what about the investors do some due diligence and not throw money at a worthless company.
While that's good, we still wanna punish those who commit fraud. See also why "why don't you just carry a gun and take Krav Maga" isn't a reason not to punish a mugger.
Seems like if I wanted to have Android without anything to do with Google (or Amazon), I'll have to find another distro and install it. Then I have to find a way to get the apps I want. Meanwhile, I'll have the same concerns about malware that was on Windows in... 2000?
Besides, hasn't Google forced hooks into Android that relies on Google services.
I'm not sure why you think that would save you money. You think NHL network would cost the same in the offseason? Heck, they'll probably give it to you for free.
Also, what makes you think that all channels will be equally priced. While it seems unfair to have to buy a bundle, I'm not sure it'll be cheaper to buy by the channel.
Or, compare it to what happens when you give a computer a way of evaluating how well it is doing (ala points). It will then learn to play really well really fast.
IT Professionals are considering using OpenID for access to internal tools, as opposed to rolling their own system. Major benefit, Google/Facebook handles authentication issues, maintenance of 2-factor authentication, etc. Major cost, dependency on Google/Facebook
Good, clear, unambiguous, effective and enforceable rules are usually not trivial to create and deserve at lot of thought and review.
This is true
his is slashdot, People fantasize about new rules for breakfast.
First, talking about rules is how you do a lot of thought and review. Secondly, most of what happens on Slashdot is describing the new rules at a very high level. Clarify, disambiguation, and enforceablity details (e.g. closing loopholes) comes later.
all this bad stuff AirBnB does to the rental market, the existence of a rental market at all does to the housing market overall.
The major difference is that the rental market has significantly less vacancy (wasted capacity) and the people who live in rentals are members of the community instead of visitors.
interest is merely rent on money, so that's got to go too or else it's just the banks instead of the landlords who end up owning the world
1) Banks already own the world. 2) Being able to borrow money is important. Borrowing capital allows people to invest in themselves and break into the ownership class.
You cannot gentrify globally. Not enough gentry, I'd say.
If the gentry has enough cash to justify owning a place in every major city they may want to spend time in (or have for bragging rights), then you certainly can gentrify globally. And that seems to be the case.
That's what you do when you see a problem. You curb it. Hell, people "invented rules" about privatizing the commons, and we got an agricultural revolution. People also "invented rules" about having to serve black people the same as white people in a restaurant. Rules can be forces for good.
Apparently, the more education someone has, the less likely they think an AI will take their job. Ooops, wrong. The first jobs the AIs are coming for are in the legal and medical fields. Things like "driving a truck" require a lot of sensors. Things like "diagnose a disease" or "do legal research" require parsing the input a nurse/paralegal enters into the system.
This is a fucking specification problem - some idiot decided that proper behavior is to shut down the system when a cert expires, instead of simply warning the user and asking if it was OK to continue. Or alternately, creating an infrastructure which ensures certs get updated as necessary.
Or, alternatively, let me use my hardware/software without an internet connection. Almost as though I owned it....
They don't get it: unless you have the applications source code you have NO IDEA what the software is doing.
That's not true. For instance, Alexa has a "stop listening" button. I have no access to the source. However, I can trivially see if Alexa is sending any data to the mothership while that setting is on. Now, it could cache the data to send, but IIRC, the amount of audio it can store is asserted to be under a minute. And that should be checkable by examining how much memory it has.
Why do I keep getting training videos for software? I'm clearly a guy who decided as a career I want to look at a text editor. Why are you going to make me sit through a video as opposed to a well written document.
I'm joking, I know why. Cause a bad video sounds better to your boss than good text, and is much cheaper to make.
Live is a different story. Being able to ask questions is super important.
Everything was going fine, but then they had to add those last two words!
More seriously, I've seen too many people completely non-functional the second/third day of a conference because they drank too much the night before. And these are adults who should know better (although my guess is the kids just managed to hold the same amount, or more, of liquor better.) Don't go crazy just because [large tech company] is picking up the tab.
In seriousness, the author goes to 40+ conferences a year. Of course he has very different requirements from people who go to 1 or 2. You see this in anyone whose business involves going to a lot shows like this.
As a gross simplification, right now you have admin accounts (who can install programs) and limited accounts (who cannot.) It makes perfect sense for Microsoft to say "Hey, let's create a new user class that can only install stuff from the store." It's theoretically safe, and gives them the freedom to install without bothering an admin. And, it'll drive a lot of people to put (are the apps at this point?) software in the MS store.
