I wouldn't be so sure about creativity and insight either. Check out this sketch, colored by an AI neural network based on just a few squiggled hints. You can hardly argue that coloring isn't creative, and that's an AI that exists right now -- the tech is only improving as time goes on.
That doesn't look too impressive - a better bucket-fill basically. The shading is random, after all, not based on depth and lighting.
> Just off the top of my head, a single template function instantiated with the same type arguments in two different compilation units produces two (identical) copies of the same code in the final executable.
Get a better head.
Failing that, get a better linker.
The linker can't help if the compiler in-lines the function, which it may choose to do regardless of programmer intention.
Its sometimes difficult to share template code, since a major point of templates is to reduce source code. Code that works for doubles cannot be the same code as code that works for ints. So how its not bloat. In C you would get exactly the same amount of bloat plus twice the source.
Just off the top of my head, a single template function instantiated with the same type arguments in two different compilation units produces two (identical) copies of the same code in the final executable.
This kinda displays why C++ is unsuitable for small memory stuff. The C64 had remarkably large games in its time, and yet by using C++ all that is possible is a simple pong clone. I wrote for the C64. This "demo" is very unimpressive.
Maybe you join a club, start a band, discover an aptitude for art, start your own business.. who knows?
The problem is not all "work" is equal. The value of the work you do is how much useful economic productivity you generate - how useful what you produce is to other people. The market modulates this by overvaluing productivity which is in short supply (STEM workers), and devaluing productivity which is oversupplied (musicians, artists). This differential pricing then encourages people to "work" in the more productive jobs like STEM, rather than the less productive but more fun jobs like joining a club, starting a band, discovering an aptitude for art (these things are often so unproductive that people have to pay to be able to do them, rather than be paid).
That's the big problem with a UBI. The market prices labor to encourage people to do jobs that are needed, rather than jobs that are fun. A UBI encourages people to do what they find fun rather than what's needed. At first glance, layering a market economy on top of this seems like it would work (i.e. you can still get paid extra on top of a UBI for doing a STEM job). But if you crunch through the math, the pricing for the STEM job then leads to non-UBI income following a divergent series.
Considering how much of what you call "useful" economic productivity is generated by "fun" jobs like art and music,
What do you mean "much"? Very little anything is generated by the fun jobs when you divide the demand by the supply. The market does not reward anything, it's simply the supply/demand curve that determines the price of something, labour included. Due to the supply of artists being so large compared to the demand for art, artists are priced extremely low, and their products are priced just as low to reflect the demand.
your entire premise feels backwards, especially as it does not consider there is a very real drive to push "useful" economic productivity towards zero cost with ever increasing automation.
A small group of artists at Marvel has become an economic juggernaut as armies of artists and artisans translate the comic page into movies and then toys and other banal products for the, as you call them "useful" economic producers to manufacture.
Outliers do not an argument make. The large majority (9999 out of 10000) of "small group of artists" produce works that are worth almost nothing.
A couple of musicians messing around in a garage share their sound and it catches on with clothes, jewelry, etc. geared to the people who want to be part of that scene. Again, giving the, as you call them "useful" economic producers something to take to market.
Yes, a lot of artists are overlooked and underpaid, but that's attributable more to how they are disadvantaged by people who are inclined towards business rather than their true economic potential.
Their true economic potential is close to zero. The markets accurately reflect this. You want a jingle for a radio ad? Almost the entire population can supply you with one. You want designs for a bridge that won't fall down? Only a fraction of the population can give you one.
It's not hard to then say that one class of producer is worth more than the other class of producer. Even with UBI, if everyone can live without needing a job and the majority go on to produce works of art, their value is still considerably less than the minority who use the UBI benefits to learn bridge-design.
UBI won't make artists more valuable than they are now; on the contrary they'll make artists less valuable as the supply of artists will greatly increase (and the supply of bridge-designers will greatly decrease).
So, you understand that genes don't just randomly jump, right?
Wait, what?
Just because something has been modified doesn't mean that it's gene will jump to another species and do something completely different than what it was designed to do.
It also doesn't mean that it won't have deep and long-lasting effects at all.
This is true, and Tesla is not one of them. Tesla has one of the highest recall rates of any manufacturer. If you read their earning reports, recalls are one of the biggest obstacles to sustainability of the company over all. Yes, they have so many recalls and spend so much on them that they might actually put the company out of business.
