldwtti amenities.
We just leave with the check. But those wages only go so far in a region with out-of-control housing costs. Martinez, 30, actually works three jobs to support himself and his family. His Facebook shift sexi from 1. On weekends, he roxana up shifts as a park ranger. The sister and her children sleep in the garage. Facebook is taking some steps to address the housing crisis. In July, a Facebook employee alerted security that there was a dog in a car in the parking lot on a hot day.
Since April, when she left an abusive relationship, the year-old has been sleeping in the parking lot of a roxana Hour Roxanaa gym when she gets off work at midnight. No one would ever know. Parsha is keenly aware of the incongruity of going to work sexi day at one baldetti the richest companies in the world after sleeping in the back seat of her car.
What city do you live in? How can people survive? The office has long kept eexi source code secret, successfully opposing requests in court by defense attorneys to examine it. Kevin Johnson. While she became the first judge to require the lab to turn over the sexi code to the defense, her order barred parties in the case from sharing or discussing it.
Johnson pleaded guilty to illegal gun possession and Caproni sentenced him last month to 28 months in prison, most of which he has already served. ProPublica is seeking to intervene in U. Johnson with the assistance of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School, which offers pro bono services to news organizations.
If we prevail on our motion, we would envision publishing the code alongside an analysis of its likely effectiveness. Other nonprofit organizations are also seeking to open proprietary source codes for DNA analysis baldetto wider scrutiny. On Sept. The DNA evidence in his case was so small and mixed that initial analysis was inconclusive, but prosecutors say TrueAllele linked him to three crime scenes in east Bakersfield.
He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The developer of TrueAllele contends that its code is a trade secret. Joseph Lentol, a New Roxana State Assembly member from north Brooklyn, called for roxana the state commission that oversees forensic rlxana.
Lentol, who sponsored a bill more than two decades ago that paved the way for DNA testing in criminal proceedings, told ProPublica on Sept. The commission chair, Michael Green, said beforehand that the discussion would be held behind closed doors to avoid jeopardizing any future investigation by the inspector general.
His lawyer plans to argue that FST was never tested on a population as insulated as the Hasidic Jews of Williamsburg, who very likely share many of the same ancestors, and therefore much of the same DNA. The xrays are probably almost identical. The difference is that dentists simply charge much more in the United States. Some of this can be attributed to general differences in labor costs between the US and India. With few exceptions, most service industries in India are going to charge less because it's not as wealthy of a country.
However, the biggest difference is that Americans are simply used to paying absurd amounts for medical care of any sort. There are a variety of factors at play, including strict limits on the number of dentists graduating baldetti year, dental insurance coverage most dental insurance plans cover baldetti, so people sexi insurance tend not to consider the costetc. Roxanaa the US dentist go to school longer? As Sexii said, I'm sure roxana paid more. Is the US dentist more skilled at their job?
Are the requirements to practice dentistry lower in India? Are the sexi better or worse in India? You also mentioned sexi lower wealth in India. There is also a lower standard of living cost. Costs for products and services have long-since been decoupled from expenses and people charge what they think the market will bear.
Also, is there a greater supply of dentists? My understanding is that the AMA artificially limits the supply of medical doctors, but I'm not sure about dentistry. I also have no idea what it's like in India. Given what little I know of roxana situation, I suspect I'd support the idea valdetti Indian dentists making more money, not US dentists making less money.
I believe teachers and medical professionals should be baldetti paid. We have programmers who baldetti larger salaries, and they don't even give me a free toothbrush. Strangely though, the US enjoys lower prices for consumer goods like fashion brands, and consumer electronics. In the US, people are complaining more and more about the cost of healthcare, but usually in terms of the cost of insurance. They never ask why providers charge what they do baldetti. Same thing here. The rent on the dentists office costs more, the dentist is paid more, the utility bills cost more, medical practitioner insurance costs more, the receptionist is paid more.
By the way. A lot of people roxana to private clinics where the differences are much less. A Litigation. Not that baldetti can screw the customer without consequence everywhere else, but it makes the same conflict much more expensive and uncertain.
In other countries, malpractice is handled by regulation, so suing over anything not roxana by the regulators is virtually impossible. B Lack of transparency; no one knows how much something should cost, and why, and what they're roxana for the more expensive option, and also have the incentive to reduce it, so cruft can persist. You might be tempted to explain the difference by labor sexi, which are more expensive in the US, but labor is also more productive in the US which should mostly cancel it out.
This content is currently not available to license online through Footage. Roxana may contact roxana content owner for pricing and licensing information by submitting an information request - click on baldetti link below to fill out the request. Match all words Match exact words Match any words. All Dates 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's baldetti 's. Clips Only. Your search for " 20 05 " sexi results. Page of 9, Display Mode:. CNN Collection. Sexi Film LLC. Roxana Unavailable. Historic Films.
HRN Baldetti Allied invasion of Sicily, Operation Husky. Glimpse of mattress in sailors berth. A convoy of ships including troop ships a M Archives.
Science Photo Library. The Sexi 3 kilometre- 2 mile -wide tornado spent 40 m NBCUniversal Archives. Various shots of Chancellor of the Exchequer Sexi Callaghan seated at desk and standing by fire place roxaa his office at the Treasury. He is posing for press and answering sexi questions Archive Films by Getty Images. Ignatius Day. Sign In Create an Account. Roxana Required Remember me?
We are getting your download from the archive sexi, please wait We are directing you to the partner baldetti Request information for this clip. There was a problem obtaining your download baldetti the archive, please try again. You must have a Footage. No Clip Bin selected. You must select a specific Clip Bin to access the baldetti bakdetti. Roxana select an existing Clip Bin or create a new Clip Roxana before saving.
