12 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2020
    1. If we already have a shared ssh key to push things up from the server to Gitlab, why do we need to do all this just to get Gitlab to send commands for our server to run?
  2. Mar 2020
    1. Well, the checkbox type has nothing to do with AI, but I’ve read that the type where you have to select “Which picture is …” does collect data to train AIs. It seems dear Dave is confusing between the 2 types.
  3. Sep 2019
    1. The writer introduces the article with a very detailed comparison between the man in the photo and the actual victims. Word usage: tags

  4. Feb 2019
    1. Visualization of "Kingdom Hearts"

      Personally, I'm a bit confused as to how these visualizations are able to catch the entirety of the Kingdom Hearts game play. Is it that these are video snapshots of how long the gameplay takes, and that this is on an online interface to see the gameplay? I understand how this works for a singular image, but gameplay is difficult for me to understand.

  5. May 2018
    1. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just hit its highest level in 800,000 years and scientists predict deadly consequences

      Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  6. Jan 2018
    1. My second premise is the plausible hypothesis that there is some unified body of scientific theories, of the sort we now accept, which together provide a true and exhaustive account of all physi- cal phenomena

      I found the beginning of this section difficult to understand in terms of the validity of his statement. I found it interesting that one of Lewis' premises was posed in a rather hopeful manner. I think the way he stated that there is "some unified body of scientific theories" was unclear to me in how much he would be able to use evidence from this notion.

    2. I rely on Oppenheim and Putnam for a detailed exposition of the hypothesis that we may hope to find such a unified physicalistic body of scientific theory and for a presentation of evidence that the hypothesis is credible.

      I have a couple questions concerning this last passage. First, it seems that we have to have one of two options. The first is to accept this view, with substantial credited backing, or, choose to believe that our natural sciences are greatly flawed and we have failed to account for this other stuff. Now, my question is, is there any evidence throughout history that this "other stuff" as ever existed? Or if there has ever been any evidence that suggests otherwise?


      I am definitely intrigued and intimidated by this course so far. There is a lack of understanding on my part with regards to the use of the online platforms. I feel that I am slowly getting the hang of it now and I am very exited to become more familiarized with the online tools for this class. Judging from Professor Graham's website and the content of the first lecture, it seems that this course will provide me with a great opportunity to improve many skills that are currently underdeveloped and allow me to look at a very different perspective of history. I am excited for the experience ahead.

  7. Apr 2017
    1. Derrideandeconstructiondoesnotmerelyhelprhetoricalcriticsanalysetexts,inaddition,itpromotesarigorousreevaluationandrebuild-ingoftheconcept-metaphor"rhetoricalsituation"thatdrivesanddelimitsmuchcontemporarycriticalpracticeinthisfield.

      So she is saying that Derridean deconstruction, or differance, can allow us to reevaluate the concept of the rhetorical situation.... However, Biesecker spent so much time explaining differance that I didn't find a clear explanation for her take on "rhetorical situation." I remember her saying something to the effect of: "differance/deconstruction has an effect on the rhetorical situation" but I don't recall her actually explaining how/why. Can anyone clear this up for me? Did I miss something, or did she actually just not explain it?

  8. Sep 2015
  9. Aug 2015
    1. In order to avoid the confused deputy problem, asubject must be careful to maintain the associationbetween each authority and its intended purpose. Using the key analogy, one could imagine immediatelyattaching a label to each key upon receiving it, wherethe label describes the purpose for which the key is tobe used. In order to know the purpose for a key, thesubject must understand the context in which the key is received; for example, labelling is not possible if keysmagically appear on the key ring without the subject’sknowledge.
    2. Even if one can distinguish the keys, decidingto try all available keys puts one at risk of becoming aconfused deputy.