This post and your this reply proves that you cannot handle more than one points in one post even if both are related to the overall topic - so actually I am trying to not exceed your capacity.
I did elaborate on all three counts. This last post, it was to disabuse you of the notion that you are capable of talking at the level of 6th standard.
Actually if you don't understand that men outside 20% cannot be increased unless one of the conditions i mentioned in my first post in this thread, it is more like you failed 3rd standard.
not only incapable of even maintaining replenishment rates, but also generating increasing amount of disgruntled young men that are outside the "top 20% men"
So the number of bottom 80 % men is increasing ? Or the value of the number 20 is decreasing?
Which means that the value for the number 80 is increasing ? Or the number of men are increasing ?
If number of men are increasing, but overall replenishment rates are not being met, number of women is decreasing even more ? There is a low number of women in parts of India and China, but even there it is increasing slowly. In the West, I see the number of women is fine in many places.
Do you realize you have not given any evidence for most of your statements ? Some of which fall under the category of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence " .
It is far easier for politicians to collect their paychecks with Uber and AirBnB. They just have to threaten to implement existing laws and paycheck arrives in the form they desire.
With the old businesses, they have to threaten to change the laws, as well as implement the changed laws to get any payment.
So with Uber / AirBnB : only executive is involved. Generally fewer people are involved in the executive. The decision of the executive is less scrutinized than laws - which have to adhere to the pesky "Constitutions" and what not.
With old business : legislature AND executive is involved. In addition to the steps above, members of legislatures, their lawyers to draft laws with appropriate loopholes have to be paid off. Then the pesky judiciary going on and on about the bloody Constitution.
Yes, but again, while it was higher for many years there was a HUGE JUMP for ALL HOTELS in a single year, that persisted from year to year
So there was no possibility of any collusion for many years. When AirBnB did not exist - or was a much less widespread thing than last 2-3 years. In late 2016, and 2017 there were multiple reports of AirBnB's growth slowing down because of reaching a saturation in the major / more profitable markets. If you are making the point of AirBnB being a force against collusion - the time correlation you mention actually makes the opposite point.
The "collusion" happened when AirBnB was already as big a thing as it has ever been. And didn't happen when it was a smaller thing.
If Apple moved the conference away - it is the standard operating procedure in free markets. The hotels saw an opportunity to leech off fanbois, succeeded for a year or two, got burned after that. Since you have not told the story after that - I see that Apple has just said check, and it is the turn of the hotels to make the next move next year. I don't see a checkmate yet, unless that one year was enough to finish off some of the hotels.
agreement between people to act together secretly or illegally in order to deceive or cheat someone
Which is obviously what happened, note that doesn't say "verbal" or "contractual".
That definition is clearly circular for any logical discussion to be based on it. "Collusion" is being discussed to figure out whether or not it was illegal - but this definition includes illegal as one of the criteria that makes an act "collusion". In law , especially informally stated or generally stated spanning many jurisdictions, at times it is possible for a definition to be somewhat circular. But then, we need human judges to interpret it, act on it, and make case law much less circular. The way this definition goes - it is good to get a general idea. The circularity prevents any objective analysis.
Business that worry how they would pay extra wages forget that their competitors also would need to pay them.
This is not exactly true for many businesses. If a business makes and sells a product - the neighbouring state, country, continent where this latest minimum wage increase didn't happen is a competitor. They would not have to pay these extra wages. Same for services that can be rendered over the internet (some over the phone).
By increasing the minimum wage, a jurisdiction is effectively saying that our productivity is higher than that of other jurisdictions. Especially in the recent past. So we deserve to pay our workers better. This statement may or may not be true - and while increasing minimum wage the "leaders" of those jurisdictions rarely make this point. But this is the major point that is worth making.
"People are intelligent, people know and understand, people are conscious. Machines are not."
The problem with it is not even that it is wimpy. It is making "Artificial Intelligence" almost impossible by definition. This definition of intelligence is excluding non-humans, so only until we artificially manufacture what you call "people" , will we have any hope for artificial intelligence.
