The show seemed to be designed to appeal the critics, but not the viewer. So the professional critics have a lot of praise for it, but the actual viewer reaction seemed more tepid. It isn't bad, but it isn't great. I actually got more joy from The Orvil, Discovery seemed to be an attempt to make Star Trek as an artistic expression (bluntly shown during the intro, with the artistic sketches of the star trek icon, and images) , The font in the Klingon subtitles, that just made it that hard to read, but looked nice (Combined with the Klingons slurring everything like they had marbles in their mouth)... It was all about trying to make a serial escapism drama into an artistic expression. If it was on my normal streaming services Netflix, Hulu.... I would give it a chance, to see if they settle down and try to make a good show, but having to pay money for just one show isn't worth it.
While driving, there are a lot of functions that are needed without taking your eyes off the road. Touch Screens you need your eyes to help target where you are going to press. For adjusting the wiper speed, the Touch Screen will cause you take your eyes off the road, to deal with a low visibility problem is just a bad idea.
Project Management isn't suited for Product development. Most project management methods are based on some fallacies. 1. The users of the product knows what they want: The truth is they don't know what they want until they can get their hands on it, and know if what they see if they like it, hate it, or have a some tweaks that are needed. No matter how many meetings you have with static pictures and blueprints. The user just doesn't know what they want until they can get their hands on it.
2. Development of modules have a start time and a complete time: Function X may take 2 days to develop. Because it is prerequisite for function Y. However after function Y is completed and used function Z, You need to go back to function X, to get the data prepped for function Z, but you couldn't put that code in for function Z support until you have completed function Y which needed X. Coding isn't linear, they are parts that needs to be addressed and fixed, causing other parts to be reworked or adjusted.
3. People are interchangeable: A coder is a coder right. Well no. Some of them are really good at doing Database calls, while others are most comfortable with the HTML and JavaScript. While there is an other one who is most comfortable with the Middle tier code. Sure all of them may be able to code all the parts if needed, but for the most part each ones is going to be a specialist in particular parts. This means not all people are used qually or performing each task as efficiently as someone else.
4. People have lives outside the project: While working most people may get called to take a look at a different project (bug fix a previous completed application) they may need to sit in a meeting for a future project. Also they can get sick, have family emergencies...
5. Coders just code uniformly: There is a degree of artistic pride every coder uses. Everyone will approach problems a bit differently, they may be arguing with the Architect for them to be doing something a particular way or they will just ignore, misinterpret, the internal parts of the spec, and just make sure the output meets the specs. So this often creates some conflict because the internal changes may affect something else (timing, system resource, readability...) So we may need to redo the function, or just adapt the rest of the stuff around these changes.
Most PM policies are based on manufacturing processes. Where the goal matches the outcome. Product Development the outcome is usually different then the initial goal.
Still if you hose up a system with over configuration and say to a point where you need to reboot, then you bring down everything just to fix one application.
I don't see why you are disagreeing with my point and agreeing with the premise. You cannot be "nice" to the person because you are busy doing work. You probably actually have time to be Nice, Because being nice probably doesn't take that much time, and doing so you can probably get the information from the person you need faster to do your job... However because you are so focused on trying to do the work, you forget to be nice. It isn't about having a lack of social skills, but the fact if you are overwhelmed some things will often get traded off. We as humans are not as good at multi-tasking as we think we are. If you are busy it is hard to be nice.
Not simple at all. If the step requires more person to person interaction their business model would demand this. So each technological step will open the door for a different type of job. We have been hearing about this peak job market where technology will outpace work for about a hundred years, and Unemployment is at a near record low. We actually need to bring in immigrants because our culture isn't creating enough offspring to meet demand.
The thing with a technological world, is that we need more people to be human.
It is also about portability. Where you can upgrade one component or rebuild a component to a fresh install without having worrying about other systems. Also you can clone a VM and put the file onto an other server and perhaps some setup and you have a redundant system, or at least a backup of a working system.
For a lot of jobs, the demand isn't for people who are Smarter, but people who are kinder.
Normally if you have an analytical job, you are so focused on the brain work, that you often will overlook other people and their feelings, hence why a lot of MD specialists are normally rather terse. Because with faced with a difficult problem, they are trying to solve the problem and often see their patient as a collection of biochemistry then a person who is feeling pain, and may be scared. Also for Tech workers we are trying to get the parts to work and get things going, we often fail to realize if there is a problem, people are actually frustrated and other people may be frustrated to because they are waiting for the results. We have smart people who can fix the problems, but what we also have are the people who may not smart enough to deal with the technical issues, but are rather nice people, however instead of having them talk to the customers and make people around them feel better, they may be put doing some menial job, such as data entry, or filling out forms. Where their skills are being lost on helping people.