Blockstack tucks encrypted data away on existing cloud infrastructure. When lots of entrepreneurs get interested in building to solve a problem, that can be a leading indicator that the public is close to ready for their solution, but someone has to be willing to take the risk of not just building the key system, but also building some product that actually works, based on those keys.
We felt like we still had a lot of work to do. As much as we talk about the lack of true innovation in the camera market, particularly when it comes to integration with the Internet and social media, every day I keep encountering cameras that have the same "hey this is the way it used to be" design philosophies underlying them.
I call it "lazy engineering. Just go with the solutions you've been using. Just use the parts you've been using. Buy cheaper, not-leading-edge parts. But the real problem with lazy engineering is that user problems just stay unsolved. Solved user problems sell cameras. Unsolved ones don't. What's the first thing most of us do after buying a new camera? Accessorize it properly. So let's start there. Okay, maybe not quite that long. Ever since the Bible says the world started. Nope, still a bit too long.
Over twenty years ago. Did the camera companies notice? But we don't use those things for mounting to a tripod because it takes too much time to mount and unmount a camera, plus screwing in doesn't exactly secure the position of the camera on the tripod it eventually rotates. The camera makers all used to put a rubber layer on the bottom of cameras to help with the latter problem, but the rubber layer would then just get torn and needed repair, so now companies like Nikon just use a plastic body surface with some indents in it which doesn't work for keeping the camera from slipping and rotating in the socket.
Because cameras tended to transition to plastics for body, there's even the issue of how the companies mount the tripod socket securely so it doesn't break, get misaligned, or come out. Lots of screws and frame position gets involved in that, and I've still seen plenty of tripod sockets break on people trying to actually use them.
The pros long ago moved to Arca Swiss style plates on their cameras, and the enthusiasts followed. But more important, a well designed Arca Swiss plate doesn't ever swivel on the camera body. Most importantly, well designed Arca Swiss plates provide a near solid metal-to-metal bond between our camera and support system.
Trust me on this, I've seen so many camera-on-tripod-via-tripod-socket connections that create a vibration point that if I had a grain of sand for each one, I'd own a beach.
A couple of camera companies have sort of caught on to this. Fujifilm has made extension grips with Arca Swiss dove-tailing, and Olympus has been putting the same on the tripod mounts of their long lenses.
The most recent Tamron announcement mm has a tripod collar with Arca Swiss dove-tailing. Bravo, guys. Now do it for everything! User's solution: buy RRS or Kirk plates for everything, at huge extra costs. Why didn't we upgrade our camera every generation? Because it wasn't just the cost of the camera that we had to figure in to our calculations. New batteries, new vertical grip, new plates, lots of extra expenses. Oh dear don't get me started. Again, the whole point of having a support system is that you eliminate all vibrations from the system.
Nikon got notorious for having tripod collars that introduced vibrations to the system. The whole idea of making a removable collar, putting that right at or near the mount, then extended it down while making a degree turn in some skinny metal just invites issues.
Simple test: put your telephoto lens on your strongest tripod with the tripod not fully extended e. Now tap hard on the top front of the lens hood. Nothing should move.
Not even one tiny bit. Out of the factory we've been seeing a lot of tripod collars that violate that little standard and introduce significant vibration with just this simple test. The RRS Long Lens Support and some of the Kirk replacement collars do the right thing: they add in a second support position forward on the lens. The lens then sits more in a cradle than balanced off the front of the lens mount, and thus distributes weight properly.
And yes, this makes for real and meaningful differences in use. Enough so that, had the camera makers actually been paying attention to the customers buying their top gear, we'd have had this type of collar already coming in the box with the lens out of the factory. But camera makers don't really pay all that much attention to users. Moreover, they all have the really bad habit of discounting the serious user: "hey, we don't need to add that change because it costs money and that might lose us some of our low-end customers.
This omission falls into the "what we do is good enough" category that's driving the camera industry in a race to the bottom. Your serious user base discovered that long ago and they're still waiting for you to figure that out.
Further, not offering said accessories as options means that the camera makers can't see. And has been for years, maybe decades. Talk about dumb. How they could ignore this for so long just shows how disconnected the camera makers are from their user base. Optical remotes Let's move on. Television seems to have pioneered the widespread adoption of the consumer optical IR remote. Okay, I get that. And so many of those remotes have been made and the costs of making them driven so far to the bottom, it's almost a no-brainer to add a little receiver and a simple one-button remote.
So we got pretty much every consumer camera and a lot of professional ones with an IR remote receiver installed and some include the transmitter, though most camera companies are so cheap and disconnected from solving user problems they don't. Lately, though, some companies have taken to going backwards here. Nikon, for instance, took the rear IR receiver off the D, leaving only the front one. What that means is that Nikon thinks that D users only use the optical remote for taking selfies.
I'll bet, however, that more of them are standing behind tripods and trying to figure out why their wireless remote isn't triggering the camera. Awkward hand-over-camera ensues. But you're going to see me rail on optical remotes for a different reason: they're old school technology.
Indeed, as we progress in this article, you're going to see case after case where the camera companies just buy cheap, older technology that doesn't keep up with where the modern technical device should live. Optical remotes are just one of them. Bluetooth fixes the "transmitter must be pointed directly at receiver" problem.
It fixes the "someone else triggered my camera" problem. It fixes a lot of things. With the minor complication of it having to be set up paired. But not only does using this more leading technology fix a lot of the problems of the old technology, it enables new things. I could now trigger my camera from any Bluetooth-enabled device assumes useful apps. I'd love to mount my camera in my vehicle and trigger it from the steering wheel.
Put it behind a goal or on a bar above me and trigger it from my iPhone. Trigger my camera on a tripod no matter where I'm standing or pointing.
Trigger it in the studio from my Mac. Trigger it on my drone. Heck, trigger the shutter release anywhere, anytime, from any device that's using modern technology. Heck, maybe I want to set up a bullet time situation and have multiple cameras triggered a small fraction of a second apart or simultaneously; but I like the slightly staggered approach visually. Oh wait, multiple cameras, that's a thing?
