It seems like, unless you can say with certainty that you have a legitimate claim to use an existing name, the right and safe thing to do would be to not use it. Just name your project something else. You lose the brand recognition of the existing name, but on the other hand you avoid the risk of your project getting dragged like this.
When in doubt, save yourself a headache and just use a different name.
It seems like the researchers actually working on various versions and updates of this understand and are fine with the naming, the original creator of YOLO doesn’t seem to care, and the only people kicking up a fuss are random opinionated Internet commentators that are nothing to do with it.
I don’t see what the problem is with letting the community of people actually contributing to various forms of YOLO work it out between themselves. As, er, they seem to have done.
Not that I really care, but the original GitHub issue[1] has multiple researchers "kicking up a fuss", why are you just reducing their opinion to "random opinionated commentators"?
Also, the original creator did not say he does not care ("doesn't matter what I think"), he said another maintainer of darknet/yolo should have more say. [2]
What if there are two successors of YOLOv4 that both inherit large parts of YOLOv4, make different sets of changes, achieving different sets of improvements?
Do we call them YOLOv5.0 and YOLOv5.1? How do we nomenclate the graph? What if another one inherits from both YOLOv5.0 and YOLOv5.1? Is it YOLOv6 or YOLOv(5.0,5.1).0?
A problem for when it happens. In the past, the first guys to publish theirs to the public get the first one. The other guys can just call theirs Yolo6 or miniYolo or whatever. It's not a big deal. We don't need a system for conflict resolution if no conflict is likely.
This type of thing does happen in academia. There is a family of algorithms in constraint programming called AC, and there is AC versions 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,3.1,3.2,3.3,2000,3.1* any several other variants.
These algorithms are (mostly) written by different people. People build on each others work in academia all the timr.
Although that's true, I don't think it's necessary to trademark in this case. Nobody is losing marketing potential or profits here -- it's just an issue of how to deal with nomenclature when two separate people are working on different forked improvements of the same thing without confusing the community.
Maybe I just misread this article but it really sounds like they don’t own YOLOv5. It’s someone else’s project they think is cool and are amplifying. If that’s right, then I think it’s reasonable to defer naming to whoever actually made the project!
Roboflow didn't name the project, they just benchmarked it and wrote a blog article (or two, now) about it. So, it's more like this:
> Is YOLOv5 the Correct Name?
> Candidly, the startup that decided to benchmark it and compare it to other stuff that got drawn into this because nobody bothers to pay attention to the details in the blog post they wrote does not know.
That's not much of a counterargument. The question could be phrased as "How much room is there still for debate?" and the answer is clearly: less and less, and dwindling rapidly.
Schoolteachers (in the USA, anyway) get paid next to nothing, and frequently have to buy classroom supplies out of pocket because their school system doesn't have the budget to buy them.
As the amount of administration support staff and special needs paraprofessionals skyrocketed, the resources allocated to regular students and teachers have dwindled. People feel good about having students with special needs included in regular classes but it has caused an enormous reallocation of resources, shifting massive cash and attention to the lowest performing students.
There was a book about this once, Harrison Bergeron.
Is it entirely due to re-allocation to special needs education?
Seems like with population growth, we are trying to educate more and more kids, and unlike in the past, we dont just discard that parts that would be expensive or difficult.
In the past, we ignored the problem so it wasnt factored into budgets, head counts. There needs to be more money overall for education. It returns more than $1 for every $1 invested over the long term.
It varies by district but my wife is a teacher (now) and she has worked in several schools where the special education budget met or exceeded the non-special, while serving only 3-5% of the school's enrolled children.
My wife also teaches these sorts of children and the vast majority of them seldom improve beyond a 5th or 6th grade level, and many of the "smarter" ones with milder disabilities end up in jail at some point after being graduated (most typically for sexual, theft, violence, and drug offenses) out of the system since they can no longer be failed, yet they basically can't truly be taught how to properly function in society since they can't even properly comprehend laws or how they work, as they only have basic reading capability and comprehension of even simple children's books.