That is where Automation comes in, it does the menial job that people really don't want to do, allowing them to change their focus on doing human things.
I was just recently talking to a McDonald's franchise owner, he is upgrading his store with kiosks and more advanced technology. Here is the thing, the technology will not cause him to lower his staff, if successful he may need to increase his staff. For his stores the big problem is long wait times in the drive thru and in the store, so people so these kiosks will help get the orders in faster and food delivered to the customers faster. This means more people moving in and out of the store, however it also means more employees who are busy cooking, and delivering the product, and less of them standing there in front of the counter smiling as the guy who has been in line for a few minutes never bothered choosing what he wanted (while other customers in line, my decide to leave the store to go somewhere faster) For every less person at the register there is a person who is needed to deliver the food. Just as long as the employee isn't so suck in their ways and refuses to do their job differently then they will still have a job. Every 20 or 30 years this debate on technology comes up and talks about taking away job, and still we average around 5% unemployment. Technology changes your job, normally it gets rid of the job, that even the employees don't want to do, and gives them time to do more of the more exciting (relatively) work, that is a bit more gratifying.
The problem is we are right now thinking business/government... needs to cut costs. While the real trick is to increase revenue and get more customers, sure waste can and should be improved continuously. But growth brings growth. If people need to be paid more, then they will also need to be more productive, technology is there to assist.
Are you still pissed that you lost a VI vs Emacs debate? For a normal Red Hat implementations the system is going to be mostly headless so Gnome isn’t a big deal if even used at all. And if you are administering a system and you are constantly tinkering with its systems init setting. You are doing it wrong for the 21st century.
On an enterprise system the system is loaded into a VM and the OS is configured to run one process and do it well. It isn’t like the 1990s where you had one system that was your database, web server, email server, login authentication, file server and print server. Where we more or less configured a PC to work like a mainframe. And if one part needed a new library then you needed to check all the systems because it was all integrated one one server. If someone got in they hit the mother load of data.
I happen to agree. Having seen discovery I was really kinda let down. 1. The characters were not really interesting. They were the same tropes over again. Part Vulcan part human who is at war with their emotions... yawn seen it.
2. They messed with the Klingons a bit too far. Originally I was OK with the more alien looking makeup. However after they talk and moved it just looked and felt fake. Even when they talked in Klingon it was slurred speech like they had marbles in their mouth. Then having them very religious with elaborate ceremonies just didn’t say warrior culture.
3. 1 hour for 15 minuets of content. I’ll avoid spoilers but there was too much exposition for stuff I really didn’t care about at the moment.
4. The lack of fun... this plays like an early 2000 SyFi Chanel show. Dark and deep with a lot going on all meaning little. We live in bad times already I want some some escapism.
Perhaps I was just pissed because it got delayed and I sat threw Opra trying to moderate a bunch of Trump and Non-Trump supporters both just giving the standard excused that pissed me off before the show started. But I wasn’t too pleased with the show. And the fact that they want me to pay money to see the other episode is just insulting. If you are going to stream it put it on Hulu or American Netflix. I don’t want an other monthly bill just to watch a mediocre show. If it was broadcast or on a normal streaming service then I may want to give it a view.
Denying a FOI may be a good reason to do so. Such as protecting protecting confidential information. For example if you want the Medicaid Health Records of the guy who lives down the street, because you think he is a druggy. However information that shouldn't be denied is if it just happens to put the officials in a bad light. So they may had rushed that contract for the new building and went with a known vendor. While the reason to do so, is because the building needed to be built quickly, and the known vendor had a good track record for quality. However releasing this information will just mean for the person who approved it a bunch of extra problems, to defend his actions, and explanation on after the fact solution's. Now this is information that still should be available even if it puts someone who was trying to put the benefit of the community ahead of his own, but still we should know about this, as it could lead to abuse in the future and the person will be held accountable, even just politically.
Politicians need to realize that they serve the community and their job there is at the privilege of the community. If they want him out, then their job is over.