Why is it a problem? It is a perfectly serviceable definition of intelligence. It is a problem because it is useless. We have real work here for machines to do. Some of which humans historically have been rather good at. Some of which requires a mixture of what humans have been good at, and what machines have been good at. We need to solve those problems. "Artificial Intelligence" has been a field that has been trying to solve those real problems we have. Defining intelligence to make these people look bad is not helping anyone.
What problem does your definition solve ? Problem of needing to feel superior ? Go to a church and feel all superior about how Jesus sacrificed so much for you, and not for machines. Humans FTW, right ?
interested and know a little something about what a machine is and how it differs from a human then
You are answering the wrong question. If the question itself is excluding machines from ever "recognizing" an image, this question is useless. Because we need machines to "recognize" an image - recognize in the idiomatic fashion of which you speak. Recognize as in make certain electrons go in certain directions when "sheep" are around.
That is a useful definition - for all its faults of anthropomorphism. Yours is not. If you don't like the word "recognize", call it "sending electrons in certain directions in the event of certain patterns". Congratulations, you made the work of real scientists difficult without contributing to the field.
I didn't say they do. I said they can. Humans are the bosses, humans decide what these nets do, and humans generally make them do things that make sense to us, and laugh at them when they fail.
General case could be as simple as detecting the color in a particular spot in the picture. Humans get too biased by the surrounding color.
More complicated general cases cannot be written easily in a/. post. "Sheep" is a complicated pattern, which humans convey in a single word. A relatively simple attempt to describe a pattern where computers should outperform humans, follows : "Detect images where probability of green occurring to the right of red is is proportional to the cosine of angle made with the top-left to bottom-right diagonal."
Sheep and humans share a fair bit of ancestry, and DNA. Human ancestors have spent a lot of time with animals even closer to sheep genetically than humans themselves are. Humans have an obvious advantage over computers in recognizing sheep.
If you construct an artificial enough task in this area you can make nets look better than humans, but they really are not close.
Actually recognizing sheep is an "artificial" task to make humans look better than nets. In the general case, nets can easily be better than humans per joule of energy consumed for training + task.
Not sure about "most" other jobs. Most other that they qualify for, maybe.
But anyway, the point is not whether or not they are "better off" with an Uber job. It is that just because they make profit on working a lot, does not mean they make somewhat smaller but positive profit on working reasonable hours. Non-linear compensation FTW.
The examples I gave for 8 hours, or 20 trips are for per day driving. So 20 trips in 2 days might easily give negative or negligible profits for the drivers.
Uber doesn't settle driver income daily either. It is weekly, or fortnightly.
but the complaint is that they have to work more to make a proper income after their expenses
Sometimes it is more complicated. Uber's rules are different in every country - with tweaks for every city. But in multiple countries, I hear they make the drivers work hard even to earn their first penny.
Modus Operandi : Initially, the drivers lose money on every trip. After they have done the equivalent of about 8 hours work, they get a nice bonus, making a net profit for the day. The "equivalent" of 8 hours does not sound too onerous to the driver - e.g. 20 trips in a market where Uber expect 2 trips per hour on an average. Uber has better data than the drivers - so the drivers are kept on the edge of their nerves for the whole workday. The drivers think it is their own fault for not getting 20 trips in 8 hours, which should be easy, so let us work 11 hours.
This helps Uber in 2 ways : 1. Drivers cannot work partly in 2 systems : Uber and Lyft (or the other app-driven call taxi solution in the country) 2. The drivers in the Uber system are desperate to serve a lot of customers.
Are you sure the drivers are not complaining about this ? That they need to work too hard to even earn the first penny ?
Good, let's keep looking. Even if you don't adopt GTD, it should give you good ideas.
This is the one feature I would like in Gmail - 'turn this email into a calendar item'.
This is the one feature I hate in Gmail. If I get a soft ticket in my email (for a hotel reservation, flight etc.), Gmail converts it into a calendar item.
But giving the option to the user would be against their philosophy. Google needs to decide what goes into your calendar.
