The fewer proprietary, walled-garden chat networks that exist, the better
What I think you meant to say is "the fewer people using proprietary, walled-garden chat networks." What happens is that, if FB steals SC's users, the total number of users remains constant, and now there are fewer networks. As that number trends to 0, they don't become less popular, they achieve monopoly status. So, that's less innovation, more dicking over all customers, and crucially for a communications platform, the ability to censor users.
A few years back, I saw someone who didn't just patent (in fact didn't patent) but built a system like this on a Roomba. He(she?) added a camera and processor to the top of the Roomba, built software on OpenCV, and used his Roomba to record where he left his (a) keys and (b) Coke Can. I think that those were the limits of his(her?) image recognition (Coke Can and distinctive keychain)
I think it was posted on hackaday.com, but I cannot find it. Now that tech is better, it seems like this is approaching a good idea (for me).
AR is Augmented Reality. It's been discussed here since before Uber was a thing. Uber no longer needs a description. AR therefore no longer needs to be spelled out each time.
There were 1,750 people at the Carrier plant (and another 700 at their nearby plant that makes electronic components). 1,400 jobs from the Carrier plant (and all 700 from the other) were slated to go to Mexico. 350 people were slated to stay behind, mostly R&D types. As a result of Pence's $7MM bribe, 800 jobs stayed in Indiana. 1,300 still went to Mexico (600 from Carrier, 700 from the nearby plant).
The fuzzy math is that Trump focusing on the Carrier plant says "They were planning to move 1,400 jobs, and now they're keeping 1,150 jobs." This makes it sound like he saved most of the jobs. In reality, he's counting the 350 people who were never leaving as staying, but not counting them in the "out of" group.
This type of deception can be made apparent if you consider a company planning on shipping half its jobs overseas. Let's say its a 100,000 person company, because that makes numbers easy. I talk to the CEO. Then I announce "They were going to ship 50,000 jobs overseas, but after talking with Joe, I can assure you that there will still be 50,000 good jobs here for years to come" and having it reported on like I saved a town when nothing changed.
BTW, sources on my numbers were your wikipedia link.
Predicting the future actions of another person is not the very definition of bias. They can be accurate or not, but in general its required to do anything involving a second party. And usually it is based on beliefs - ideally grounded in reality.
I mean, whatever else you want to say about him, Trump has not had a problem with making people homeless to achieve his larger aims. So, is it crazy to assume he will continue to in the future?
That's not going to work. People are, without hyperbole, often willing to kill for their children. And, to a large degree, go through insane costs to have them. If you say "you cannot have that unless you have so much money", then you are moving a large portion of the population towards a highly motivated need for income redistribution. And sudden nongovernmental income redistribution has a long, rich history that I for one wish to avoid repeating..
Maybe if people demanded a living wage in SF, it would be too hard to hire people there, and some of those 7 extra jobs could be created elsewhere? That's another way of relieving the housing pressure.
I don't get why super-concentrated jobs in one location are so awesome.
I would say it makes sense that the media highlight problems that they believe are going to be exacerbated by a president over ones they're fairly confident will not be. In fact, the media tends to highlight problems that are likely to be changed by a president over status quo ones. It's not unreasonable, but it is why sometimes an issue lingers out of sight for a long time. Hence, one reason 'issue candidates' run on fixing them - in no small part to raise media attention/awareness of their issue.
Among other things, I use hundreds of tabs (and loathe to restart my browser) because I want to read whatever content is there, later. I don't want a live link to something that may be taken down or changed by then. I just want what it is.
ey have a licensed driver in the front seat in command. So, whatever the car is doing autonomously, how does that differ from technology like cruise control, automatic braking, and parking assist?
There are ten recognized levels of autonomy, starting with none, then assisting in direct response to user input (power steering), and ending at "car has no user overrides at all". In between, there is a wide range seen between "autonomy suggests action", "autonomy warns action is going to take place unless overriden" and "keep in mind you have to override autonomy at some times with no warning."
Cruise control is clearly under manual control, and the pedals work as always (save for in the "no feet" position). The user has to remain engaged with the vehicle's operation at all time. Automatic braking seems unlikely to cause an accident (maybe on ice or if the guy behind was following too closely), and again it's not allowing the driver to defocus from the road. Parking assist is in a controlled situation at exceptionally low speeds.
And yet I constantly see people say that learning facts is irrelevant because anyone can just Google them. Hint, you need to know enough context to know if something is bullshit when you read it on Google.
The issue is how Google can measure trustworthiness
Honestly, Google has enough cash, they could probably pay human reviewers to check the top 100 sites that would come up in 99.9999% of searches and weed out the crap. (I'm assuming that, due to the popular searches being repeated, the top 99.9999% of searches cover substantially fewer actual searches than the percentage would indicate).
