How about simply being able to block the click baiters so you never see their content again
Is not compatible with this:
The changes are supposed to reward videos that are more palatable to advertisers
They're outright saying that they want more ad-friendly videos, not user-friendly videos.
The advertisers are the customer here, the users are the product. Seeing as how there is almost no shortage of product, but a shortage of paying customers, why wouldn't they harm the product to appease the paying customers?
There is literally nothing that Youtube can do that will slow down or reduce the quantity or quality of the product they are selling.
The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers. I'd be willing to say that it's orders of magnitude bigger than the difference between reusable and non-reusable rockets.
It seems Waymo at least has figured out how to make them safer than human drivers overall.
No, they haven't. They haven't even reached the level of a drunk driver.
Or pushing the envelope, how about a simple single-inheritance class model?
I have this. I wrote a parser that reads in class definitions and spits out structs. Fields that are inherited from parents and marked as public are placed into the struct directly, and getters/setters are generated automatically for each field.
It turned out less useful than I thought - for a feature to be useful it has to be part of the standard, not an add-on, else other programmers won't want to use it.
I'm sorry have I posted a bunch of rants about how people with cars should leave cities to be a utopia for bike pricks? You seem to be very bothered that people have the audacity to drive around in cities. All I said was the ability to travel is a a good metric for freedom as it lets you go further, quicker and gives you more options. I never said you can't ride your bike or suggested the be excluded from anywhere or told anyone to do/not do anything. You go ask any kid itching to get their first car and ask them what it means to them then offer them a bike instead and see how that goes.
"No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far."
Your freedom to go where and when you want, unfortunately, contradicts my freedom to go how I want. I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city, with high quality pavements and good bike routes for long distances.
My car and your bike are not mutually exclusive. Maybe they are if you want to ride around without any consideration for what everyone wants to do, but if you are only concerned with what you want and not anyone else then you can go fuck yourself really,
You're the snowflake who opined rather self-importantly that your FREE-DUMBS are more important than other peoples freedoms.
If your freedom from city life is so fucking important to you, move out of the damn city. Your freedom to swing your fist end where everyone else's nose begins.
What do cities have to do with anything? Seeing as you don't seem to be willing to share, why don't you move to the countryside where no one can bother you and you can keep your impotent rage going forever.
Why? I'm not the one bothered by what other people are doing. You are, so how about you get out of their faces instead of insisting that their currently legal behaviour must be made illegal.
If you can't live iwth other people without telling them how to live, perhaps you shouldn't live with them then.
"No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far."
Your freedom to go where and when you want, unfortunately, contradicts my freedom to go how I want. I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city, with high quality pavements and good bike routes for long distances.
My car and your bike are not mutually exclusive. Maybe they are if you want to ride around without any consideration for what everyone wants to do, but if you are only concerned with what you want and not anyone else then you can go fuck yourself really,
You're the snowflake who opined rather self-importantly that your FREE-DUMBS are more important than other peoples freedoms.
If your freedom from city life is so fucking important to you, move out of the damn city. Your freedom to swing your fist end where everyone else's nose begins.
"Likewise, your freedom to quiet, peaceful, unpolluted cities with high-quality pavements and good bike routes contradicts my freedom to a hustle-bustle, high-GDP, high-income and high-tech economic powerhouse city."
Yes, indeed. I was in Amsterdam
You think that's an economic powerhouse? Just how small is your world?
"No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far."
Your freedom to go where and when you want, unfortunately, contradicts my freedom to go how I want. I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city, with high quality pavements and good bike routes for long distances.
Likewise, your freedom to quiet, peaceful, unpolluted cities with high-quality pavements and good bike routes contradicts my freedom to a hustle-bustle, high-GDP, high-income and high-tech economic powerhouse city.
How about you stop trying to spin your selfish desires as "MUH FREE-DUMBS"? You want all of that, then move to the damn countryside.
They problem is that they pan everything. Most tech products fail, so if you say "that will never work" to everything, you will be right 90% of the time, but you will also miss the 10% that make up for the failures a hundred times over.
If the failure kills you then you aren't around to reap the 1-in-10 success - plenty of startups that never made the news went all-in on autonomous cars and are out of money before anyone actually solves the problem.
The problem is survivor bias - you're looking at the survivors all having the same characteristic (risk taking, for example) and concluding that **that** is the reason for their success, while the reality is that all the failures had the exact same characteristic too.
You're making this argument:
"All the people who survived $DISEASE took $MEDS".
"So? All the ones who didn't also took $MEDS".
Do you mean the way geezers on Slashdot panned the iPhone, and insisted that Facebook was going nowhere?
Let's not forget they also panned VRML 20 years ago (and they were right), and I recall saying on slashdot at least around 2012 that the whole "autonomous cars are five years away" is complete vapourware (and I was right there too).
I have done stuff in both and I do not agree in the least. PHP is a dangerous mess. You need to understand its specific defects to code safely in it. Python is pretty well-designed but _not_ a language for beginners in OO concepts, functional coding, etc. It requires experience with the general concepts used, but not with the specific implementation in Python. As such, it does not violate the principle of least surprise.