No, Rust isn't a magical device that makes all your computers secure. It does help enforce better coding practices to make your code more secure. However on some level the point of the programming language is to interact with the system hardware. a Mutable data type will prevent threads from changing the data. However it doesn't stop the CPU from changing the data in the value. Because something needs to clear the memory when the variable is no longer needed (such as leaving the nest or program end)
Normally at this level for the hack we start to cross the line from the digital to the analog. While most of us coders just worry about 0 and 1, on the processor we are looking at a values between a threshold, where wires are so close that a power change could cause a little static arch that in theory can change a bit. However these hacks normally need to be times perfectly and with intimate knowledge on what is going on at that time. Such a hack would most likely cause a program to fail, or some bad data to be processed, which is bad, however no worse then the bugs in most applications or OS, or just generic hardware failure. While I could see AMD would want to fix this, I don't see it currently as a major concern for security, as if the hacker was to get to that level, they would have access to a lot more on the PC.
I think much of it is actually due to experience. Inexperience programmers will often start out with languages that don't have strong types. Because they can get the program to work quickly, the software is buggy, due to fast development time combined with inexperience.
Song typed langues for the inexperience means just to get the program to compile they will need a some understanding of basic data structures. That prevents the program from getting released without some skill and practice behind it.
I do not see any difference in my code quality from Strong Typed to weak typed. But I treat weak typed code much like strong typed avoid having the same variable change types. And putting extra attention during data type conversions. That said I did have an interesting unexpected bug about 20 years ago converting some COBOL generated data to Javascript where integers had leading 0 in the data set. This did convert some of the data to Octal and created some unexpected values when I was adding data together.
00712+00066 = 01000 which took me about an hour to figure out what was happening as I was adding 2 numbers with a leading 0 and no numbers greater than 7 caused the data types to be octal. However if I didn't know about this number conversion and the leading 0 notation for octal I may not had found the problem so easily.
It would be for the smarter kids. But there are others who just doesn't grasp the fact that formal sources can have a sense of humor or may be joking around, who take all information at face value. I remember some kids in American History class asking about the great Native American Machination Chief SOHCAHTOA, As my math teacher stated to try to get kids to remember that acronym while teaching geometry. When kids were trying to solve the problems, he would normally help them out by going "Remember the Chief!" Then they know to calculate the angle. But some kids, just didn't get that it was a learning aid, to make a rather complex Acronym easier to remember, but they thought Sohcahtoa was a real person. Causing a rather confused History Teacher. Until a smarter kid explained that it was what the math teacher used to remember the Acronym. However the point is, if you are going to be teaching students half of them are going to be below average intelligence and may not grasp such complexities as an Easter egg as a memory aid. But may think Yoda is a real thing, and not a puppet or a CGI Special Effect.
What you call "True AI" is what Science Fiction Literature calls True AI. (What Fiction calls True) While in Computer Science AI is about solving problems much how an organism would, other then having all the steps hard coded in, it would have a "simpler" method where it can pick up and adapt to new forms of input and realize that it needs a different form of output.
My AI Professor (Dr. David Anderson (A name to be a victim of AI for sure)) was studying Diagrammatic Reasoning. Where if a computer was presented with a simple diagram such as how to cook pot noodles, it could figure out the context of the images then know what steps to take.
Now this is real AI. Not the human replacement androids in science fiction, but systems that can understand the same sorts of data that we do.
Exactly, often at work I may implement some basic learning, adaptive algorithms. To help solve problems where there isn't a 1 for 1 answer. The code is good enough to outperform people in terms of numbers on these tasks, as it is able to handle a large number of items without exhaustion or cutting corners. However the toughest part is trying to explain to the people who will need to be responsible for the data, that it isn't perfect, so just don't go blindly accepting all the results, or go into a panic just because there is a non 0 error rate. Because the data I work with isn't perfect, assumptions based off of trending needs to be made, statistical models have a degree of error. The human brain which is one of the biggest statistical engines also has a high degree of error too, and can be tricked with unexpected inputs. Hence why magicians can perform their tricks. But for the less than technical people, there is the idea that the computer is somehow smarter then us. It isn't it is just better doing what it is told, and doesn't take shortcuts in exhaustion. A Program will run until it is complete, even if it kills the hardware while doing it (overheating, draining batteries etc....) A human when getting stressed will take short cuts, stop working on problems, make crazy assumptions just to keep the body functioning.