Right. First time, it's an honest mistake. Second time, you're being a plonker.
Page 120 has nothing except for a header on it.
EMPTY PAGE! CHECKMATE FEMINISTS WHERE IS YOUR NARRATIVE NOW?
Anyone reading your comment now actually know that you're full of it - page 120 which I quoted above says very clearly that the complainant made up the threat themselves.
It's going to be very difficult in the future to make claims about the guilt of gamergate when the FBI report says that the complainants made up the threats themselves (yeah, on page 120).
Good luck with that cognitive dissonance of yours; this report is probably going to remain on the internet forever.
Oooh another person who thinks "Encyclopedia Dramatica" is a source. The crazies are out in force today!
page 74 of the linked PDF.
You must be looking at a different page 74 to me. Are you talking about 74 as the PDF reader counts, or one labelled "74" in the scanned text. I looked at the former (I couldn't find the latter in a cursory search) and it says:
SA ***** sent a letter to ***** to document the telephone call with the legal department regarding the ****
checkmate femenists!
Sorry, page 120, quoted in full:
"[REDACTED] but this is the first time i have genuinely feared for my life at the event. Lot's of people are going to be there, and a bomb threat is sure to drive many people away."
Agent's addendum: "This woman previously said she was bringing a gang of personal bodyguards to PAX and
FALSELY ATTRIBUTED A SARIN GAS ATTACK THREAT AT PAX TOWARDS A GROUP OF HER ENEMIES, SHE
(AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE'S LIVES, HER CLAIMS) NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED IMMEDIATELY."
So, basically, yeah, at least one investigating agent officially reported that at least one claim was made up and that the claimant needs to be investigated immediately.
Kinda destroys your narrative, doesn't it? Maybe you should have read the entire report when I gave you the wrong page number (to be fair, I expected you to not read the report when I gave you the wrong page number).
Last time you dug up 10 posts and demonstrated your inability to comprehend them.
I was careful to include context - my comprehension was and still is fine.
As I recall one example was the claim that I support segregation. I don't. I've told you that over and over again. The best you could come up with is to show that I am okay with separate male and female locker rooms,
Nope - you said, multiple times, that separate classes for different demographics was what you supported. You use locker rooms to back-pedal.
In 2008, Brookins was in the midst of a family struggle, having left a husband she called "violent and abusive."
So not only the fact that she's a woman matters in this story, it's also important to throw some suspicion on her story of domestic violence.
Regardless of her gender or personal situation[1], what she did (which I assume is true, I haven't RTFA) is nothing short of brilliant. This woman has a great future ahead of her if she learned and executed all the skills necessary to build a house from scratch.
Wild accusations, no links or evidence... Fuck off Mashiki.
The last time you denied a position I dug up 10 links to previous posts of yours, and quoted them and linked them as well for context. You then doubled down on your denial.
The positions you hold are repulsive to most people; in this thread alone you are defending someone (Wu) whom the FBI report implicated as falsely sending threats, and yet you claim you hold progressive views.
Honestly, us on the left very much want you (and Serviscope_minor, and all the rest) to please stop calling yourselves 'left'. You are regressive, holding on to outdated and primitive ideals while trying to associate your fringe beliefs with the left majority (me, essentially).
It is when "innocent until proven guilty" is in force, which it is. This whole "guilty until proven innocent" is (like I said in another story) repugnant to the middle majority of the population. Only the extremists on both sides think that an accused must prove themselves innocent.
>Your interpretation of "they found nothing actionable" is "they are unequipped to deal with this", rather than "they found nothing actionable".
Now what does that remind me off... something that happened around 6 months ago... what was it again, something about emails and "nothing actionable" and "no prosecutor would try to make a case"... I seem to recall a LOT of people who did NOT interpret that "nothing actionable" as, you know "nothing actionable"... were you one of them ?
Nope. I was not one of them. Now that gamer-gate supporters are mostly exonerated due to this report, are you still going to paint all gamer-gate supporters as misogynist?
The report says that they took some of the threats seriously.
No. It says they took *all* of the threats seriously, which is why they subsequently investigated those threats, and said investigation found them to not be credible.
TLDR; the FBI took the threats seriously. They investigated. The concluded that the threats were not credible.
They did action those threats. They tried to investigate, they requested information from Twitter, Google and Microsoft. The issue is that because those requests didn't result in a name and address, they didn't take it further or link it up with the parallel activity on 8chan and IRC properly.