Or they could identify the top fifty million sites on the internet, and pay $10 a piece to get them rated on facts vs. bullshit. It probably would cost a lot less than $10/a piece, and $500MM dollars is well within their "this is cool" budget.
Your Tesla tells you when you car will finish charging
Then this fee should be based on the later of the predicted filltime or actual filltime. Because "You have 30 minutes, if late you will be charged" is fairly reasonable, but "You have 2 minutes from now" because the other guy unplugged and you filled up faster" is less so.
The South China Sea belongs to China like the Indian Ocean belongs to India or the Pacific Ocean belongs to Pacifica, California. Nomenclature does not indicate ownership.
I can easily see spending $30M on sales to big clients (convincing IBM to give you a contract isn't cheap) and $30M to work on new features to try to avoid someone eventually offering a better alternative.
They also bundle that debt with other automotive debt and sell it to investors (see what was happening with houses in 2007). So they don't keep that debt around. Still asset light.
What could make me stay? Paying me quadruple my salary would do it. Ping pong tables, massages, free soda, free lunches, and other such stupid perks will not budge me.
This is actually agreeing with my point. You're not leaving to take a new job paying quadruple. You're just saying that at this point, the non-financial negatives make the job not worth while. And, based on your "paying quadruple" line not "more than my next job", you're willing to take a salary hit to be out of there.
It's really a kinda standard economic point, when you start having more money, you're willing to sacrifice some to have your work time (2000 hrs/year) be more pleasant. It's such standard microecon that it seems non-contraversial.
Now, you might not like soda and ping-pong. But maybe it's being around smart people, or getting to use explosives (if a demolitions engineer) or disrupting industries.
No one is going to pick soda perks over $1,000 if offered the choice (or few people will). But they are still made more satisfied with their job if they get soda perks instead (again, past a certain salary level).
The notion that there's no correlation between the paycheck and satisfaction is absurd.
There's research that shows that there's a point where your salary desire is sated, and more money while nice ceases to be the primary reason you work. In other words, once people are compensated at 100k/year they are more likely to be motivated by ping-pong tables and free soda type perks than 101k/year, even if the 1k is worth more.
Obviously, the majority of people have not hit that level yet.
Slashdot Mirror
What I think you meant to say is "the fewer people using proprietary, walled-garden chat networks." What happens is that, if FB steals SC's users, the total number of users remains constant, and now there are fewer networks. As that number trends to 0, they don't become less popular, they achieve monopoly status. So, that's less innovation, more dicking over all customers, and crucially for a communications platform, the ability to censor users.
What makes you think that creating new things isn't merely pattern recognition.
A few years back, I saw someone who didn't just patent (in fact didn't patent) but built a system like this on a Roomba. He(she?) added a camera and processor to the top of the Roomba, built software on OpenCV, and used his Roomba to record where he left his (a) keys and (b) Coke Can. I think that those were the limits of his(her?) image recognition (Coke Can and distinctive keychain)
I think it was posted on hackaday.com, but I cannot find it. Now that tech is better, it seems like this is approaching a good idea (for me).
AR is Augmented Reality. It's been discussed here since before Uber was a thing. Uber no longer needs a description. AR therefore no longer needs to be spelled out each time.
There were 1,750 people at the Carrier plant (and another 700 at their nearby plant that makes electronic components). 1,400 jobs from the Carrier plant (and all 700 from the other) were slated to go to Mexico. 350 people were slated to stay behind, mostly R&D types. As a result of Pence's $7MM bribe, 800 jobs stayed in Indiana. 1,300 still went to Mexico (600 from Carrier, 700 from the nearby plant).
The fuzzy math is that Trump focusing on the Carrier plant says "They were planning to move 1,400 jobs, and now they're keeping 1,150 jobs." This makes it sound like he saved most of the jobs. In reality, he's counting the 350 people who were never leaving as staying, but not counting them in the "out of" group.
This type of deception can be made apparent if you consider a company planning on shipping half its jobs overseas. Let's say its a 100,000 person company, because that makes numbers easy. I talk to the CEO. Then I announce "They were going to ship 50,000 jobs overseas, but after talking with Joe, I can assure you that there will still be 50,000 good jobs here for years to come" and having it reported on like I saved a town when nothing changed.
BTW, sources on my numbers were your wikipedia link.
Dear AC, its impossible to tell if you are sarcastic or not. I'm flipping back and forth.
Predicting the future actions of another person is not the very definition of bias. They can be accurate or not, but in general its required to do anything involving a second party. And usually it is based on beliefs - ideally grounded in reality.
