Vision Ias Notes Pdf Free Download

You can see the latest product updates for all of Google Cloud on the Google Cloud page, browse and filter all release notes in the Google Cloud Platform Console, or programmatically access release notes in BigQuery.

After June 4, 2020, the v1beta1 version of AutoML API will deny increasing numbers of API requests from AutoML Vision users. Please refer to the November 20, 2019 release notes and migrate to v1 version immediately.

Download 🔥 https://urlca.com/2y2RzI 🔥

The most common symptom reported in the present cohort was headache (45.7 %), followed by dry eyes (31.1 %) and pain in and around the eyes (28.7 %). Megwas and Daguboshim reported that headache (41.8 %), pain (31.6 %) and eye strain (26.7 %) were the most prevalent visual symptoms among VDT users [19]. Headache was the most commonly reported symptom in computer users in several other similar studies [13, 20, 21]. Headaches is often accompanied by other symptoms of CVS, though many patients do not consider it to be a directly vision-related problem [22]. Human eyes need to adjust themselves in order to see objects from different distances, such as by changing the size of pupil, lengthening or shortening the lens to change eye focus, and contracting extra-ocular muscles to coordinate the two eyes. If computer user needs to view computer screen while looking at a paper on the table from time to time, the eyes have to adjust constantly. In addition, the words and images on a computer screen are difficult for the eyes to focus on due to their poor edge resolution. The eyes tend to change the focus to a resting point and then refocus on the screen. For these reasons, constant focusing and refocusing is required. These constant changes take place thousands of times a day when a computer user stares at a computer screen for hours, which then stresses the eye muscles leading to eye fatigue and discomfort causing headaches [23].

According to the results of the binary logistic regression analysis, the most significant risk factor for development of CVS was pre-existing eye disease (OR: 4.49) followed by use of contact lenses (OR: 3.21). Supporting this finding, a study done in Malaysia has revealed that use of correction spectacle/lenses were significantly associated with CVS (OR: 1.91) in multivariate logistic regression analysis, even after adjustment for other confounding variables [17]. Furthermore, university students who were wearing spectacles experienced symptoms of CVS significantly more often than those who were not wearing spectacles [20]. A study by Logaraj et al. also revealed that medical and engineering students wearing corrective lens (spectacle or contact lens) showed a significantly higher risk of developing headache (OR: 1.80) and blurred vision (OR: 2.10) [14]. Possible explanations for the increased risk of CVS among those using correction spectacles/lenses is because the computer tasks are types of near work where letters on the screen are formed by tiny dots called pixels, rather than a solid image, it causes the eyes which already have some corrective problem to work a bit harder to keep the images in focus [17].

There are many more such vision papers; a few are listed in the footnotes2. But hopefully you get the idea. Most vision papers quickly fade into obscurity. But the most successful often play crucial roles in pioneering new fields, including computer science, geoengineering, gravitational wave astronomy, genomics, and many others.

The immediate motivator for the present notes is a combination of observations I find surprising: (a) vision papers often play a crucial role in instigating new fields of science; and yet (b) the kind of thinking they involve is of a type that scientists often don't publicly do much of; indeed (c) the style of thinking involved is sometimes disparaged by many (not all) scientists. Often, the papers contain few or no technical results, and little or no data. They may, in fact, not hew to the usual standards of any existing field. As a consequence, the contents of vision papers tend to be radically different than most conventional scientific papers. They're often storytelling or narrative creation, with few technical results, and sometimes apppear superficially closer to literature than what people ordinarily consider science.

When vision papers are published, they're often ignored; they're certainly rarely much respected. Several people who work fulltime (today) on quantum computing, told me in the 1990s that the founding papers of the field were vague and wishy-washy, "not real physics". It took time for those fundamental papers to become celebrated. This is a common pattern: many important vision papers are ignored early, with success coming much later, if at all.

