Google's Vertex API for document processing absolutely does bounding boxes. In fact, some of the document processors are just a wrap around Google's product.
I remember participating in the workforce early on transcribing really bad audio recordings along with the cheap survey type stuff. It was pretty neat back in the day.
I inherited an S3 bucket where hundreds of thousands of files were written to the bucket root. Every filename was just a uuid. ls might work after waiting to page though to get every file. To grep you would need to download 5 TB.
It's probably going to be dog slow. I dealt with HDDs where just iterating through all files and directories takes hours, and network storage is going to be even slower at this scale.
Admittedly, more detail would be better, but this high-level stuff is mostly the level that engineering leaders are discussing this topic currently (and it is by far the most discussed topic).
They actually revelead an interesting tidbit where they are with AI adoption and how they are positioning it now to new hires, e.g. "we made AI fluency a baseline expectation for engineers by adding it to job descriptions and hiring expectations".
It seems inevitable now that engineering teams will demand AI fluency when hiring, cuious though what they are doing with their existing staff who refuse to adopt AI into their workflow. Curious also if they mandated it or relied solely on incentives to adopt.
You are spreading misinformation. The FCC existed before Coughlin. Furthermore, the FCC declined to take action on Coughlin despite all the pressure it got from the public. Instead, it was the National Association of Broadcasters that forced him off the air.
Yes, as long as they also have visibility into everything else customers do where things go smoothly. You definitely need to see and fix problem areas of the product, but if 95% of the product is working well, you can get a false impression that the sketchy 5% is a much larger piece of the puzzle than it really is.
Good idea. We should also let customer service write code from time to time, so they get familiarized with how the product is built and get a sense of what's feasible and what's not.
Blind Man's Bluff is a great variant: Give everyone a card face-down, they put it on their forehead without looking at it. Bet based on whether or not you think the card on your forehead is higher than other people's. More fun in my opinion.
Article footnote mentions this with the caveat that it requires some dexterity that young children may find challenging. That aside, I think the two games make a great complementary pair and switching between provides a nice contrast for kids.
You play normal one card poker until the kids realize the benefit of seeing other player’s cards - then you play blind man’s and learn that incomplete information can go the other way.