My worry is that the new user class is all user classes. My secondary worry is that they'll make the admin role something you don't have access to. I'm less worried about the second in general, and more "only if you get the pro license for $TEXAS"
Paying an informant for repeating what they overhear is fine, you have no 4th amendment right to expect privacy there. Paying an informant to search your house to look for evidence, seems iffy. If paying the informant makes them an agent of the state as opposed to a private citizen, it violates the 4th amendment.
To sum up, think of a paid informant as the equivalent of an undercover police officer. They can gather a lot of information, but they also have rules on what they can gather. Or, if that's not the status quo, that seems to be what the EFF is arguing. Not sure which, IANAL.
There are whole courses about designing survey questions. I have no idea how valuable they are, or how much flex there still is. I know that the questions asked on this Uber survey wouldn't confuse me. On the other hand, I know I've answered questions where I knew that, because of their assumptions, their question was probably not what they intended.
No, he worked off the same surveyed data as the researcher. If Uber drivers made, say, $10/hr, he could have said a lot of things that indicated it was for-sure wrong. For instance, "Your numbers underestimate the real values by at least a third." Or similar.
Heck, he even could say "our internal calculations show these numbers are multiples off of the real values"
instead of the HIGHLY PROPRIETARY information
I thought information wanted to be free?
Also providing some kind of "average income" for a service like Uber is absolute nonsense
Not on an hourly basis it's not. If Uber wants to supply better data, they can. But "average hourly wage" is a good number for people to keep in mind if they're thinking about driving for Uber.
Most importantly, they don't know what the drivers' expenses were.
Both Uber's lead economist and the lead author of this study agree on an estimate for driver's expenses. While not a known value, there is an accepted approximation.
"hours worked" is critical [true] Uber doesn't have that information [false]
Uber knows when you're logged in, when you have the app open, when you're standing still vs. driving around, where you're standing still. They can (and had a program to) deduce if you're driving for Lyft and how much you might be making from them (so they can offer you the smallest bonus to turn off/ignore Lyft).
To claim Uber couldn't put a revenue dollar on because sometimes people leave Uber open when doing something else is either naive or disingenuous.
Least important: they claimed that the causes of the error were that the respondents misread "income from on demand activities" as "income from all activities." The lead researcher admitted that could be misread and recomputed the numbers assuming his subjects were idiots.
Most important: The lead economist for Uber then made a bunch of assumptions when recalculating data. But the thing is Uber knows exactly how much each driver makes, how long each driver is working, exactly where they are, etc. If he wanted to correct the record, he could have. That he elected to use alternate assumptions to argue for a result indicates that result is overly optimistic.
Slashdot Mirror
While that's good, we still wanna punish those who commit fraud. See also why "why don't you just carry a gun and take Krav Maga" isn't a reason not to punish a mugger.
This may backfire, but the studies on the backfire effect have been called into question.
Wait, that Target story was fake? Documentation please...
Seems like if I wanted to have Android without anything to do with Google (or Amazon), I'll have to find another distro and install it. Then I have to find a way to get the apps I want. Meanwhile, I'll have the same concerns about malware that was on Windows in... 2000?
Besides, hasn't Google forced hooks into Android that relies on Google services.
I'm not sure why you think that would save you money. You think NHL network would cost the same in the offseason? Heck, they'll probably give it to you for free.
Also, what makes you think that all channels will be equally priced. While it seems unfair to have to buy a bundle, I'm not sure it'll be cheaper to buy by the channel.
Or, compare it to what happens when you give a computer a way of evaluating how well it is doing (ala points). It will then learn to play really well really fast.
IT Professionals are considering using OpenID for access to internal tools, as opposed to rolling their own system. Major benefit, Google/Facebook handles authentication issues, maintenance of 2-factor authentication, etc. Major cost, dependency on Google/Facebook
Wow, your conception of AI is entirely limited to sensory, specifically visual, input? How dull.
Discuss the decisions that (what we call) AI makes when given digital data. Look at AlphaGoZero.
This is true
First, talking about rules is how you do a lot of thought and review. Secondly, most of what happens on Slashdot is describing the new rules at a very high level. Clarify, disambiguation, and enforceablity details (e.g. closing loopholes) comes later.
The major difference is that the rental market has significantly less vacancy (wasted capacity) and the people who live in rentals are members of the community instead of visitors.
1) Banks already own the world. 2) Being able to borrow money is important. Borrowing capital allows people to invest in themselves and break into the ownership class.
If the gentry has enough cash to justify owning a place in every major city they may want to spend time in (or have for bragging rights), then you certainly can gentrify globally. And that seems to be the case.