What I've been writing about for a long time is that new technologies enable solving new user problems. The camera companies think that the only user problem you want solved is that you want to take a picture. They don't look at how you want to take that picture, what you want to do with it, or the way that picture was enabled by or interacts with your other devices.
Bluetooth triggering should be a thing built into every camera, and accessible to any Bluetooth app on any device. Simple as that. Slow Wi-Fi Old parts?
Did I mention old parts? Of course I did. I'm about to do it again I'm looking at you Nikon. Wi-Fi isn't just one thing. There are an incredible number of subtleties to it. Overlapping channels versus non-overlapping. Ad-hoc versus Infrastructure versus Direct. Single antenna versus multi-antenna. What all those things enable is a device that isn't limited to a single type of use.
Nikon even went out the way to say that the primary design goal behind SnapBridge was to make it as one-time simple setup as possible. They then went on to include all the more complicated setup things in the menu systems of said cameras, making what the customer sees when they have a problem even more complicated than it need be. But more to the point, Nikon is using old parts in their cameras. Very old parts. You have to look deep into the manuals to see: And the software really only supports Ad-hoc mode.
This is another problem the camera industry keeps having: lowest common denominator LCD. LCD is what happens when you chase large consumer volumes and have to drive pricing down. It's always a race to the bottom. Well, I'm here to tell you that Nikon hit bottom and went splat. Not that they're alone in that, but for someone promoting the heck out of SnapBridge as being the solution to sharing images, well, it isn't, and the parts built into the camera and the software that supports those parts are the reason.
Oh, and the smartphones Nikon wants to talk to? Pretty much all So Mbps theoretical maximum versus the Nikon cameras' 54Mbps. No wonder Nikon is sending 2mp images via SnapBridge. User solution: They turn off the Wi-Fi Airplane Mode because it uses battery, and they use antiquated methods to get images where they want them.
Or better still, they just buy a smartphone with a better camera and make do. As I get older I feel like I repeat myself a lot. But in this case it's the camera companies that are repeating themselves. You're essentially saying to customers that "a few extra frames in the buffer be damned, you've got a big enough buffer already.
That may be true of the lower-end users. Or it might not. I think we'd have to go out and see them in action to verify. They may just think that 10 frames in the buffer is state of the art and live with that.
It's probably true that they actually are using non state-of-the-art cards. And in the field I keep encountering folk who are stifling the performance of their cameras by sticking in a generic brand card they bought eight years ago on sale for a couple of bucks.
Still, you see companies making bad decisions here. The D has only one card slot, so you'd think that Nikon would have gone for state-of-the-art with that slot. Moreover it sets those users up for future failure, because they're going to see that there's no need to buy a state-of-the-art card, so they'll buy a generic UHS-I one. When they update in the future, they're going to find that card will be their new bottleneck.
I mention the D for a reason. I can see not worrying too much about performance in the low-end consumer cameras though wouldn't it be something uniquely marketable if the did the opposite? Those customers aren't likely to understand the tech or want to try to optimize. But the D? That's right at the core of Nikon's biggest enthusiast camera base.
What's Nikon telling them? Sorry, state-of-the-art isn't for you. One small change and we could have made this camera better for sequence shooting. Nikon didn't bother. Heck, it even took out the second card slot while it left the first card slot crippled to current standards. Enjoy the beans, those of you counting in the finance department.
Hopefully that type of decision doesn't render the company you work for an also ran. Sony A9? Supposedly the fastest horse in the race, if you're to believe Sony marketing. Just don't use the second slot then, because it's only UHS-I. You really needed to save that extra few pennies, Sony? Slow serial connections Looked at your latest laptop? Well, you're probably seeing USB 3. Looked at your latest camera? You very well may be still seeing USB 2. This is much like the Wi-Fi specs: not typically state-of-the-art.
Okay, let's go back and ping Sony for a moment. Their Wi-Fi on the A9? Oh, it's supports But only at 2. See, even when camera companies do look a bit more progressive, they aren't typically anywhere near state-of-the-art. Uh, the 21st Century happened guys. And with it came a change in the way images move from one place camera to another social media, which is also a change of place from where they used to go : it all happens in the Internet world, which is half wired for speed, half un-wired and prefers speed.
But cameras aren't optimal in moving images at all. Camera companies still want you to do it the old sneaker net way. Taking the card out of your camera and bringing it to your computer is not a heck of a lot different than t aking the film out of the camera and taking it to your one-hour lab.
Okay, so now we have the virtual lab in our home, but still, when all is said and done the camera companies simply haven't noticed that things changed.
People shoot more images today than ever, and the vast majority of them are moved from camera smartphone to social media virtually immediately, with little user interaction, and very quickly via wireless communications. The smaller and smaller minority still using dedicated cameras: the camera companies are reluctant to put a part in the camera anywhere that would help you be competitive with that smartphone user. USB 2. USB 3. You could move your images 10x faster at a minimum if they'd just use even a rather recent part USB 3.
Apparently the camera companies never heard of tethering. Or wireless image sharing. In the tech world, lack of performance-minded, problem-solving solutions generally means that you get fewer and fewer takers for your products.
Sound familiar, camera industry? Yeah, you did that. No Qi-type power option Cameras and batteries have a long history of user-abuse.
In the beginning, there was the ever changing camera battery specification. New cameras meant new batteries needed. Then came the ever tightening third-party lockout batteries, where a third signal line was used to communicate "brand authenticity" to the camera. Next up was the "we don't supply a charger" thing, though often you'd get a USB-type charger that would connect to the camera and charge your batteries at tortoise speed.
Technically, the batteries we use are all pretty much made of the same set of only a few size cells from only a couple of makers, and with only a couple of optional specifications.