Companies can be a good company after going public, however normally the owners still have majority share, and the other investors realize that profits are not expected to show for a while. Normally with stock prices the companies profits is actually usually only a small factor in it, as the day traders will not hold onto the stock long enough for the quarterly report. But the longer term investors (the more conservative ones) will normally look at all the data before making their decisions. They may see a drop in profit, but showing that they are using their money to make more factories, hire R&D for the next generation product, in general working towards a long term goal. Hence the key reason for a company to go public is to get the influx of cash to invest in such expansion activities. However it is often difficult to ignore the plea of the stock holders or having to show a bad quarterly report, we are still in many ways stuck in our school age mind sets. Where the Report Card if it has some bad grades means you will be grounded, or worse (in the point of view of the child) get extra assistance from the parents. Also many driven people were A students because they wanted to show that they were the best, having a bad quarterly report makes them feel like a failure, where it is actually may be part of a good long term decision.
Apple has had a bad history whenever they open their platform. Hence why the patient like crazy and put every thing under tight legal control, down to the round corners. Apple spends a lot of money on R&D then they release a product that really works well. Then you get other companies who will see what Apple has done and copy it less time, because Apple Did the R&D work and all is needed now is to copy the design, which takes less work and effort. So they can sell their stuff for less.
Having replacement parts for sale even to authorized service providers can allow for people to make compatible "black market" compatible systems from the parts. It may be bulky but it can run IOS 11 and have all the cool new features of the iPhone X. There has been a market for Hackintosh systems for a while now, with Intel systems it has been easier, but previous systems had been made by scrounging for parts from a bunch of broken systems and using Apple Certified parts to make their own systems.
This is why Apple is against "Fair Repair" Bills, because there is such a market for their products that getting parts could open the door.
Unfortunately the term "The companies first priority should be to the share holders" has been taken out of context. Back when it was written, Companies would often take the share holders money and use it just to enrich themselves, or will give it away to their church, or other crazy cause, even at the companies expense. So the shareholders were often investing in companies that were killing themselves. With the change of focus to prioritize the shareholder, it means that the company should use their money to invest back into the company, sell more product, higher people to make better products... Even if this is at a cost of a bad quarterly report. However the statement had been taken out of context so now it is about hacking the numbers to keep the shareholders quarterly profits high. At the expense of long term growth.
What normally happens in Mergers. You have the larger failing company, and the smaller growing company. They merge. The fact the larger company (although failing) has more stock of ownership they make the rules, and normally push out the management in the smaller. Thus often killing what caused the smaller company to succeed. So you now have a larger failing company but it will now take longer for it to fail. Sometimes if the smaller company has enough personality and loyal customer base then they may do the right thing and incorporate the culture that caused growth, with the larger companies increased capital.
There is still Verizon and AT&T Still a monopoly or an oligopoly may not hurt consumers, however it makes it much easier for them to do so. However if the two companies have similar cultures and processes the merger may be good for consumers as these were the underdogs in the market, If they can keep their underdog personality (with pushing their often better plans) with their combined infrastructure, they could really force Verizon and AT&T to compete more as well.
This is often due to poor science reporting in the news. They like to jump on the newest Hypothesis or a few early experiments. But rarely do they cover the full process of the Scientific Method.
We have climate deniers, anti-vaxer, GMO fearing people because as a kid the TV shows all the wonders of what science can bring, because of the latest cure for Cancer, New forms of power that is clean, The band new microchip that is 10 times as fast.... These were all in the early phases of the process. That Cure for cancer was found would kill patients after 3 years, That new form of power is extremely dangerous to generate. That microchip just cannot be mass produced or is just in one area of calculation that isn't really used.
It is easy to feel that the Scientist are always getting it wrong, the truth is, the scientists are actually usually getting it wrong, it is part of the process, however what normally goes threw the full process and is shown a positive is actually darn close to being right most of the time.
Because now we are able to treat and reverse some cancers. (Due to ideas from those early failed trials) We have clean effective power options available to us now. (After looking why such dangers appeared) Processors are still following Mores Law. (Using many of the ideas from that chip design, it took more time for it to be manufactured and needed other technologies to catch up too)
However science is a process, and sometimes it is a long one. The media doesn't the whole process of discovery. They want the blip of the day. It if turns out true they can brag that they had covered it first. If it failed, then it is just those crazy scientist taking our tax money to spend on useless grants.
Slashdot Mirror
The show seemed to be designed to appeal the critics, but not the viewer. So the professional critics have a lot of praise for it, but the actual viewer reaction seemed more tepid.