Calendaring has been one of the major work-organization concepts for a long time. David Allen's "Getting Things Done" (GTD) made some good arguments against it. A summary follows in the specific context of your post, but good overall summaries are available elsewhere - and of course the book. GTD got a huge following - not entirely undeserved, so it is worth repeating its lessons. Of course, it is not for everyone.
1. In "knowledge work" as has become most of the work in the last 3 decades : one is not always the master of one's own calendar. Unforeseen tasks of variable priority keep popping up by the minute. It can be frustrating and can cause induced helplessness if one is forced to reschedule tasks multiple times.
2. Context matters a lot. E.g. your stock of apples at home is low. Nothing urgent, but you need to get some in next 2-3 days if you are around farmer's market. With calendaring, you need to make a false urgency of needing to get apples "today". Even ignoring this false urgency, while appearing on the calendar when you are at work, is not only useless but actively pushes away the real things you can do at work.
With GTD, you put Apples in the list of farmer's market. Which you only open when you are in the farmer's market.
3. Calendar is difficult to review. You put your current girlfriend's dad's birthday on your calendar, say it is 10 months away. In 2 months , you break up with the girlfriend and that information is now not very useful, yet occupies an important slot in the calendar. You need to prune this "calendaring" of yours periodically, but calendar interfaces generally don't give much of an opportunity to review easily. Going through next 10 years of events is not easy - especially if most of your TODOs end up in the calendar.
4. Calendars have no place for notes. So they solve only half the organization problem. Notes are pieces of information not relevant to any day in particular. With calendaring, you need to handle it separately.
Slashdot Mirror
Does my example not prove your inability to handle 2 related points in one post ?
This post and your this reply proves that you cannot handle more than one points in one post even if both are related to the overall topic - so actually I am trying to not exceed your capacity.
I did elaborate on all three counts. This last post, it was to disabuse you of the notion that you are capable of talking at the level of 6th standard.
Actually if you don't understand that men outside 20% cannot be increased unless one of the conditions i mentioned in my first post in this thread, it is more like you failed 3rd standard.
Protip : Learn basic mathematics (arithmetic) before mechanics.
When non-idiots say "increasing" for a number, they mean adding a positive number to it.
By adding a positive number to it.
20 + positive number is greater than 20 irrespective of biological determinism.
When 20% increases, it becomes more than 20%.
Do you understand the difference between mechanics and mathematics ?
If they increase, how do they remain within the 20% ?
You still haven't explained your mathematics. How do the men outside the top 20% increase in number ?
You haven't explained your mathematics. How do the men outside the top 20% increase in number ?
not only incapable of even maintaining replenishment rates, but also generating increasing amount of disgruntled young men that are outside the "top 20% men"
So the number of bottom 80 % men is increasing ? Or the value of the number 20 is decreasing?
Which means that the value for the number 80 is increasing ? Or the number of men are increasing ?
If number of men are increasing, but overall replenishment rates are not being met, number of women is decreasing even more ? There is a low number of women in parts of India and China, but even there it is increasing slowly. In the West, I see the number of women is fine in many places.
Do you realize you have not given any evidence for most of your statements ? Some of which fall under the category of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence " .
It is far easier for politicians to collect their paychecks with Uber and AirBnB. They just have to threaten to implement existing laws and paycheck arrives in the form they desire.
With the old businesses, they have to threaten to change the laws, as well as implement the changed laws to get any payment.
So with Uber / AirBnB : only executive is involved. Generally fewer people are involved in the executive. The decision of the executive is less scrutinized than laws - which have to adhere to the pesky "Constitutions" and what not.
With old business : legislature AND executive is involved. In addition to the steps above, members of legislatures, their lawyers to draft laws with appropriate loopholes have to be paid off. Then the pesky judiciary going on and on about the bloody Constitution.