That's what you do when you see a problem. You curb it. Hell, people "invented rules" about privatizing the commons, and we got an agricultural revolution. People also "invented rules" about having to serve black people the same as white people in a restaurant. Rules can be forces for good.
Although, so do interns.
Apparently, the more education someone has, the less likely they think an AI will take their job. Ooops, wrong. The first jobs the AIs are coming for are in the legal and medical fields. Things like "driving a truck" require a lot of sensors. Things like "diagnose a disease" or "do legal research" require parsing the input a nurse/paralegal enters into the system.
Or, alternatively, let me use my hardware/software without an internet connection. Almost as though I owned it....
That's not true. For instance, Alexa has a "stop listening" button. I have no access to the source. However, I can trivially see if Alexa is sending any data to the mothership while that setting is on. Now, it could cache the data to send, but IIRC, the amount of audio it can store is asserted to be under a minute. And that should be checkable by examining how much memory it has.
WhatsApp and Instagram are both owned by Facebook. Therefore, they all get shut down. At least, that's my guess
Why do I keep getting training videos for software? I'm clearly a guy who decided as a career I want to look at a text editor. Why are you going to make me sit through a video as opposed to a well written document.
I'm joking, I know why. Cause a bad video sounds better to your boss than good text, and is much cheaper to make.
Live is a different story. Being able to ask questions is super important.
Everything was going fine, but then they had to add those last two words!
More seriously, I've seen too many people completely non-functional the second/third day of a conference because they drank too much the night before. And these are adults who should know better (although my guess is the kids just managed to hold the same amount, or more, of liquor better.) Don't go crazy just because [large tech company] is picking up the tab.
In seriousness, the author goes to 40+ conferences a year. Of course he has very different requirements from people who go to 1 or 2. You see this in anyone whose business involves going to a lot shows like this.
As a gross simplification, right now you have admin accounts (who can install programs) and limited accounts (who cannot.) It makes perfect sense for Microsoft to say "Hey, let's create a new user class that can only install stuff from the store." It's theoretically safe, and gives them the freedom to install without bothering an admin. And, it'll drive a lot of people to put (are the apps at this point?) software in the MS store.
My worry is that the new user class is all user classes. My secondary worry is that they'll make the admin role something you don't have access to. I'm less worried about the second in general, and more "only if you get the pro license for $TEXAS"
Paying an informant for repeating what they overhear is fine, you have no 4th amendment right to expect privacy there. Paying an informant to search your house to look for evidence, seems iffy. If paying the informant makes them an agent of the state as opposed to a private citizen, it violates the 4th amendment.
To sum up, think of a paid informant as the equivalent of an undercover police officer. They can gather a lot of information, but they also have rules on what they can gather. Or, if that's not the status quo, that seems to be what the EFF is arguing. Not sure which, IANAL.
There are whole courses about designing survey questions. I have no idea how valuable they are, or how much flex there still is. I know that the questions asked on this Uber survey wouldn't confuse me. On the other hand, I know I've answered questions where I knew that, because of their assumptions, their question was probably not what they intended.
No, he worked off the same surveyed data as the researcher. If Uber drivers made, say, $10/hr, he could have said a lot of things that indicated it was for-sure wrong. For instance, "Your numbers underestimate the real values by at least a third." Or similar.
Heck, he even could say "our internal calculations show these numbers are multiples off of the real values"
I thought information wanted to be free?
Not on an hourly basis it's not. If Uber wants to supply better data, they can. But "average hourly wage" is a good number for people to keep in mind if they're thinking about driving for Uber.
Both Uber's lead economist and the lead author of this study agree on an estimate for driver's expenses. While not a known value, there is an accepted approximation.
Uber knows when you're logged in, when you have the app open, when you're standing still vs. driving around, where you're standing still. They can (and had a program to) deduce if you're driving for Lyft and how much you might be making from them (so they can offer you the smallest bonus to turn off/ignore Lyft).
To claim Uber couldn't put a revenue dollar on because sometimes people leave Uber open when doing something else is either naive or disingenuous.
Least important: they claimed that the causes of the error were that the respondents misread "income from on demand activities" as "income from all activities." The lead researcher admitted that could be misread and recomputed the numbers assuming his subjects were idiots.
Most important: The lead economist for Uber then made a bunch of assumptions when recalculating data. But the thing is Uber knows exactly how much each driver makes, how long each driver is working, exactly where they are, etc. If he wanted to correct the record, he could have. That he elected to use alternate assumptions to argue for a result indicates that result is overly optimistic.