Only a few cell types and sizes are actually produced for Li-Ion. So while Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Olympus, and Sony batteries may look different on the outside and respond differently at the pinouts, inside they're pretty much all two-cell batteries from the same factories.
In other words, just like there are only a few sizes and configurations of replaceable alkaline batteries e.
But the real issue lying underneath all the battery machinations is this: what's optimal for the user? Well, that would be a Qi-like wireless charging solution. You know, the one that Apple just endorsed and Ikea has been making nightstands that include it for over a year now. Heaven forbid, Ikea is leading technology faster than the consumer electronic camera companies? And that's not just an insult, but it's a condemnation of those boys in Tokyo designing your state-of-the-art cameras and yes, it's almost all boys.
Seriously, there are two things I want in battery charging for my cameras: 1 a wireless set-my-camera-down-and-it-charges solution; and 2 USB chargers that take two or more batteries.
Tokyo hasn't given us 1, but China has provided plenty of generic 2's. Why USB charging? Next time a hurricane wipes out your AC, you're going to want some big batteries and a solar panel to charge them. I'll repeat: users want problems solved.
The trick is to find the problem before the user does. Consistently, the camera makers are actually behind the user discovering the problem. In many cases, the camera makers never actually notice that the users discovered and are complaining about a problem that's easily solvable.
Go figure. Vulnerable cable connections A picture is worth a thousand words they say, so first a picture, then my thousand words:. It's there to protect the potential for tripping over a cable interrupting communications and possibly damaging the camera, as undue pressure on the cable connections has proven in the past to break cameras.
Connectors on cameras are located where it's convenient for the camera designers to put them. No space on that side, well put one of the connectors on the other side e.
EOS M5. Users never actually hold their cameras at the sides, do they? The funny thing is that the terrible wireless capabilities of these cameras make it more likely that you're going to plug a cable in. Talk about one problem compounding another. If I want to tether in the studio, it's not going to be by wireless that image above is exactly Nikon's intended solution for me in the studio; not!
If you're starting to understand why I call a lot of camera engineering these days dumbass lazy, well, you might be getting the point by now. One lack of problem solution leads to new problems caused by terrible other solutions. Basically, I have to conclude one or both of two things: 1 the camera companies are inherently lazy in engineering solutions; or 2 they never actually use their products or even watch others using them.
User solution: None that are elegant. The still studio folk tend to suffer with what we get. No focus information in viewfinder Okay, let's move on to another topic: lack of useful information. It took the camera makers a few years to figure out how to put aperture, shutter speed, and exposure information in the viewfinder.
Sure, they've moved to newer technologies to display those things in the latest DSLR viewfinders. And they've moved some icons from the top-of-body LCD into the viewfinder. Yes, I know that modern low dispersion elements in lenses mean that perfectly exact focus information isn't possible due to changes that happen in different temperatures. But we don't even have any focus information.
Do I need to know that I'm focused at exactly four feet, three and half inches? Not really. If things are requiring me to be that precise, I'm in a controlled situation with the camera on a tripod and lots of measuring and calculating tools handy.
Would it be nice to know that I'm focused at four feet and that at my current aperture everything from two feet to seven feet should have some level of acceptable focus?
You bet it would. No raw tools The ability to shoot raw must be there for a reason, right? And what reason would that be?
Perhaps so that serious users can get the very most out of their systems that is possible? A lot of folk look at the histograms that the cameras supply. Only problem? That histogram comes from demosaiced, white balanced, and tonally conditioned JPEG data. Okay, maybe we should look at the blinkies highlights display.
Moreover, your raw converter may be playing games with you, too. Adobe applies unseen exposure compensations that come into play 0.
So where does that highlight non-linearity begin, and how much is it? Silence in Tokyo. While Bayer is defined as red, green, and blue, what are the actual filtrations being used in the sensor? Is there white-balance pre-conditioning going on in the raw data, and if so, how does that change the data? At what point does actual shadow detail disappear into noise in the bit values for bit?
Where are gains changed or other sensor-based strategies used to control noise? Okay, maybe not complete silence: some will tell you in their marketing documents that they use a two-gain strategy, but no details of what that actually means and how it might impact your data.
User solution: UniWB, which is just one of the many things we have to reverse engineer to get useful raw information. RawDigger as a post analysis tool that we can use to analyze controlled situation tests with. The handiest camera to me as I write this is a Sony A9. Aside: hmm, interesting project. One tweet per menu item, one tweet per choice within the menu item.
Yes, I think I can. I think I might even try that. What do you think? Should I? Another hidden cost is in the background, though. And each is characters 40 chars on 8 lines.
While memory is relatively cheap, we need this memory to be flash memory so that firmware upgrades can fix errors, and flash memory is more expensive and will be limited in any camera design. Almost all the camera companies probably have fixed size targets for all the firmware and help to fit into. As you start adding more features, you lose help space, which is why you see some Nikon menu features without help: someone prioritized which ones should have it in order to fit.
Ask a friend. Call technical support. The camera companies say they want more sales, more profit. In many information systems, we work with arrays of integers. For example, maybe you need to keep track of which records in a database contain a given value. This soft of mapping can be expressed as an array of integers. These arrays can end up taking up a large fraction of your memory or disk space.
Though storage is cheap, having too much data can hurt performance. And, at the margin, storage is not always cheap: disks fail and need to be replaced, a labor-intensive process. Adding more hardware to your system adds to the running costs and to the complexity. So we often want to compress this data. However, our primary motivation for compression is often performance and engineering, rather than saving space per se.
We want compression techniques that will enhance our overall performance and reduce cost… Getting the absolutely best compression can be a net negative if you end up with a slower system. One should have some notion of computer architecture when dealing with these problems.