Did you even read the linked PDF? Those requests *did* result in names (and addresses), many of whom were actually interviewed! After interviewing them, they were determined to not be credible.
Fortunately we don't have to go with your opinion on this, there is a legal standard that has been established over the centuries. Posting a threat that the poster is capable of carrying out, say violence and a home address, is considered credible by the law. The fact that it comes over Twitter is irrelevant.
Another way to look at it, if someone posted your home address and a threat to shoot the place up, would you simply ignore it and assume your family was safe, or would you have some kind of reaction?
And the legal standard is "did the authorities determine this to be devoid of credibility?". In this case, they did so I'm not sure what you are unhappy about.
What makes you think she was lying about receiving a credible threat that included her home address? It's been well documented. The FBI records just released say they looked at it.
They say they looked at it, then they say it was not actionable. I believe them. You obviously don't. Evidence-based reasoning has never been your strong point.
That's the point. They failed to gather the evidence themselves, which would have made it most robust.
TBH, those IRC logs would not have changed much. Assume that they did have those logs, it still wouldn't turn Wu's lies about being chased from her home (and further lies about reporting it) into truths.
And once again, those logs may have not been credible anyway, hence they were ignored. You are making the assumption that those logs were credible.
If you look at the evidence, they went after the low hanging fruit and the people who used old technology that they were familiar with. For example, phone records, or asking Twitter for user data.
The IRC logs captured by Quinn show things that are actionable. People speaking about the harassment campaign, apparently logged in from residential internet connections in the US. They failed to even investigate that channel. Didn't even create a GUI in Visual BASIC like on CSI.
Just because they didn't consider the IRC logs to be credible you assume that they didn't even look at them? Maybe they discarded "evidence" that was not credible. Looking at the list of around 20 LEO agencies that were involved in the investigation (posted elsethread), I'm more likely to believe that they found those logs suspect than that they ignored them altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't be so sure about creativity and insight either. Check out this sketch, colored by an AI neural network based on just a few squiggled hints. You can hardly argue that coloring isn't creative, and that's an AI that exists right now -- the tech is only improving as time goes on.
That doesn't look too impressive - a better bucket-fill basically. The shading is random, after all, not based on depth and lighting.
> Just off the top of my head, a single template function instantiated with the same type arguments in two different compilation units produces two (identical) copies of the same code in the final executable.
Get a better head.
Failing that, get a better linker.
The linker can't help if the compiler in-lines the function, which it may choose to do regardless of programmer intention.
Its sometimes difficult to share template code, since a major point of templates is to reduce source code. Code that works for doubles cannot be the same code as code that works for ints. So how its not bloat. In C you would get exactly the same amount of bloat plus twice the source.
Just off the top of my head, a single template function instantiated with the same type arguments in two different compilation units produces two (identical) copies of the same code in the final executable.
A C64 game written in C++17.
This kinda displays why C++ is unsuitable for small memory stuff. The C64 had remarkably large games in its time, and yet by using C++ all that is possible is a simple pong clone. I wrote for the C64. This "demo" is very unimpressive.
The problem is not all "work" is equal. The value of the work you do is how much useful economic productivity you generate - how useful what you produce is to other people. The market modulates this by overvaluing productivity which is in short supply (STEM workers), and devaluing productivity which is oversupplied (musicians, artists). This differential pricing then encourages people to "work" in the more productive jobs like STEM, rather than the less productive but more fun jobs like joining a club, starting a band, discovering an aptitude for art (these things are often so unproductive that people have to pay to be able to do them, rather than be paid).
That's the big problem with a UBI. The market prices labor to encourage people to do jobs that are needed, rather than jobs that are fun. A UBI encourages people to do what they find fun rather than what's needed. At first glance, layering a market economy on top of this seems like it would work (i.e. you can still get paid extra on top of a UBI for doing a STEM job). But if you crunch through the math, the pricing for the STEM job then leads to non-UBI income following a divergent series.
Considering how much of what you call "useful" economic productivity is generated by "fun" jobs like art and music,
What do you mean "much"? Very little anything is generated by the fun jobs when you divide the demand by the supply. The market does not reward anything, it's simply the supply/demand curve that determines the price of something, labour included. Due to the supply of artists being so large compared to the demand for art, artists are priced extremely low, and their products are priced just as low to reflect the demand.
your entire premise feels backwards, especially as it does not consider there is a very real drive to push "useful" economic productivity towards zero cost with ever increasing automation.
