Two things to note about the Uber car killing

Since this is the first fatality I think one thing that is interesting to highlight is that this sad accident is not of the type autonomous vehicle people love to bring up: how will the car decide between the baby and two adults... blah blah. Just like almost all accidents aren't. Thus, those corner cases are simply not important. That should really be remembered. What is important is to avoid regular accident due to imperfect sensor data and poor detection algorithms. Like this one. This is same as the accidents when humans are driving.

Further, there are calculations now claiming autonomous cars are about 25 times more likely to hit a pedestrian than a human driver. This was interpreted as that the is not safe and not ready and so on. However, I would like to claim the very opposite. Looking at technology development, we know Moore's law, indicating a doubling of processor performance in every 18 months. If this type of scaling i applied to the performance of autonomous vehicles, it gives that they will perform on term with a human driver in five years. In five more, the autonomous vehicles will outperform humans by a factor 32. This is the kind of scaling we can expect. Since we are only a factor 32 away from human performance today, we should be celebrating, we are almost there. Making cars much safer than they used to be. This is great news!

On evil

“Across Lloyds Bank, Bank of Scotland, Halifax and MBNA, we do not accept credit card transactions involving the purchase of cryptocurrencies,” a Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson told MarketWatch. “It’s a case of protecting our credit card customers from the risks associated with the price volatility of cryptocurrencies."

So the banks see a threat in Bitcoint and they don't even care to come up with a proper lie to argue why they should kill it. They'll "protect" the customers by limiting their possibilities to purchase things using their cards. Bah! Net neutrality is nothing compared to this. Where is bank neutrality? They should not give a fuck about what their customers chose to purchase as long as it is legal.

Bastards!

On evil

“Across Lloyds Bank, Bank of Scotland, Halifax and MBNA, we do not accept credit card transactions involving the purchase of cryptocurrencies,” a Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson told MarketWatch. “It’s a case of protecting our credit card customers from the risks associated with the price volatility of cryptocurrencies."

So the banks see a threat in Bitcoint and they don't even care to come up with a proper lie to argue why they should kill it. They'll "protect" the customers by limiting their possibilities to purchase things using their cards. Bah! Net neutrality is nothing compared to this. Where is bank neutrality? They should not give a fuck about what their customers chose to purchase as long as it is legal.

Bastards!

A Swedish "no"

Sweden is arguably one of the nicest countries to live in in the world by most metrices. That however, does not mean we can't improve. The other day I proposed something for a colleague. The response I got was "let's discuss it". This is Swedish for "I don't think that is a good idea". It should be added that my colleague is my boss.
We really have some communication flaws here. Us Swedes should work on speaking out and anyone working with us needs to know that this is how we operate currently.

A new web extension

How about making a web extension that lets you edit and share the edit of a particular homepage. The idea is to allow users to edit the DOM of a loaded page, and one can make more or less simple tools for that. Next, the extension should provide ways to package and share those edits so that other users can use them. This can then be automation things or other improvements of homepages, removal of particular contents that one does not want to be shown or whatever.
It is a way of democratizing the web, but it will of course pose huge risks since it will be easy to introduce malicious code/edits. That is something that has to be dealt with.

Dark energy

Clearly dark energy is something that does not interact with anything but gravitation. Could it be that it is actually extremely high-frequency electromagnetic (EM) radiation?
The idea behind this suggestion is that at of high enough frequency, matter becomes transparent to EM radiation due to that the particle resonators (atoms in the case of crystals) no longer have any overlap with with the wave function of the EM radiation. This is a well known phenomenon for e.g. gamma radiation, or even UV, where the penetration depth increases with increasing frequency.
If we assume a T4-law of the radiation at Big Bang (BB), what temperature must it have been to generate 98% of the Universe energy at frequencies above interaction with the matter as we know it?

Taking this one step further, if the radiation frequency distribution at BB was some kind clock shape, there seem to be a division at different spectral lines which do not interact with each other since we are now in a situation where all radiation above this frequency is effectively non-interacting with the rest of the Universe. Except via gravitation.

Thus we need some gravitational process that is non-linear or lossy in its interaction with the high-frequency EM radiation to make a high-frequency photon decay into something with lower energy (frequency) to make it visible.

Using experiences from machine learning/artificial intelligence in pedagogics

It is interesting to see how now people working in machine learning (ML) are classifying learning strategies or learning methods. Engineering and math has the clear advantage of being very concrete. You could probably call it constructionistic. Those different learning strategies are  classified and advantages are also investigate in relation to different constraints.

Thus, I have a prediction that that is that the work now done in ML will be very useful for pedagogics. How can we use what we learned about optimal teaching in ML to teaching humans or animals? There must be a connection there.