Yeah, right. In Python, accidentaly writing this: ...
x = y ...
instead of this: ...
y = x ...
results in silent loss of data *depending on scope*
Python is full of weird gotchas like that; code is hard to move from one function into another because of all the silent pitfalls and traps. Everything *MUST* *BE* unit-tested for type-correctness.
PHP and Python have more in common with each other than they do differences. Python may have fewer traps, but only slightly.
I see very little difference between those two languages. There's a difference in the libraries they come with, but the astonishment at weird behaviour is about the same in both languages.
I agree. PHP has traps by surprising behavior. One of the corner-stones of secure coding is the Principle of Least Surprise and PHP violates it repeatedly.
So does Python; hasn't hurt either of them popularity-wise.
it all has to start somewhere sometime. Might as well start now as the hardest part seems mindsets not electromechanical elements.
The hardest part is the software, which has not seen much improvement in the twenty years or so that we've had SDCs. We threw 1000x resources at the problem since the mid-nineties, and only got a marginal improvement.
What makes you think that this is a near-solvable problem? It clearly isn't.
My arguments are based on evidence, but I use stories to illustrate them because it's an effective tactic.
Your arguments never have any evidence, you have only your stories that apply to (perhaps) outliers.
I'm pretty certain I've encouraged you to take a course or two on basic statistics, or to read up why studies need to be double-blinded. The "evidence" you've always presented has always been stories.
People buy iPhones and iShinies as status symbols, they don't pick television services as status symbols.
This is why Apple has been struggling to make a go of it with their TV offering: they don't sell technology, and they don't sell services, they sell image.
We have heard it all before. The evidence, the data says otherwise. This is the worst kind of decision making by feelz instead of facts and reason.
Projection much? Your go-to argument for everything is narrative-based, not facts. Have you never noticed that your arguments are almost always in the form of a story?
Slashdot Mirror
someone's just finally calling them out on this much more widespread practice than the article leads you to believe.
The bigger, ignored, story is that facebook got the passwords to millions of users' email accounts.
How about simply being able to block the click baiters so you never see their content again
Is not compatible with this:
The changes are supposed to reward videos that are more palatable to advertisers
They're outright saying that they want more ad-friendly videos, not user-friendly videos.
The advertisers are the customer here, the users are the product. Seeing as how there is almost no shortage of product, but a shortage of paying customers, why wouldn't they harm the product to appease the paying customers?
There is literally nothing that Youtube can do that will slow down or reduce the quantity or quality of the product they are selling.
The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers. I'd be willing to say that it's orders of magnitude bigger than the difference between reusable and non-reusable rockets.
It seems Waymo at least has figured out how to make them safer than human drivers overall.
No, they haven't. They haven't even reached the level of a drunk driver.
Or pushing the envelope, how about a simple single-inheritance class model?
I have this. I wrote a parser that reads in class definitions and spits out structs. Fields that are inherited from parents and marked as public are placed into the struct directly, and getters/setters are generated automatically for each field.
It turned out less useful than I thought - for a feature to be useful it has to be part of the standard, not an add-on, else other programmers won't want to use it.
Cells are designed to hold on to their potassium... Cells are not designed.
Yes they are, just not intelligently. "Designed by repeated adaptation over several generations" is still "designed".
Complement.
I'm sorry have I posted a bunch of rants about how people with cars should leave cities to be a utopia for bike pricks? You seem to be very bothered that people have the audacity to drive around in cities. All I said was the ability to travel is a a good metric for freedom as it lets you go further, quicker and gives you more options. I never said you can't ride your bike or suggested the be excluded from anywhere or told anyone to do/not do anything. You go ask any kid itching to get their first car and ask them what it means to them then offer them a bike instead and see how that goes.
We appear to be in violent agreement.
"No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far."
Your freedom to go where and when you want, unfortunately, contradicts my freedom to go how I want. I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city, with high quality pavements and good bike routes for long distances.
My car and your bike are not mutually exclusive. Maybe they are if you want to ride around without any consideration for what everyone wants to do, but if you are only concerned with what you want and not anyone else then you can go fuck yourself really,
You're the snowflake who opined rather self-importantly that your FREE-DUMBS are more important than other peoples freedoms.
If your freedom from city life is so fucking important to you, move out of the damn city. Your freedom to swing your fist end where everyone else's nose begins.
What do cities have to do with anything? Seeing as you don't seem to be willing to share, why don't you move to the countryside where no one can bother you and you can keep your impotent rage going forever.
Why? I'm not the one bothered by what other people are doing. You are, so how about you get out of their faces instead of insisting that their currently legal behaviour must be made illegal.
If you can't live iwth other people without telling them how to live, perhaps you shouldn't live with them then.
"No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far."
Your freedom to go where and when you want, unfortunately, contradicts my freedom to go how I want. I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city, with high quality pavements and good bike routes for long distances.