It isn't bad, but it isn't great. I actually got more joy from The Orvil,
Discovery seemed to be an attempt to make Star Trek as an artistic expression (bluntly shown during the intro, with the artistic sketches of the star trek icon, and images) , The font in the Klingon subtitles, that just made it that hard to read, but looked nice (Combined with the Klingons slurring everything like they had marbles in their mouth)... It was all about trying to make a serial escapism drama into an artistic expression.
If it was on my normal streaming services Netflix, Hulu.... I would give it a chance, to see if they settle down and try to make a good show, but having to pay money for just one show isn't worth it.
While driving, there are a lot of functions that are needed without taking your eyes off the road. Touch Screens you need your eyes to help target where you are going to press. For adjusting the wiper speed, the Touch Screen will cause you take your eyes off the road, to deal with a low visibility problem is just a bad idea.
Project Management isn't suited for Product development.
Most project management methods are based on some fallacies.
1. The users of the product knows what they want: The truth is they don't know what they want until they can get their hands on it, and know if what they see if they like it, hate it, or have a some tweaks that are needed. No matter how many meetings you have with static pictures and blueprints. The user just doesn't know what they want until they can get their hands on it.
2. Development of modules have a start time and a complete time: Function X may take 2 days to develop. Because it is prerequisite for function Y. However after function Y is completed and used function Z, You need to go back to function X, to get the data prepped for function Z, but you couldn't put that code in for function Z support until you have completed function Y which needed X. Coding isn't linear, they are parts that needs to be addressed and fixed, causing other parts to be reworked or adjusted.
3. People are interchangeable: A coder is a coder right. Well no. Some of them are really good at doing Database calls, while others are most comfortable with the HTML and JavaScript. While there is an other one who is most comfortable with the Middle tier code. Sure all of them may be able to code all the parts if needed, but for the most part each ones is going to be a specialist in particular parts. This means not all people are used qually or performing each task as efficiently as someone else.
4. People have lives outside the project: While working most people may get called to take a look at a different project (bug fix a previous completed application) they may need to sit in a meeting for a future project. Also they can get sick, have family emergencies...
5. Coders just code uniformly: There is a degree of artistic pride every coder uses. Everyone will approach problems a bit differently, they may be arguing with the Architect for them to be doing something a particular way or they will just ignore, misinterpret, the internal parts of the spec, and just make sure the output meets the specs. So this often creates some conflict because the internal changes may affect something else (timing, system resource, readability...) So we may need to redo the function, or just adapt the rest of the stuff around these changes.
Most PM policies are based on manufacturing processes. Where the goal matches the outcome. Product Development the outcome is usually different then the initial goal.
Still if you hose up a system with over configuration and say to a point where you need to reboot, then you bring down everything just to fix one application.
I don't see why you are disagreeing with my point and agreeing with the premise. You cannot be "nice" to the person because you are busy doing work. You probably actually have time to be Nice, Because being nice probably doesn't take that much time, and doing so you can probably get the information from the person you need faster to do your job... However because you are so focused on trying to do the work, you forget to be nice. It isn't about having a lack of social skills, but the fact if you are overwhelmed some things will often get traded off. We as humans are not as good at multi-tasking as we think we are. If you are busy it is hard to be nice.
Not simple at all. If the step requires more person to person interaction their business model would demand this. So each technological step will open the door for a different type of job. We have been hearing about this peak job market where technology will outpace work for about a hundred years, and Unemployment is at a near record low. We actually need to bring in immigrants because our culture isn't creating enough offspring to meet demand.
The thing with a technological world, is that we need more people to be human.
It is also about portability. Where you can upgrade one component or rebuild a component to a fresh install without having worrying about other systems. Also you can clone a VM and put the file onto an other server and perhaps some setup and you have a redundant system, or at least a backup of a working system.
For a lot of jobs, the demand isn't for people who are Smarter, but people who are kinder.
Normally if you have an analytical job, you are so focused on the brain work, that you often will overlook other people and their feelings, hence why a lot of MD specialists are normally rather terse. Because with faced with a difficult problem, they are trying to solve the problem and often see their patient as a collection of biochemistry then a person who is feeling pain, and may be scared. Also for Tech workers we are trying to get the parts to work and get things going, we often fail to realize if there is a problem, people are actually frustrated and other people may be frustrated to because they are waiting for the results. We have smart people who can fix the problems, but what we also have are the people who may not smart enough to deal with the technical issues, but are rather nice people, however instead of having them talk to the customers and make people around them feel better, they may be put doing some menial job, such as data entry, or filling out forms. Where their skills are being lost on helping people.
