Відео

perfect

Can w be considered as vector that represents all adjustable parameters? I.e., not just weights of one linear transformation matrix from input to hidden layer but all of them + bias values. So when you compute gradient of L with respect to w, you compute a vector for which each entry is a the partial derivative of L with respect to w_i?

Pleasure to watch

Nice, will revisit this because the maths is overwhelming right now

From where to study Probability for Deep Learning ? Specifically the one used in here? I have studied probability but not this much. If anyone can give resources it will be very helpful

Your videos are amazing to understand the subject of relativity! Unfortunately, I have no background in physics and mathematics so I often struggle to understand a few things. One question I have from the video is: I can grasp that the Michelson e Morley’s experiment proved that there is no special medium in relation to which light would be propagating. But, how does it also prove that light’s speed is constant in relation to all other things including that which emitted it? Did the experiment also move the light source in relation to the detector? If the frequency of the interference remained the same even when the emitter and the detector were in movement with relation to each other, I think it would be a more straightforward way to guarantee the the fact that light’s speed remain constant regardless of relative velocity. Sorry if that’s a stupid question, but I’d really like to understand the subject.

At 8:46 why is joint probability tractable? Why are others not tractable?

The video is woow

Excellent analysis

My brother, please, can you create a course to learn the manim library for beginners? ☺️🤍🤍

One question. Why max{ \int_x {f(x) dx} } is the same thing as max{ f(x) }?

Always expect the earliest video from your channel

Well, i can’t miss your video

Well done! Very thoroughly explained.

Fantastic explanation. Small erratum: the variable 𝜖 is epsilon, not eta (η) ua-cam.com/video/HBYQvKlaE0A/v-deo.htmlsi=k6EBUeCbMUl4JYWw&t=970

You know neutrinos are 65 billion solar neutrinos, per second per square centimeter and they didn't detect that interaction either. The Ether is likely even smaller. Discounting the existence of an Aether using stone knives and bear skins. What a joke. This is why you don't discount anything, and try to evolve your experiments.

Great video. A good balance of professional, modern and unique style with in-depth technical description.

confusing there must be a simpler derivation

thanks

I’m here because of Lord Jamar. His interview on the Godfrey Comedy channel was very interesting….

Williams John Young Gary Clark Jessica

Очень классные ролики, очень интересно и понятно смотреть Только переводить не легко бывает, привет из России ❤

You're the best explanation out there in my opinion. I appreciate you!!

Why wouldn’t going against the aether be the opposite of going with it. They should cancel out.

predicted Ci is calculated with IoU if the cell have object, then how to calculate predicted Ci if the cell doesnt have object?

Ortiz Mountains

Beautiful video. Thank you

Your error is at ua-cam.com/video/FvqutkaPmas/v-deo.html If the spherical wave is centred and expanding from K origin, it cant also be expanding from a different center at location K prime's origin which is also in motion. Your whole explanation has failed at this point.

Thank you so much for this, really cleared up how VAEs work

Thank you so much for these videos

the is all BS. For jack, his ladder doesn't shrink, because he can say the barn is doing the moving, so the barn is not as big as it was before. So the ladder certainly cant fit. Now that we know it doesn't fit for two reasons, its not going to fit if you invent a third option. Your error is in your stupid simultaneity example. make up your mind, it cant be two things that light does. The centre of an expanding sphere of light cant have two different origins, one not moving and the other moving. That is where you make the error of simple logic and simple physics.

Martin Jessica Moore Carol Taylor Dorothy

this is amazing 🤩

By far the best resource I've found on VAEs, after _lots_ of reading and video watching. This puts it all together intelligently and clearly. Thank you!!

Wow wonderful explanation ❤️ ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

There is a difference between a paradox and BS. This is BS ........ not a paradox.

I think the Aether does exist

confusing

Zero point energy (bare vacuum) needs to be included in this.

As a junior AI developer, this was the best toturial of Adam and Other optimizers I've ever seen. Simply explained but not too simply to be a useless overview Thanks

This video is amazing! I like how you get "reparametrization trick" into the picture, that you first calculate the gradient seperately to show the potential issue. Super clear!

Earth does not move!

Great Explaination! Thank you.

awesome explanation, contains a lot of information which are missing in the paper. Thank you

Yeah, I don’t know about that.

Very interesting indeed, I feel kinda stupid cuz I barely understand the math tho lol.

Finally thats the counterargument that came to my mind

Note on 16:38. The classifier doesn't directly classify the ground-truth factor corresponding to each latent variable; it classifies the factor that was kept constant in each input data pair. However, the structure of the problem, and the limitation of a linear classifier, ensures that it can only do this by mapping latent variables to ground-truth factors.

why don't i see such detailed explanation videos as PDFs? do you guys think you'll get rich from a couple hundred views on youtube??? make a PDF (including ALL your explanations during the video!). having only an online version, plus having to click stop and juggle with the video position slider and never having a continuous presentation in front of my eyes is just plain nonsense for this kind of material. basically, it seems (from what i've been able to follow) to be a very well done presentation in terms of content , but totally useless in the form the content is delivered PS: never heard this so clearly stated before: "a VAE maps a point in X to a distribution in Z by pushing the distributions towards the prior of Z which is a unit guasian, which encourages the distributions to overlap and fill all the space of the prior of Z". just brilliant.

The sheer arrogance of Michelson and Morley in ignoring the obvious fact that gravity is ether flow totally bewilders me to this day.