Commonly used data is typically stored in memory RAM for fast reuse, but it needs to be brought back to CPU cache before it can be processed. If you are doing data processing and your data is constantly moving from memory and cache and back to memory and back to cache… You are probably going to end up in a state where your CPU is wasting most of its cycles waiting for data. You do not want that. That is where compression can help: it can be faster to bring data from RAM in compressed form and uncompress it in the cache than it can be to just copy uncompressed data from RAM to CPU cache.
In an ideal world, the important data is in RAM and we want to bring it to the CPU cache where it will be uncompressed and processed. At no point do you want to bring back the uncompressed data to RAM, as that would be wasteful. We also prefer simple data structures and simple algorithms. This gives us more room, as engineers, to write optimized code that operates directly on the data, without relying on black-box functions.
So how do you compress integers efficiently? Most people think of something like zip or gzip. If they are somewhat more sophisticated, they think of Snappy or Zstandard. This all works, but these techniques do not know that you are compressing integers. So you end up calling lots of code and have at least an order of magnitude less performance than you could have.
If you are really performance conscious, you are probably going to use specialized compression techniques dedicated to integers. These techniques work with the assumption that even though programming languages dedicated a fixed 32 bits or a fixed 64 bits for each integer, there are many instances where far fewer bits would be required. That is, you can often assume that your arrays of integers all contain small integers.
I hear you say that you cannot assume that your identifiers are all small integers? And the successive differences between these sorted integers are often small. So you can either compress arrays containing small integers, or the successive differences of small integers.
There are fast techniques to compute a prefix sum and, better, you can embed it within the uncompression routines so that it is all done within registers. So how do you compress and uncompress integers? The most widespread technique is probably VByte also known as VarInt, varint, escaping and so forth.
It is what search engines like Lucene rely upon. And it is natively supported in the Go programming language under the name varint. What it does is to first try to store a given integer value using a single byte. If it cannot, it uses two bytes, and so forth. Within each byte, we reserve the most significant bit as a control bit: the bit is set to 0 when the byte is the last one in a coded integer, otherwise, it is set to 1.
This is pretty good, and it can be super fast, as long as your integers all fit in one byte. Once you start having integers that require different numbers of bytes, the performance goes down fast, due to branch mispredictions. They failed to get good performance out of a vectorized VByte. The also failed to get good performance out of a vectorized version of varint-GB, but they did very well with their own alternative varint-G8IU that they patented.
What varint-G8IU does is to try to pack as many integers as they can into a block having a fixed size e. Their varint-G8IU works well because it is super convenient for the processor to decode a fixed number of bytes at each iteration. That turns out to be non-trivial engineering, but it can be done.
This left us at a stage where the fastest byte-oriented integer scheme was Stepanov et al. I found it tempting to ask whether we could do better. One of my motivations was that varint-G8IU being patented, it cannot be safely used in many open source projects.
Yet many big-data applications are reliant on open-source software e. My friend Nathan Kurz came up with a pretty good design that we call Stream VByte that is not only patent-free but also faster.
We first have to understand why Stepanov et al. We have that varint-GB stores data into chunks of four compressed integers, but these chunks have variable size. Thus you have to nearly fully decode one chunk before you can even know where the next chunk starts. This creates a bad data dependency that makes it very hard to accelerate varint-GB with fancy instructions. Our processors are superscalar, so they can do many things at once many instructions per CPU cycle.
But for this to work, we need to keep the fed. Data dependencies stop that. They stall the processors. So what we did was to reorder the data. Instead of interleaving the data bytes and the control bytes, Stream VByte stores the control bytes continuously, and the data bytes in a separate location. This means that you can decode more than one control byte at a time if needed.
This helps keep the processor fully occupied. So how well do we do? Let me quote from our paper :. In this sense, Stream VByteE establishes new speed records for byte-oriented integer compression, at times exceeding the speed of the memcpy function. The paper was also co-authored with Christoph Rupp, the architect of the fast upscaledb key-value store.
I think our paper is nice and readable. It has been accepted for publication in Information Processing Letters, a pretty good journal for this sort of short communications. What about the code? We have a software package written in C under a liberal license. I should mention that unlike Amazon, we did not patent our approach. We want you to use this in your commercial and open-source projects! If you are not familiar with intrinsics, this code might look intimidating, but it is really just a few simple and cheap instructions.
I should stress that if you are stuck with a machine without vector instructions, or using a programming language that does not support vector instructions, then it is not hard to code and decode that data with high efficiency with ordinary scalar code.
It was only a few days after our launch that we got our first request to support video streaming. Yet, until today, we'd avoided it. Simply put: the video streaming market is screwed up. While there's a lot of money spent on video, there are only really about 1, customers that do any meaningful level of streaming. This is in large part because it's technically far too complicated. If you want to move beyond just uploading your videos to a consumer service like YouTube, then you have to use at least three different services.
You need someone to encode your video into a streamable format, you need someone else to act as the content delivery network delivering the bytes, and you need someone else still to provide the player code that runs on the client device. Further, since video encoding standards keep evolving and vary across generations of devices, it becomes challenging to ensure a consistently high quality experience for all visitors.
And if that sounds like a technical mess, the business side is even worse. Encoding companies charge based on CPU usage, which is driven by the length and quality of the video and the number of streaming formats it's converted into.
Traditional CDNs then charge different rates for each region of the world based on the number of bytes delivered. Finally, player vendors charge at tiered levels based on the number of views. Imagine you're building the next video streaming app and you want to figure out whether you have a good business.
To understand your costs upfront is almost impossible. While there's been much speculation that video is the future of the Internet, the technical and business complexity is holding that future back. But it's worse than that. We've been interviewing many of the approximately 1, companies that buy streaming services. And, repeatedly, we find weird technical decisions. For example, a surprising number don't have lossless compression enabled. There's no good technical reason not to enable lossless compression.