A small group of artists at Marvel has become an economic juggernaut as armies of artists and artisans translate the comic page into movies and then toys and other banal products for the, as you call them "useful" economic producers to manufacture.
Outliers do not an argument make. The large majority (9999 out of 10000) of "small group of artists" produce works that are worth almost nothing.
A couple of musicians messing around in a garage share their sound and it catches on with clothes, jewelry, etc. geared to the people who want to be part of that scene. Again, giving the, as you call them "useful" economic producers something to take to market.
Yes, a lot of artists are overlooked and underpaid, but that's attributable more to how they are disadvantaged by people who are inclined towards business rather than their true economic potential.
Their true economic potential is close to zero. The markets accurately reflect this. You want a jingle for a radio ad? Almost the entire population can supply you with one. You want designs for a bridge that won't fall down? Only a fraction of the population can give you one.
It's not hard to then say that one class of producer is worth more than the other class of producer. Even with UBI, if everyone can live without needing a job and the majority go on to produce works of art, their value is still considerably less than the minority who use the UBI benefits to learn bridge-design.
UBI won't make artists more valuable than they are now; on the contrary they'll make artists less valuable as the supply of artists will greatly increase (and the supply of bridge-designers will greatly decrease).
It was bad enough in plants. Anyone who eats GMO salmonella gets what they deserve.
This will also kill Luddites, by selecting them out of the population. Our cancers get treated while theirs don't.
You appear to have a few misconceptions about how selection works. Killing adults after they've raised their young isn't selection.
So, you understand that genes don't just randomly jump, right?
Wait, what?
Just because something has been modified doesn't mean that it's gene will jump to another species and do something completely different than what it was designed to do.
It also doesn't mean that it won't have deep and long-lasting effects at all.
This is true, and Tesla is not one of them. Tesla has one of the highest recall rates of any manufacturer. If you read their earning reports, recalls are one of the biggest obstacles to sustainability of the company over all. Yes, they have so many recalls and spend so much on them that they might actually put the company out of business.
Parent needs an informative mod
What political reasons?
(I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know)
the American kids are rioting or hiding in their safe spaces
Isn't this a bit contradictory?
You don't spend spend difference between 'or' and 'and'?
Sorry, page 120, quoted in full:
Right. First time, it's an honest mistake. Second time, you're being a plonker.
Page 120 has nothing except for a header on it.
EMPTY PAGE! CHECKMATE FEMINISTS WHERE IS YOUR NARRATIVE NOW?
Anyone reading your comment now actually know that you're full of it - page 120 which I quoted above says very clearly that the complainant made up the threat themselves.
It's going to be very difficult in the future to make claims about the guilt of gamergate when the FBI report says that the complainants made up the threats themselves (yeah, on page 120).
Good luck with that cognitive dissonance of yours; this report is probably going to remain on the internet forever.
Okay, ignore his source
Oooh another person who thinks "Encyclopedia Dramatica" is a source. The crazies are out in force today!
page 74 of the linked PDF.
You must be looking at a different page 74 to me. Are you talking about 74 as the PDF reader counts, or one labelled "74" in the scanned text. I looked at the former (I couldn't find the latter in a cursory search) and it says:
SA ***** sent a letter to ***** to document the telephone call with the legal department regarding the ****
checkmate femenists!
Sorry, page 120, quoted in full:
So, basically, yeah, at least one investigating agent officially reported that at least one claim was made up and that the claimant needs to be investigated immediately.
Kinda destroys your narrative, doesn't it? Maybe you should have read the entire report when I gave you the wrong page number (to be fair, I expected you to not read the report when I gave you the wrong page number).
Last time you dug up 10 posts and demonstrated your inability to comprehend them.
I was careful to include context - my comprehension was and still is fine.
As I recall one example was the claim that I support segregation. I don't. I've told you that over and over again. The best you could come up with is to show that I am okay with separate male and female locker rooms,
Nope - you said, multiple times, that separate classes for different demographics was what you supported. You use locker rooms to back-pedal.
You are actually using Encyclopedia Dramatica as a source?!
I read slashdot for entertainment, so keep up the good work, bro.
Okay, ignore his source for the claim that Wu fabricated attacks against herself and use my source instead - page 74 of the linked PDF.
Happy now?
In 2008, Brookins was in the midst of a family struggle, having left a husband she called "violent and abusive."