That is where Automation comes in, it does the menial job that people really don't want to do, allowing them to change their focus on doing human things.
I was just recently talking to a McDonald's franchise owner, he is upgrading his store with kiosks and more advanced technology. Here is the thing, the technology will not cause him to lower his staff, if successful he may need to increase his staff.
For his stores the big problem is long wait times in the drive thru and in the store, so people so these kiosks will help get the orders in faster and food delivered to the customers faster. This means more people moving in and out of the store, however it also means more employees who are busy cooking, and delivering the product, and less of them standing there in front of the counter smiling as the guy who has been in line for a few minutes never bothered choosing what he wanted (while other customers in line, my decide to leave the store to go somewhere faster)
For every less person at the register there is a person who is needed to deliver the food. Just as long as the employee isn't so suck in their ways and refuses to do their job differently then they will still have a job.
Every 20 or 30 years this debate on technology comes up and talks about taking away job, and still we average around 5% unemployment. Technology changes your job, normally it gets rid of the job, that even the employees don't want to do, and gives them time to do more of the more exciting (relatively) work, that is a bit more gratifying.
The problem is we are right now thinking business/government... needs to cut costs. While the real trick is to increase revenue and get more customers, sure waste can and should be improved continuously. But growth brings growth. If people need to be paid more, then they will also need to be more productive, technology is there to assist.
Are you still pissed that you lost a VI vs Emacs debate?
For a normal Red Hat implementations the system is going to be mostly headless so Gnome isn’t a big deal if even used at all. And if you are administering a system and you are constantly tinkering with its systems init setting. You are doing it wrong for the 21st century.
On an enterprise system the system is loaded into a VM and the OS is configured to run one process and do it well. It isn’t like the 1990s where you had one system that was your database, web server, email server, login authentication, file server and print server. Where we more or less configured a PC to work like a mainframe. And if one part needed a new library then you needed to check all the systems because it was all integrated one one server. If someone got in they hit the mother load of data.
I happen to agree.
Having seen discovery I was really kinda let down.
1. The characters were not really interesting. They were the same tropes over again. Part Vulcan part human who is at war with their emotions... yawn seen it.
2. They messed with the Klingons a bit too far. Originally I was OK with the more alien looking makeup. However after they talk and moved it just looked and felt fake. Even when they talked in Klingon it was slurred speech like they had marbles in their mouth. Then having them very religious with elaborate ceremonies just didn’t say warrior culture.
3. 1 hour for 15 minuets of content. I’ll avoid spoilers but there was too much exposition for stuff I really didn’t care about at the moment.
4. The lack of fun... this plays like an early 2000 SyFi Chanel show. Dark and deep with a lot going on all meaning little. We live in bad times already I want some some escapism.
Perhaps I was just pissed because it got delayed and I sat threw Opra trying to moderate a bunch of Trump and Non-Trump supporters both just giving the standard excused that pissed me off before the show started. But I wasn’t too pleased with the show. And the fact that they want me to pay money to see the other episode is just insulting. If you are going to stream it put it on Hulu or American Netflix. I don’t want an other monthly bill just to watch a mediocre show.
If it was broadcast or on a normal streaming service then I may want to give it a view.
Denying a FOI may be a good reason to do so. Such as protecting protecting confidential information. For example if you want the Medicaid Health Records of the guy who lives down the street, because you think he is a druggy.
However information that shouldn't be denied is if it just happens to put the officials in a bad light. So they may had rushed that contract for the new building and went with a known vendor. While the reason to do so, is because the building needed to be built quickly, and the known vendor had a good track record for quality. However releasing this information will just mean for the person who approved it a bunch of extra problems, to defend his actions, and explanation on after the fact solution's. Now this is information that still should be available even if it puts someone who was trying to put the benefit of the community ahead of his own, but still we should know about this, as it could lead to abuse in the future and the person will be held accountable, even just politically.
Politicians need to realize that they serve the community and their job there is at the privilege of the community. If they want him out, then their job is over.
No, Rust isn't a magical device that makes all your computers secure.
It does help enforce better coding practices to make your code more secure.