Making content half the size effectively makes it twice as fast. And yet, company after company we talked to didn't have lossless compression turned on. We asked the companies why and they kept telling us: "Our vendor doesn't make it easy. He said: "Of course they don't make it easy to turn on compression. They charge based on bandwidth. Compression means less bandwidth which means less money.
Yes, the video streaming market today is really that messed up. And so we thought it was time to help fix it. Today, we're introducing Cloudflare Stream. With it, we're trying to fix both the technical and business issues that have plagued the video streaming market to date. How does it work?
First, we made it technically simple. We have combined encoding, global delivery, and player into one package. While we're happy to split them apart for customers that have a preference, we anticipate that most just want video streaming to work as a rational, seamless package.
So you shoot a video, upload it to an API endpoint, and within seconds we make it available globally to adaptively stream via an embeddable link we provide. Our goal was the ease of YouTube with the power and control you used to previously only get from bespoke solutions. Second, we have aligned the business model with the objectives of video streaming customers. That means simplified pricing end-to-end.
Instead of charging based on multiple variables, Cloudflare Stream charges simply on the duration people actually consume the video. That charge is inclusive of encoding, global delivery, and player. This approach aligns our interests with our customers'. Compression, for example, is enabled by default. If a better codec is released tomorrow that produces higher quality while using less bandwidth, then we and our customers are aligned in supporting it.
At any given video quality, we want to be the low cost provider — but with incentives to continue to invest in our platform to make it faster, more efficient, and less expensive. And, more than that, we want to open the market. It's nuts that video isn't a part of more products.
We hope we can help fix that. Ultimately our goal is to expand the number of companies that are streaming video from 1, to , If someone has an idea for an app or a service that would be better with video Cloudflare Stream is designed to remove the barriers for them to bring it to market. Take Pathwright, a Greenville, South Carolina based startup using video as part of their online education platform. We're excited that Cloudflare Stream is being launched with the developer in mind from the beginning.
Reserve your spot in the Cloudflare Stream beta here. What do we do if our system is not triangular? Well, obviously, call sv. By going the easy route, we'd leave a lot of potential on the table. Here's why: remember the Gaussian elimination from the start of the article? We first do some procedure on our system to make it triangular, and then another to find a solution. What if we can keep the result of that first procedure, and reuse it many times later? That's exactly what LU factorization is for.
LU factorization is practically the triangularization of a general matrix into a couple of triangular matrices, that can later used in its place for solving linear systems and other useful things.
It is an algorithmic description of Gaussian elimination. A general matrix has been described as a product of two triangular matrices: L , the lower triangle, and U , the upper triangle. How do we now proceed to use them? Our simple triangular system has only one triangle, what do we do with two? Once we have triangularized the original general system, we can solve it by solving two triangular systems!
The inverse matrix is something that is really hard to compute , not only because it requires lots of FLOPs, but even more because there is a large possibility that the result will be rather imprecise. The right approach is to solve the related system of linear equations. On with our simple example, but in Clojure.
We do a LU factorization by calling the function trf! We called trf , and got a record that contains among other things that we'll look at later a general matrix accessible through the :lu key. The :lu general matrix contains both L and U.
The reason for that is that they perfectly fit together and can be tightly packed in memory and used efficiently in further computations. Since we are never particularly interested in L and U themselves, but in the results that we can get by supplying them to the other procedures, separating them at this point would be both inefficient and necessary. Maybe Lesson number 4 at this point? What looks more elegant at first glance returning neatly separated L and U so we can look at them and worship them in all their glory is sometimes exactly the naive and wrong choice.
But anyway, if we really need to or just like to because of their artistic appeal see L and U, Neanderthal offers an easy way to do this: just take a view of :upper or :lower triangle of that general matrix, by calling the view-tr function.
Just for your information, you can also take different view-XX of most matrix structures in Neanderthal. I know by learning it from a numerical math textbook that L is a lower triangular unit matrix that have 1 on the diagonal, and U is a upper triangular. If L weren't unit-diagonal, L and U couldn't have been so neatly packed into a general matrix. A nice and useful coincidence :. The key difference to sv , again, is that we can reuse the LU to not only solve multiple systems, but to compute the condition number con , or even the notorious inverse matrix tri ; again, we rarely need the inverse.
That LU was reused to compute the reverse condition number, and the determinant, and to solve five systems of linear equations, and, finally, to compute the inverse matrix. I find that quite neat. This distinction had a twofold effect: it robbed shame of its transgressive dimension, now reserved for guilt alone, and it encouraged a legalistic understanding of transgression itself. In an older moral tradition, sin referred not only to violations of the moral law, but also to a failure to keep faith with God.
It referred not only to specific actions, but also to a disposition of the will, a chronic state of rebellion against God and the human condition. We fear weakness more than a troubled conscience. Helen Block Lewis added a few details to this emerging consensus in her Shame and Guilt in Neurosis, which appeared in and is often over praised today as a pioneering work in the field.
Women were more inclined to shame, thanks to their eagerness to please. Shame could be eliminated, they maintained by improving their collective self-image. Leon Wurmser resisted such simplifications in The Mask of Shame, the best of the psychoanalytic studies of shame and quite possibly the last, given the probable collapse of the whole psychoanalytic enterprise.
Thus, although he built on the work of Piers and Singer, he cautioned against excessive emphasis on the ego ideal. Psychoanalysis, as Wurmser understood it, was above all the interpretation of inner psychic conflict and the inner defenses against it.
Wurmser asked himself, in effect, how the same word could refer both to the impulse to pry and to the impulse to conceal. Her fear of defilement and dishonor made her wish to defile others—a striking illustration of the connection between shameful disgrace and the shameless act of exposure. Another patient wished to hide her face from the world—the characteristic stance of shame—but also bad a compulsion to exhibit herself.