This all seems like a curious combination. What's going on? When are these papers valuable (or not)? If it's true that vision papers sometimes play a crucial role in science, then is it a bad thing they may be regarded negatively? Indeed: why are they regarded negatively? With Kanjun Qiu, I've been wondering: would there be any benefits to soliciting visions, perhaps as part of some kind of Vision Prize competition? Would it be possible to speed up the creation of new fields of science this way? And then there's personal questions, as well: is it useful to develop this style of thinking? What role should it play in one's own work? And part of me shares the instinctive aversion to vision papers I mentioned above; indeed, I sometimes feel a little sheepish about vision papers I've written. At the same time, this feeling of sheepishness seems utterly bonkers.

The purpose of these notes is to engage these questions. I must admit: I'm a little embarassed to be writing the notes! It feels like so much faffing around, visions-of-visions, like blogging about blogging. But those concerns are wrong. Vision papers are connected to fundamental questions like the way scientific fields are founded. And they're interesting as a distinct kind of epistemological object, something that no-one, as far as I know, has ever thought about as a particular type of knowledge. They're worth understanding better.

Throat-clearing aside, let's get back to the subject. I've asserted writing vision papers is often regarded as lightweight. It's difficult to prove this. I've certainly heard scientists say negative things about such work; occasionally the comments are scathing. More often, such work is ignored, or regarded as "fun speculation, but not real science". There are few venues for such work. I'm certain the median number of vision papers in an issue of Physical Review Letters is zero3.

This description may perhaps be taken as an implicit criticism of Kay's paper, and praise for Kitaev's. That's not the point. Quite the reverse: the point is that whether a vision paper is successful seems surprisingly independent of the strength of the technical results contained therein.

By contrast, the key element of a vision paper isn't a new fact about the world. It's effectively a would-be prophet standing up and proclaiming: "I see a wonderful opportunity over there, that looks [something like this]. Let's go explore!" Kay's is a vision of new media transforming the way people learn and think. Kitaev's is a vision of materials with properties so radically different to the ordinary world that they would make an invisibility cloak seems mundane.

A good vision paper reveals and evokes an exciting latent possibility, without necessarily saying concretely how that possibility is to be achieved. Indeed, it may not even necessarily lay out a concrete goal, much less concrete steps to achieve it. But there is a direction, and a plausible exciting latent possibility.

Often, no-one pays any attention to such visions, or only a few people pay attention. But sometimes a large number of people head off in the direction, albeit often after considerable delay. In the two examples I've just been using, both Kay's and Kitaev's papers developed visions that (eventually) inspired quite a few people to explore6.

Visionary versus composable results: I made a distinction above between the detailed technical results in a paper, and the "visionary" aspects. I claimed Kay's paper was mostly visionary, while Kitaev mixed both; indeed, much of the vision in Kitaev was implicit.

I've struggled to articulate the difference between the technical and visionary aspects. In part, it's because the line is genuinely blurry. However, roughly speaking: technical results are things about the world that others can build upon; they are in some sense composable. You can take Fermat's last theorem or a measurement of solubility and use it to do other things. In Kitaev's case: he explicitly constructs a class of error-correcting codes: you can use those constructions to do other things. Kitaev describes a class of condensed matter systems: you can try to build those systems, you can study their properties, you can try variations. And so on: there are many strong technical results in Kitaev's paper, things which can be directly built upon.

By contrast, the visionary aspects don't have this composable nature. They're stories7: "Here is an [exciting, non obvious latent opportunity] which [you could help move toward]. That movement perhaps looks [something like this], and [may involve these ideas, often pre-existing or drawn from other sources]." The idea of a state of matter which naturally quantum computes is a very exciting idea, but there's nothing you can directly do with that idea. You can't directly build on it, unlike (say) the error-correcting codes in Kitaev's paper. Rather, it's a motivator.

I'm struggling to state this demarcation satisfactorily! Let me try once more: the technical, composable aspects of a paper directly affect what we can do in the world, or what we can do with our theories of the world. They make a lasting contribution to human capability, to what we understand or can do. The visionary aspects instead affect what scientists think about, what they think is important, what opportunities they recognize as worth moving toward. But they're not primarily reused as components in other work8. ff782bc1db