Yes, but again, while it was higher for many years there was a HUGE JUMP for ALL HOTELS in a single year, that persisted from year to year
So there was no possibility of any collusion for many years. When AirBnB did not exist - or was a much less widespread thing than last 2-3 years. In late 2016, and 2017 there were multiple reports of AirBnB's growth slowing down because of reaching a saturation in the major / more profitable markets. If you are making the point of AirBnB being a force against collusion - the time correlation you mention actually makes the opposite point.
The "collusion" happened when AirBnB was already as big a thing as it has ever been. And didn't happen when it was a smaller thing.
If Apple moved the conference away - it is the standard operating procedure in free markets. The hotels saw an opportunity to leech off fanbois, succeeded for a year or two, got burned after that. Since you have not told the story after that - I see that Apple has just said check, and it is the turn of the hotels to make the next move next year. I don't see a checkmate yet, unless that one year was enough to finish off some of the hotels.
agreement between people to act together secretly or illegally in order to deceive or cheat someone
Which is obviously what happened, note that doesn't say "verbal" or "contractual".
That definition is clearly circular for any logical discussion to be based on it. "Collusion" is being discussed to figure out whether or not it was illegal - but this definition includes illegal as one of the criteria that makes an act "collusion". In law , especially informally stated or generally stated spanning many jurisdictions, at times it is possible for a definition to be somewhat circular. But then, we need human judges to interpret it, act on it, and make case law much less circular. The way this definition goes - it is good to get a general idea. The circularity prevents any objective analysis.
Business that worry how they would pay extra wages forget that their competitors also would need to pay them.
This is not exactly true for many businesses. If a business makes and sells a product - the neighbouring state, country, continent where this latest minimum wage increase didn't happen is a competitor. They would not have to pay these extra wages. Same for services that can be rendered over the internet (some over the phone).
By increasing the minimum wage, a jurisdiction is effectively saying that our productivity is higher than that of other jurisdictions. Especially in the recent past. So we deserve to pay our workers better. This statement may or may not be true - and while increasing minimum wage the "leaders" of those jurisdictions rarely make this point. But this is the major point that is worth making.
Can submarines swim ?
"People are intelligent, people know and understand, people are conscious. Machines are not."
The problem with it is not even that it is wimpy. It is making "Artificial Intelligence" almost impossible by definition. This definition of intelligence is excluding non-humans, so only until we artificially manufacture what you call "people" , will we have any hope for artificial intelligence.
Why is it a problem? It is a perfectly serviceable definition of intelligence. It is a problem because it is useless. We have real work here for machines to do. Some of which humans historically have been rather good at. Some of which requires a mixture of what humans have been good at, and what machines have been good at. We need to solve those problems. "Artificial Intelligence" has been a field that has been trying to solve those real problems we have. Defining intelligence to make these people look bad is not helping anyone.
What problem does your definition solve ? Problem of needing to feel superior ? Go to a church and feel all superior about how Jesus sacrificed so much for you, and not for machines. Humans FTW, right ?
interested and know a little something about what a machine is and how it differs from a human then
You are answering the wrong question. If the question itself is excluding machines from ever "recognizing" an image, this question is useless. Because we need machines to "recognize" an image - recognize in the idiomatic fashion of which you speak. Recognize as in make certain electrons go in certain directions when "sheep" are around.
That is a useful definition - for all its faults of anthropomorphism. Yours is not. If you don't like the word "recognize", call it "sending electrons in certain directions in the event of certain patterns". Congratulations, you made the work of real scientists difficult without contributing to the field.
If "OK"=="legal",
That is where you went wrong.
(if (false) then false) == true
I didn't say they do. I said they can. Humans are the bosses, humans decide what these nets do, and humans generally make them do things that make sense to us, and laugh at them when they fail.
General case could be as simple as detecting the color in a particular spot in the picture. Humans get too biased by the surrounding color.
More complicated general cases cannot be written easily in a /. post. "Sheep" is a complicated pattern, which humans convey in a single word. A relatively simple attempt to describe a pattern where computers should outperform humans, follows :
"Detect images where probability of green occurring to the right of red is is proportional to the cosine of angle made with the top-left to bottom-right diagonal."