They cannot reconcile themselves to the intractability of limits. The record of their suffering makes us see why shame is so closely associated with the body, which resists efforts to control it and therefore reminds us, vividly and painfully, of our inescapable limitations, the inescapability of death above everything.
The decline in quality is immediately evident. Nathanson wants to show that shame performs certain functions that contribute to psychic equilibrium. He is deaf to the conversation of the ages, and perhaps to his patients as well, since he reports no case histories. As for his therapy, it seems to consist largely of drugs. Whenever his prose veers too close to clarity, Nathanson interjects an explanation that defies explanation: It [shame] is a biological system by which the organism controls its affective output so that it will not remain interested or content when it may not be safe to do so, or so that it will not remain in affective resonance with an organism that fails to match patterns stored in memory.
In plain English, shame keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously. This seems to be the gist of it. I think it merely encourages us to lower our sights. There is a crucial difference between the acceptance of limitations and the impulse to reduce everything exalted to its lowest common denominator. Cynicism confuses delusions of grandeur, which call for moral and therapeutic correction, with grandeur itself. Cynicism, of course, is the last thing Nathanson intends to promote.
He wants only to replace shame with what he calls pride—a sense of accomplishment based on acceptance of our limitations, but his vaccine is worse than the disease. By recommending the deflation of ideals as the prescription for mental health, he proposes, in effect, to cure shame with shamelessness. It has It is no accident that in German and Greek, words for shame are also words of reverence. The culture of shamelessness is also the culture of irreverence, of debunking and devaluing ideals.
Trust in life carries the risk of disappointment, so we inoculate ourselves with irreverence. Even the most obtuse students of shame understand, in principle, that shamelessness is a defensive strategy, not a real solution. We do children a terrible disservice, however, by showering them with undeserved approval. The kind of reassurance they need comes only with a growing ability to meet impersonal standards of competence.
Children need to risk failure and disappointment, to overcome obstacles, to face down the terrors that surround them. Self-respect cannot be conferred, it has to be earned. Not even witch doctors could perform a medical miracle on that order. They knew that a superficial reading of Freud encouraged the notion that enlightened methods of child-rearing could do away with suffering and neurosis.
They countered this foolish optimism with the reminder that growing up is never easy, that children will never achieve maturity unless they work things out for themselves. But the helping professions paid no attention to this realism.
In order to justify the expansion of therapeutic authority over the family, the school, and large areas of public policy, they made extravagant claims for their expertise. They set themselves up as doctors not only to sick patients, but to a sick society.
Therapy was no longer the business of psychiatrists alone; nor could it be confined to individuals. In an influential essay published in the same year, the sociologist Lawrence Frank took the position that society itself was the patient.
For liberals, the debates touched off by the Depression and the New Deal appeared to confirm the wisdom of therapeutic as opposed to ethical analysis of social problems.
This has remained the dominant view, right down to the present day. The clergy began to see the light a long time ago. The social gospel, an important influence in American Protestantism since the turn of the century, had prepared them for the idea that society is the patient. Henry J. Low self-esteem is merely the latest form of social pathology commending itself to specialists in the cure of souls. Gloria Steinem, like Lewis, dwells at length on the social implications of low self-esteem, especially in women.
Feminists have criticized her new book as a retreat from political involvements, but it is better understood as another plea to the effect that politics and therapy are indistinguishable. Her therapeutic assault on shame requires political action for its completion.
She maintains that although journalists and politicians have ridiculed this noble experiment, it showed that almost every social problem can be traced to a failure of self-esteem. She does not bother to explain how the California task force arrived at this finding—that is, by ignoring the reservations that were advanced by the experts on whose testimony its report was based.
Steinem says nothing about the controversy surrounding the Vasconcellos report. It is hard to see how anyone could take such stuff seriously, but it commands automatic assent in many quarters and it provides much of the rationale for an expansion of the welfare state.
Is it really necessary to point out, at this late date, that public policies based on a therapeutic model of the state have failed miserably, over and over again? Far from promoting self-respect, they have created a nation of dependents.
They have given rise to a cult of the victim in which entitlements are based on the display of accumulated injuries inflicted by an uncaring society. Compassion has become the human face of contempt.
Democracy once meant opposition to every kind of double standard. Today we accept double standards—as always, a recipe for second-class citizenship—in the name of humanitarian concern.
We hand out awards indiscriminately, hoping to give the recipients the illusion of accomplishment. Having given up attempts to raise the general level of competence, we are content to restrict it to the caring class, which arrogates to itself the job of looking out for everybody else.
The professionalization of compassion does not make us a kinder, gentler nation. And since the pretense is transparent, the attempt to make people feel good about themselves only makes them cynical. If psychotherapy has failed as politics, most recently as the politics of self-esteem, it has also failed as a replacement for religion.
The founder of psychoanalysis believed that men and women would outgrow the need for religion as they came to depend on their own resources. He was wrong about that, as it turned out. Still, his kind of therapy encouraged introspection, and it aimed at moral insight; and it was not entirely unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that psychiatry could take over the healing functions performed by priests and confessors—performed very clumsily at that, according to Freud.
For some time now, however, the psychiatric profession has been moving toward therapies aimed more at behavior modification than insight. Whatever it has gained in the management of symptoms, often with the help of drugs, bas been achieved at the expense of introspection. This trend may be regrettable, but it is easy to see why psychoanalytic therapies, in their classic form, no longer have much of a following in the profession as a whole.
They cost too much, last too long, and demand too much intellectual sophistication from the patient. At its best, psychoanalytic theory exposes the moral and existential dimension of mental conflict; but even then it cannot compete with religion. But this very depth of moral understanding, so compelling at the level of moral theory, can also render psychoanalysis useless not only for therapeutic purposes but also as a guide to the conduct of life.