Closing institutions insteading of reforming and modernizing them for these sorts of people was indeed a mistake.
> rather expensive editions that are rarely discounted substantially, such as the Criterion Collection
Criterion's web store (https://www.criterion.com/shop) has sales all the time. There's one on right now through June 15 that gives you 30% off all titles. I picked up two titles through a 50% off sale last month. Subscribe to their email list or follow them on social media and they'll give you a heads up when the next one is coming.
Criterion’s web store won’t ship abroad, because Criterion’s licensing agreement with the rights owners stipulates that they will only sell to North American consumers. So, sales there are little help to cinephiles elsewhere.
The root account is a loaded gun. Sudo su is a loaded gun with the safety engaged. You can still shoot yourself with it, but you have to take an affirmative action first (disengaging the safety/sudo su), which cuts way down on the number of trips to the emergency room.
Yes absolutely, if sudo can make su, there is no more safety or audit in place...to go back to gun's...glock, you pull or you don't, no switch just 'sudo su'
If you are taking your epidemiological guidance from a site called "Conservative Review," which appears to exist mostly to provide Google juice to other sites in Glenn Beck's media network, do me a favor and don't come within ten feet of me without a mask.
On HN we go by article quality, not site quality. I agree that this article is not a good one for discussing the CDC's latest findings about Covid-19 death rates. But please don't post political battle comments to HN.
That being said, Bloomberg entered the Democratic primary very late and does not own one of the largest propaganda machines in the world. If done right, Zuckerberg might have a decent shot. After all, Bloomberg achieved ~18% [1] in the polls despite his late entry.
He and Schulz winged it and treated it like a jock treats finals. “I’ll pull an all-nighter and I’ll get an A”. Nope like most people who don’t show up for class and do an all-nighter, they got a D- and failed.
I wouldn’t completely agree with that. From most sources, Bloomberg wanted to run even in 2016, and did a lot of work on that front, till the end when he somehow changed tack to “not split the vote”.
While he did officially make a late entry in the race, started throwing a lot of money and research power quite early. It just so happened that the American public looks at more factors than just a lot of money.
To me they both seemed woefully underprepared and at a loss for answers when the spotlight was put on them during debates.
I guess executives delegate a lot , so much that on their own they might feel exposed and unprepared because there is no one to assist, at least when thrust into unfamiliar ground.
Bloomberg's basic problem is that people in Iowa hate his personality. Had he actually put in the work, being a billionaire may well have been enough if not for having a major disqualifier like that.
Sure, Bonzi Buddy might not be the best example, but you get his point. People just click through dialogs to close them without thinking about what they are clicking.
You don't get to handwave away a clear fallacy with "ok but you get the point". _My_ point is that the point is false, not that the example is bad. If Bonzi Buddy can just buy their way into your computer, then this does not save you. From anything. Because real malicious actors like Bonzi Buddy can just buy their way in!
I don't think this is just a hypothetical either; if I remember rightly, a lot of the really obnoxoius unwanted software from that era was signed with valid, purchased signing certificates in order to encourage people to install it via ActiveX.
A trojan that steals banking information is going to be able to afford a certificate, but they aren't going to buy one because they would have to identify themselves.
In order to understand this, you really need to start thinking like a criminal. "If I had money, power, maybe guns, and no conscience or care for anyone else, what could I get away with?"
You're imagining some mastermind criminal rather than some kid or for-hire hacker who finds an exploit kit and gets to work piecing together something malicious.
Gruber’s not really adding much here to the original NYT reporting. I would suggest changing the URL for this submission to point directly to the article at the Times.
> Candidly, the Roboflow team does not know.
It seems like, unless you can say with certainty that you have a legitimate claim to use an existing name, the right and safe thing to do would be to not use it. Just name your project something else. You lose the brand recognition of the existing name, but on the other hand you avoid the risk of your project getting dragged like this.
When in doubt, save yourself a headache and just use a different name.