Sheep and humans share a fair bit of ancestry, and DNA. Human ancestors have spent a lot of time with animals even closer to sheep genetically than humans themselves are. Humans have an obvious advantage over computers in recognizing sheep.
If you construct an artificial enough task in this area you can make nets look better than humans, but they really are not close.
Actually recognizing sheep is an "artificial" task to make humans look better than nets. In the general case, nets can easily be better than humans per joule of energy consumed for training + task.
Human brains are the result of at least 100 million years of evolution. So 99999960 more years to go.
Not sure about "most" other jobs. Most other that they qualify for, maybe.
But anyway, the point is not whether or not they are "better off" with an Uber job. It is that just because they make profit on working a lot, does not mean they make somewhat smaller but positive profit on working reasonable hours. Non-linear compensation FTW.
The examples I gave for 8 hours, or 20 trips are for per day driving. So 20 trips in 2 days might easily give negative or negligible profits for the drivers.
Uber doesn't settle driver income daily either. It is weekly, or fortnightly.
but the complaint is that they have to work more to make a proper income after their expenses
Sometimes it is more complicated. Uber's rules are different in every country - with tweaks for every city. But in multiple countries, I hear they make the drivers work hard even to earn their first penny.
Modus Operandi : Initially, the drivers lose money on every trip. After they have done the equivalent of about 8 hours work, they get a nice bonus, making a net profit for the day. The "equivalent" of 8 hours does not sound too onerous to the driver - e.g. 20 trips in a market where Uber expect 2 trips per hour on an average. Uber has better data than the drivers - so the drivers are kept on the edge of their nerves for the whole workday. The drivers think it is their own fault for not getting 20 trips in 8 hours, which should be easy, so let us work 11 hours.
This helps Uber in 2 ways :
1. Drivers cannot work partly in 2 systems : Uber and Lyft (or the other app-driven call taxi solution in the country)
2. The drivers in the Uber system are desperate to serve a lot of customers.
Are you sure the drivers are not complaining about this ? That they need to work too hard to even earn the first penny ?
Good, let's keep looking. Even if you don't adopt GTD, it should give you good ideas.
This is the one feature I would like in Gmail - 'turn this email into a calendar item'.
This is the one feature I hate in Gmail. If I get a soft ticket in my email (for a hotel reservation, flight etc.), Gmail converts it into a calendar item.
But giving the option to the user would be against their philosophy. Google needs to decide what goes into your calendar.
Calendaring has been one of the major work-organization concepts for a long time. David Allen's "Getting Things Done" (GTD) made some good arguments against it. A summary follows in the specific context of your post, but good overall summaries are available elsewhere - and of course the book. GTD got a huge following - not entirely undeserved, so it is worth repeating its lessons. Of course, it is not for everyone.
1. In "knowledge work" as has become most of the work in the last 3 decades : one is not always the master of one's own calendar. Unforeseen tasks of variable priority keep popping up by the minute. It can be frustrating and can cause induced helplessness if one is forced to reschedule tasks multiple times.
2. Context matters a lot. E.g. your stock of apples at home is low. Nothing urgent, but you need to get some in next 2-3 days if you are around farmer's market. With calendaring, you need to make a false urgency of needing to get apples "today". Even ignoring this false urgency, while appearing on the calendar when you are at work, is not only useless but actively pushes away the real things you can do at work.
With GTD, you put Apples in the list of farmer's market. Which you only open when you are in the farmer's market.
3. Calendar is difficult to review. You put your current girlfriend's dad's birthday on your calendar, say it is 10 months away. In 2 months , you break up with the girlfriend and that information is now not very useful, yet occupies an important slot in the calendar. You need to prune this "calendaring" of yours periodically, but calendar interfaces generally don't give much of an opportunity to review easily. Going through next 10 years of events is not easy - especially if most of your TODOs end up in the calendar.
4. Calendars have no place for notes. So they solve only half the organization problem. Notes are pieces of information not relevant to any day in particular. With calendaring, you need to handle it separately.