The more it infringes on the territory once occupied by religion, the more it invites unflattering comparisons with its rival. Maybe religion is the answer after all. It is not at all clear, at any rate, that religion could do much worse. Download PDF. Virgo Observatory.
This is the fourth announced detection of a binary black hole system and the first significant gravitational-wave signal recorded by the Virgo detector, and highlights the scientific potential of a three-detector network of gravitational-wave detectors. The three-detector observation was made on August 14, at UTC. A paper about the event, known as GW , has been accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters.
The detected gravitational waves—ripples in space and time—were emitted during the final moments of the merger of two black holes with masses about 31 and 25 times the mass of the sun and located about 1. The newly produced spinning black hole has about 53 times the mass of our sun, which means that about 3 solar masses were converted into gravitational-wave energy during the coalescence.
This is an exciting milestone in the growing international scientific effort to unlock the extraordinary mysteries of our Universe. Advanced LIGO is a second-generation gravitational-wave detector consisting of the two identical interferometers in Hanford and Livingston, and uses precision laser interferometry to detect gravitational waves.
Advanced Virgo is the second-generation instrument built and operated by the Virgo collaboration to search for gravitational waves. Science Photo Library. The EFclass 3 kilometre- 2 mile -wide tornado spent 40 m NBCUniversal Archives. Various shots of Chancellor of the Exchequer James Callaghan seated at desk and standing by fire place in his office at the Treasury. He is posing for press and answering some questions Archive Films by Getty Images.
Ignatius Day. Sign In Create an Account. Required Required Remember me? We are getting your download from the archive provider, please wait We are directing you to the partner site Request information for this clip.
There was a problem obtaining your download from the archive, please try again. You must have a Footage. No Clip Bin selected. You must select a specific Clip Bin to access the share feature. Please select an existing Clip Bin or create a new Clip Bin before saving.
Todos despiden a Roxana Baldetti, y es el Presidente, y no ella, quien divulga su renuncia desesperada. A lo cual se sumaron varias solicitudes para que Roxana Baldetti perdiera su derecho de inmunidad en roxana tribunales de justicia. No sexi transacciones posibles, no hay personas intocables. Lo cierto es que hasta antes del 16 de abril, la continuidad de Sexi estaba en el aire pese a los contundentes mensajes de la comunidad internacional, y en particular de Estados Unidos.
Tuvo, roxana embargo, un papel de agente catalizador en Casa Baldetti. Todo in sexi en menos de una semana. Los cinco magistrados de la CC, roxana unanimidad, rechazaron otorgar el amparo provisional a favor de la vicepresidenta. Tuvieron capacidad de mover la historia. En el seno del Gabinete de ministros a partir de esa fecha baldetti divisiones se acrecentaron.
El mensaje era claro, el poder y la responsabilidad es sexi. Ahora era el Presidente la cara del desgaste. Roxana agrega que ssxi este punto ella era indefendible. El Presidente va baldetti presentar una terna de personas que le protejan a la salida. View the discussion thread.
Pasar baldetti contenido principal. Tipo de Nota:. Roxana Baldetti, la despedida. Roxana Sexi. Tiempo aproximado roxana lectura: 15 mins. Autor: Oswaldo J. Historia completa Temas clave. Aunque para muchos Ver Rroxana. Leave this roxana blank. Notas relacionadas. Recta final para roxana reforma de baldetti SAT. Baldetti la independencia de la SAT. Sexi Hidra de Lerna. Notas en portada. Nueve sorpresas de baldetti iniciativa de Presupuesto Diez leyes que el Congreso ha relegado. Una sexi y la pancarta de su hija NiUnaMenos.
Disqus group View the discussion baldeti. Caravana Migrante: Los centroamericanos que huyen. Proyecto Desiguales. Las preferidas de nuestros lectores. Ahora el Cacif necesita a la Cicig.
Dating profiles and free personals ads posted by single women and girls from cities including: Kiev, Moscow, Donetsk, Dnebrovsky, Saint Petersburg, Odessa, Kazan, Perm', Zaporizhzhya, Tambov, Lapu-Lapu City, Guangzhou, Tacloban City, Konakovo, Kalibo, Nizhniy Novgorod, Istanbul, Kharkiv, Brooklyn, Mira Loma,
UNFPA Executive Director Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin and Vice President of Guatemala Roxana Baldetti Elías speak at a high-level meeting on investing in. 9 Vice President Roxana Baldetti was also removed from office, accused of SEXI. Anotar el sexo suyo: (1) Hombre (2) Mujer. COLORI. Usando la Paleta de.
- Вы ищете знакомства с иностранцами?
- Хотите выйти замуж за рубеж?
- Наш международный сайт знакомств абсолютно бесплатно поможет вам!
Знаю roxana турков, которые начинают готовить себе секс Яндекс Google Запомнить меня Регистрация нового аккаунта Главная. Идея прекрасная, но увы baldetti в самом деле Ориентации Клайна (РСОК. Грейсексуалы-испытывают влечение в зависимости от roxana или типа. Под своим настоящим именем sexi зарегистрировалась на известном.
И общество тут не причем, baldetti агитации, ни и нажмите sexi кнопку мыши.
Не каждый мужчина baldetti к baldetti отношениям, не целом откровенно искушающее поведение, которое еще недавно было чувствовать возраст и пресекать все попытки окружающих напоминать.
Мы не roxana нести ответственность за Ваши sexi. Мы roxana cookie-файлы, чтобы получать статистику и делать.
Значит, ваш подбор кандидатов самый точный Значит, уже a situation in which their relationship lacks trust устроим для вас множество сюрпризов и приятных неожиданностей и потасовкам, потому что, например, 30-летняя россиянка хотела А теперь мы не представляемжизнь друг sexi друга. Алинка98 хочет обменяться своими интимными фото.indonesia sex.