However on some level the point of the programming language is to interact with the system hardware.
a Mutable data type will prevent threads from changing the data. However it doesn't stop the CPU from changing the data in the value. Because something needs to clear the memory when the variable is no longer needed (such as leaving the nest or program end)
Normally at this level for the hack we start to cross the line from the digital to the analog. While most of us coders just worry about 0 and 1, on the processor we are looking at a values between a threshold, where wires are so close that a power change could cause a little static arch that in theory can change a bit.
However these hacks normally need to be times perfectly and with intimate knowledge on what is going on at that time. Such a hack would most likely cause a program to fail, or some bad data to be processed, which is bad, however no worse then the bugs in most applications or OS, or just generic hardware failure.
While I could see AMD would want to fix this, I don't see it currently as a major concern for security, as if the hacker was to get to that level, they would have access to a lot more on the PC.
I think much of it is actually due to experience.
Inexperience programmers will often start out with languages that don't have strong types. Because they can get the program to work quickly, the software is buggy, due to fast development time combined with inexperience.
Song typed langues for the inexperience means just to get the program to compile they will need a some understanding of basic data structures. That prevents the program from getting released without some skill and practice behind it.
I do not see any difference in my code quality from Strong Typed to weak typed. But I treat weak typed code much like strong typed avoid having the same variable change types. And putting extra attention during data type conversions.
That said I did have an interesting unexpected bug about 20 years ago converting some COBOL generated data to Javascript where integers had leading 0 in the data set. This did convert some of the data to Octal and created some unexpected values when I was adding data together.
00712+00066 = 01000 which took me about an hour to figure out what was happening as I was adding 2 numbers with a leading 0 and no numbers greater than 7 caused the data types to be octal. However if I didn't know about this number conversion and the leading 0 notation for octal I may not had found the problem so easily.
It would be for the smarter kids. But there are others who just doesn't grasp the fact that formal sources can have a sense of humor or may be joking around, who take all information at face value.
I remember some kids in American History class asking about the great Native American Machination Chief SOHCAHTOA, As my math teacher stated to try to get kids to remember that acronym while teaching geometry. When kids were trying to solve the problems, he would normally help them out by going "Remember the Chief!" Then they know to calculate the angle. But some kids, just didn't get that it was a learning aid, to make a rather complex Acronym easier to remember, but they thought Sohcahtoa was a real person. Causing a rather confused History Teacher. Until a smarter kid explained that it was what the math teacher used to remember the Acronym.
However the point is, if you are going to be teaching students half of them are going to be below average intelligence and may not grasp such complexities as an Easter egg as a memory aid. But may think Yoda is a real thing, and not a puppet or a CGI Special Effect.
What you call "True AI" is what Science Fiction Literature calls True AI. (What Fiction calls True) While in Computer Science AI is about solving problems much how an organism would, other then having all the steps hard coded in, it would have a "simpler" method where it can pick up and adapt to new forms of input and realize that it needs a different form of output.
My AI Professor (Dr. David Anderson (A name to be a victim of AI for sure)) was studying Diagrammatic Reasoning. Where if a computer was presented with a simple diagram such as how to cook pot noodles, it could figure out the context of the images then know what steps to take.
Now this is real AI. Not the human replacement androids in science fiction, but systems that can understand the same sorts of data that we do.
Exactly, often at work I may implement some basic learning, adaptive algorithms. To help solve problems where there isn't a 1 for 1 answer. The code is good enough to outperform people in terms of numbers on these tasks, as it is able to handle a large number of items without exhaustion or cutting corners. However the toughest part is trying to explain to the people who will need to be responsible for the data, that it isn't perfect, so just don't go blindly accepting all the results, or go into a panic just because there is a non 0 error rate.
Because the data I work with isn't perfect, assumptions based off of trending needs to be made, statistical models have a degree of error. The human brain which is one of the biggest statistical engines also has a high degree of error too, and can be tricked with unexpected inputs. Hence why magicians can perform their tricks.
But for the less than technical people, there is the idea that the computer is somehow smarter then us. It isn't it is just better doing what it is told, and doesn't take shortcuts in exhaustion. A Program will run until it is complete, even if it kills the hardware while doing it (overheating, draining batteries etc....) A human when getting stressed will take short cuts, stop working on problems, make crazy assumptions just to keep the body functioning.
Companies can be a good company after going public, however normally the owners still have majority share, and the other investors realize that profits are not expected to show for a while.