My car and your bike are not mutually exclusive. Maybe they are if you want to ride around without any consideration for what everyone wants to do, but if you are only concerned with what you want and not anyone else then you can go fuck yourself really,
You're the snowflake who opined rather self-importantly that your FREE-DUMBS are more important than other peoples freedoms.
If your freedom from city life is so fucking important to you, move out of the damn city. Your freedom to swing your fist end where everyone else's nose begins.
"Likewise, your freedom to quiet, peaceful, unpolluted cities with high-quality pavements and good bike routes contradicts my freedom to a hustle-bustle, high-GDP, high-income and high-tech economic powerhouse city."
Yes, indeed. I was in Amsterdam
You think that's an economic powerhouse? Just how small is your world?
"No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far."
Your freedom to go where and when you want, unfortunately, contradicts my freedom to go how I want. I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city, with high quality pavements and good bike routes for long distances.
Likewise, your freedom to quiet, peaceful, unpolluted cities with high-quality pavements and good bike routes contradicts my freedom to a hustle-bustle, high-GDP, high-income and high-tech economic powerhouse city.
How about you stop trying to spin your selfish desires as "MUH FREE-DUMBS"? You want all of that, then move to the damn countryside.
They problem is that they pan everything. Most tech products fail, so if you say "that will never work" to everything, you will be right 90% of the time, but you will also miss the 10% that make up for the failures a hundred times over.
If the failure kills you then you aren't around to reap the 1-in-10 success - plenty of startups that never made the news went all-in on autonomous cars and are out of money before anyone actually solves the problem.
The problem is survivor bias - you're looking at the survivors all having the same characteristic (risk taking, for example) and concluding that **that** is the reason for their success, while the reality is that all the failures had the exact same characteristic too.
You're making this argument:
"All the people who survived $DISEASE took $MEDS".
"So? All the ones who didn't also took $MEDS".
Do you mean the way geezers on Slashdot panned the iPhone, and insisted that Facebook was going nowhere?
Let's not forget they also panned VRML 20 years ago (and they were right), and I recall saying on slashdot at least around 2012 that the whole "autonomous cars are five years away" is complete vapourware (and I was right there too).
I have done stuff in both and I do not agree in the least. PHP is a dangerous mess. You need to understand its specific defects to code safely in it. Python is pretty well-designed but _not_ a language for beginners in OO concepts, functional coding, etc. It requires experience with the general concepts used, but not with the specific implementation in Python. As such, it does not violate the principle of least surprise.
Yeah, right. In Python, accidentaly writing this:
...
...
...
...
x = y
instead of this:
y = x
results in silent loss of data *depending on scope*
Python is full of weird gotchas like that; code is hard to move from one function into another because of all the silent pitfalls and traps. Everything *MUST* *BE* unit-tested for type-correctness.
PHP and Python have more in common with each other than they do differences. Python may have fewer traps, but only slightly.
Python is not nearly in the same class here.
I see very little difference between those two languages. There's a difference in the libraries they come with, but the astonishment at weird behaviour is about the same in both languages.
I agree. PHP has traps by surprising behavior. One of the corner-stones of secure coding is the Principle of Least Surprise and PHP violates it repeatedly.
So does Python; hasn't hurt either of them popularity-wise.
Vimes
it all has to start somewhere sometime. Might as well start now as the hardest part seems mindsets not electromechanical elements.
The hardest part is the software, which has not seen much improvement in the twenty years or so that we've had SDCs. We threw 1000x resources at the problem since the mid-nineties, and only got a marginal improvement.
What makes you think that this is a near-solvable problem? It clearly isn't.
Tesla and just about everyone else in the "autonomous" driving game is using an Expert System.
Sorry but expert systems are not what does the image analysis. Go back to start. Do not collect $200.
The image analysis is NN. The decision to take based on the analysis results is expert systems. He's perfectly correct.
The only thing more hubristic than assuming something will definitely work is assuming something will never work.
Yeah, and then you go and assume that it will definitely work eventually.
"Quiet"?
My arguments are based on evidence, but I use stories to illustrate them because it's an effective tactic.
Your arguments never have any evidence, you have only your stories that apply to (perhaps) outliers.
I'm pretty certain I've encouraged you to take a course or two on basic statistics, or to read up why studies need to be double-blinded. The "evidence" you've always presented has always been stories.
...because Apple has so many customers.
People buy iPhones and iShinies as status symbols, they don't pick television services as status symbols.
This is why Apple has been struggling to make a go of it with their TV offering: they don't sell technology, and they don't sell services, they sell image.
Stop lying. Stop with the Fox talking points.
Just stop.
We have heard it all before. The evidence, the data says otherwise. This is the worst kind of decision making by feelz instead of facts and reason.
Projection much? Your go-to argument for everything is narrative-based, not facts. Have you never noticed that your arguments are almost always in the form of a story?
meh just set it to 0.051 and watch 90% of "science" publication burn
You mean 0.049.