So not only the fact that she's a woman matters in this story, it's also important to throw some suspicion on her story of domestic violence.
Regardless of her gender or personal situation[1], what she did (which I assume is true, I haven't RTFA) is nothing short of brilliant. This woman has a great future ahead of her if she learned and executed all the skills necessary to build a house from scratch.
Very few people can do that.
[1] Both are irrelevant.
Wild accusations, no links or evidence... Fuck off Mashiki.
The last time you denied a position I dug up 10 links to previous posts of yours, and quoted them and linked them as well for context. You then doubled down on your denial.
The positions you hold are repulsive to most people; in this thread alone you are defending someone (Wu) whom the FBI report implicated as falsely sending threats, and yet you claim you hold progressive views.
Honestly, us on the left very much want you (and Serviscope_minor, and all the rest) to please stop calling yourselves 'left'. You are regressive, holding on to outdated and primitive ideals while trying to associate your fringe beliefs with the left majority (me, essentially).
"Not prosecuted" is not the same as "exonerated",
It is when "innocent until proven guilty" is in force, which it is. This whole "guilty until proven innocent" is (like I said in another story) repugnant to the middle majority of the population. Only the extremists on both sides think that an accused must prove themselves innocent.
>Your interpretation of "they found nothing actionable" is "they are unequipped to deal with this", rather than "they found nothing actionable".
Now what does that remind me off... something that happened around 6 months ago... what was it again, something about emails and "nothing actionable" and "no prosecutor would try to make a case"... I seem to recall a LOT of people who did NOT interpret that "nothing actionable" as, you know "nothing actionable"... were you one of them ?
Nope. I was not one of them. Now that gamer-gate supporters are mostly exonerated due to this report, are you still going to paint all gamer-gate supporters as misogynist?
After interviewing them, they were determined to not be credible.
So at least we can now agree that reacting to them as if they might be credible,
Taking a threat seriously does not mean I/they think it is credible. They took the threat seriously, and then found it to be non-credible.
You are seriously stretching to keep your narrative intact in light of the FBI report.
The report says that they took some of the threats seriously.
No. It says they took *all* of the threats seriously, which is why they subsequently investigated those threats, and said investigation found them to not be credible.
TLDR; the FBI took the threats seriously. They investigated. The concluded that the threats were not credible.
They did action those threats. They tried to investigate, they requested information from Twitter, Google and Microsoft. The issue is that because those requests didn't result in a name and address, they didn't take it further or link it up with the parallel activity on 8chan and IRC properly.
Did you even read the linked PDF? Those requests *did* result in names (and addresses), many of whom were actually interviewed! After interviewing them, they were determined to not be credible.
Fortunately we don't have to go with your opinion on this, there is a legal standard that has been established over the centuries. Posting a threat that the poster is capable of carrying out, say violence and a home address, is considered credible by the law. The fact that it comes over Twitter is irrelevant.
Another way to look at it, if someone posted your home address and a threat to shoot the place up, would you simply ignore it and assume your family was safe, or would you have some kind of reaction?
And the legal standard is "did the authorities determine this to be devoid of credibility?". In this case, they did so I'm not sure what you are unhappy about.
What makes you think she was lying about receiving a credible threat that included her home address? It's been well documented. The FBI records just released say they looked at it.
They say they looked at it, then they say it was not actionable. I believe them. You obviously don't. Evidence-based reasoning has never been your strong point.
That's the point. They failed to gather the evidence themselves, which would have made it most robust.
TBH, those IRC logs would not have changed much. Assume that they did have those logs, it still wouldn't turn Wu's lies about being chased from her home (and further lies about reporting it) into truths.
And once again, those logs may have not been credible anyway, hence they were ignored. You are making the assumption that those logs were credible.
If you look at the evidence, they went after the low hanging fruit and the people who used old technology that they were familiar with. For example, phone records, or asking Twitter for user data.
The IRC logs captured by Quinn show things that are actionable. People speaking about the harassment campaign, apparently logged in from residential internet connections in the US. They failed to even investigate that channel. Didn't even create a GUI in Visual BASIC like on CSI.
Just because they didn't consider the IRC logs to be credible you assume that they didn't even look at them? Maybe they discarded "evidence" that was not credible. Looking at the list of around 20 LEO agencies that were involved in the investigation (posted elsethread), I'm more likely to believe that they found those logs suspect than that they ignored them altogether.