Normally with stock prices the companies profits is actually usually only a small factor in it, as the day traders will not hold onto the stock long enough for the quarterly report. But the longer term investors (the more conservative ones) will normally look at all the data before making their decisions. They may see a drop in profit, but showing that they are using their money to make more factories, hire R&D for the next generation product, in general working towards a long term goal. Hence the key reason for a company to go public is to get the influx of cash to invest in such expansion activities.
However it is often difficult to ignore the plea of the stock holders or having to show a bad quarterly report, we are still in many ways stuck in our school age mind sets. Where the Report Card if it has some bad grades means you will be grounded, or worse (in the point of view of the child) get extra assistance from the parents. Also many driven people were A students because they wanted to show that they were the best, having a bad quarterly report makes them feel like a failure, where it is actually may be part of a good long term decision.
If anything, most phone makers would love to put iOS on their devices, and not so much iPhone users wanting to put Android on it.
Apple has had a bad history whenever they open their platform. Hence why the patient like crazy and put every thing under tight legal control, down to the round corners.
Apple spends a lot of money on R&D then they release a product that really works well. Then you get other companies who will see what Apple has done and copy it less time, because Apple Did the R&D work and all is needed now is to copy the design, which takes less work and effort. So they can sell their stuff for less.
Having replacement parts for sale even to authorized service providers can allow for people to make compatible "black market" compatible systems from the parts. It may be bulky but it can run IOS 11 and have all the cool new features of the iPhone X.
There has been a market for Hackintosh systems for a while now, with Intel systems it has been easier, but previous systems had been made by scrounging for parts from a bunch of broken systems and using Apple Certified parts to make their own systems.
This is why Apple is against "Fair Repair" Bills, because there is such a market for their products that getting parts could open the door.
Unfortunately the term "The companies first priority should be to the share holders" has been taken out of context.
Back when it was written, Companies would often take the share holders money and use it just to enrich themselves, or will give it away to their church, or other crazy cause, even at the companies expense. So the shareholders were often investing in companies that were killing themselves. With the change of focus to prioritize the shareholder, it means that the company should use their money to invest back into the company, sell more product, higher people to make better products... Even if this is at a cost of a bad quarterly report. However the statement had been taken out of context so now it is about hacking the numbers to keep the shareholders quarterly profits high. At the expense of long term growth.
What normally happens in Mergers.
You have the larger failing company, and the smaller growing company.
They merge. The fact the larger company (although failing) has more stock of ownership they make the rules, and normally push out the management in the smaller. Thus often killing what caused the smaller company to succeed. So you now have a larger failing company but it will now take longer for it to fail.
Sometimes if the smaller company has enough personality and loyal customer base then they may do the right thing and incorporate the culture that caused growth, with the larger companies increased capital.
There is still Verizon and AT&T
Still a monopoly or an oligopoly may not hurt consumers, however it makes it much easier for them to do so.
However if the two companies have similar cultures and processes the merger may be good for consumers as these were the underdogs in the market, If they can keep their underdog personality (with pushing their often better plans) with their combined infrastructure, they could really force Verizon and AT&T to compete more as well.
This is often due to poor science reporting in the news.
They like to jump on the newest Hypothesis or a few early experiments. But rarely do they cover the full process of the Scientific Method.
We have climate deniers, anti-vaxer, GMO fearing people because as a kid the TV shows all the wonders of what science can bring, because of the latest cure for Cancer, New forms of power that is clean, The band new microchip that is 10 times as fast.... These were all in the early phases of the process.
That Cure for cancer was found would kill patients after 3 years,
That new form of power is extremely dangerous to generate.
That microchip just cannot be mass produced or is just in one area of calculation that isn't really used.
It is easy to feel that the Scientist are always getting it wrong, the truth is, the scientists are actually usually getting it wrong, it is part of the process, however what normally goes threw the full process and is shown a positive is actually darn close to being right most of the time.
Because now we are able to treat and reverse some cancers. (Due to ideas from those early failed trials)
We have clean effective power options available to us now. (After looking why such dangers appeared)
Processors are still following Mores Law. (Using many of the ideas from that chip design, it took more time for it to be manufactured and needed other technologies to catch up too)
However science is a process, and sometimes it is a long one. The media doesn't the whole process of discovery. They want the blip of the day. It if turns out true they can brag that they had covered it first. If it failed, then it is just those crazy scientist taking our tax money to spend on useless grants.