I mean, whatever else you want to say about him, Trump has not had a problem with making people homeless to achieve his larger aims. So, is it crazy to assume he will continue to in the future?
I'm frightened by your world in which a mansion has been deemed 'inadequate shelter' because of a missing check to the CPS benevolent fund.
That's not going to work. People are, without hyperbole, often willing to kill for their children. And, to a large degree, go through insane costs to have them. If you say "you cannot have that unless you have so much money", then you are moving a large portion of the population towards a highly motivated need for income redistribution. And sudden nongovernmental income redistribution has a long, rich history that I for one wish to avoid repeating..
Maybe if people demanded a living wage in SF, it would be too hard to hire people there, and some of those 7 extra jobs could be created elsewhere? That's another way of relieving the housing pressure.
I don't get why super-concentrated jobs in one location are so awesome.
I would say it makes sense that the media highlight problems that they believe are going to be exacerbated by a president over ones they're fairly confident will not be. In fact, the media tends to highlight problems that are likely to be changed by a president over status quo ones. It's not unreasonable, but it is why sometimes an issue lingers out of sight for a long time. Hence, one reason 'issue candidates' run on fixing them - in no small part to raise media attention/awareness of their issue.
A valley is at a low point, so whatever makes up the sides of the valley, e.g. mountains, cast a shadow on the valley.
Among other things, I use hundreds of tabs (and loathe to restart my browser) because I want to read whatever content is there, later. I don't want a live link to something that may be taken down or changed by then. I just want what it is.
There are ten recognized levels of autonomy, starting with none, then assisting in direct response to user input (power steering), and ending at "car has no user overrides at all". In between, there is a wide range seen between "autonomy suggests action", "autonomy warns action is going to take place unless overriden" and "keep in mind you have to override autonomy at some times with no warning."
Cruise control is clearly under manual control, and the pedals work as always (save for in the "no feet" position). The user has to remain engaged with the vehicle's operation at all time. Automatic braking seems unlikely to cause an accident (maybe on ice or if the guy behind was following too closely), and again it's not allowing the driver to defocus from the road. Parking assist is in a controlled situation at exceptionally low speeds.
And yet I constantly see people say that learning facts is irrelevant because anyone can just Google them. Hint, you need to know enough context to know if something is bullshit when you read it on Google.
Honestly, Google has enough cash, they could probably pay human reviewers to check the top 100 sites that would come up in 99.9999% of searches and weed out the crap. (I'm assuming that, due to the popular searches being repeated, the top 99.9999% of searches cover substantially fewer actual searches than the percentage would indicate).
Or they could identify the top fifty million sites on the internet, and pay $10 a piece to get them rated on facts vs. bullshit. It probably would cost a lot less than $10/a piece, and $500MM dollars is well within their "this is cool" budget.
Then this fee should be based on the later of the predicted filltime or actual filltime. Because "You have 30 minutes, if late you will be charged" is fairly reasonable, but "You have 2 minutes from now" because the other guy unplugged and you filled up faster" is less so.
The South China Sea belongs to China like the Indian Ocean belongs to India or the Pacific Ocean belongs to Pacifica, California. Nomenclature does not indicate ownership.
I can easily see spending $30M on sales to big clients (convincing IBM to give you a contract isn't cheap) and $30M to work on new features to try to avoid someone eventually offering a better alternative.
Cool. When my 14 year old orders a self driving car, and it gets into an accident, I look forward to suing the everliving shit out of Uber.
They also bundle that debt with other automotive debt and sell it to investors (see what was happening with houses in 2007). So they don't keep that debt around. Still asset light.
You're not allowed to discriminate against people based on national origin. Why would Disney win on that basis?
This is actually agreeing with my point. You're not leaving to take a new job paying quadruple. You're just saying that at this point, the non-financial negatives make the job not worth while. And, based on your "paying quadruple" line not "more than my next job", you're willing to take a salary hit to be out of there.
It's really a kinda standard economic point, when you start having more money, you're willing to sacrifice some to have your work time (2000 hrs/year) be more pleasant. It's such standard microecon that it seems non-contraversial.
Now, you might not like soda and ping-pong. But maybe it's being around smart people, or getting to use explosives (if a demolitions engineer) or disrupting industries.
No one is going to pick soda perks over $1,000 if offered the choice (or few people will). But they are still made more satisfied with their job if they get soda perks instead (again, past a certain salary level).
There's research that shows that there's a point where your salary desire is sated, and more money while nice ceases to be the primary reason you work. In other words, once people are compensated at 100k/year they are more likely to be motivated by ping-pong tables and free soda type perks than 101k/year, even if the 1k is worth more.
Obviously, the majority of people have not hit that level yet.