What I like about the Xbox One is how Microsoft opened it up. Not only can a normal console be used for development, but it's also possible to publish to Xbox (to the 'Creator's Collection' section of the store) without having to become a certified developer or anything like that. This makes it rather tempting to just muck about with console development to see what it's like.
Thanks for educating people on this. One day hopefully people will realise that mining is just social engineering with no good technical backing. It's a way to get people to get on the bandwagon and support the network. For that it works, but for any other goal it's pretty terrible. In particular, crypto is supposed to be distributed, but mining encourages centralisation, because most profit can be made in areas where electricity costs less. Money also goes to those with the more money, those who can afford to build a server farm in a remote area, not the 'little people', which, according to crypto propaganda, crypto supposedly helps.
It would be nice if the crypto crowd got together and tried to create a system that's less flawed, and doesn't waste the order of magnitudes of unnecessary power that mining wastes.
In my experience, most doctors work well with computers, they like that they have the patient's history at their fingertips, as well as all the test data. It streamlines their work quite a bit.
I own an Oculus Go, and I have to say, resolution is most of the problem -- both display resolution and content resolution. The feeling of 'being there' is something that's impossible to get without VR, but when 'there' is rather blurry it hurts the effect quite a bit.
Forget VR games. They have a way to go. But having a personal screen to watch content, either in 2D or in 3D, is quite powerful. Watching NBA or Tennis on NextVR, that's an experience I can't get on a TV. If only it wasn't that blurry. Watching Netflix on a big screen while in bed or while walking the elliptical is useful. If only it felt HD.
Really, just up the resolution, and I will likely stay with that thing over my head for quite a bit longer. In a hectic household, having a place of my own in VR is great. I can sit or stand anywhere without taking control of a screen (the TV, the family laptop, etc.) that someone else might want, and it's clear that I'm not available when the headset is on my head (something that doesn't seem to be clear if I just sit in front of the laptop).
There are several underlying problems, and preventing kids from using technological devices probably won't solve them. We can't on one hand say 'we need more STEM' (which typically means nothing of the sort, but rather that we need more programmers) and on the other hand keep our kids off technological devices.
If games or other content is geared to cause addiction, just ban that and jail content creators. I mean that semi-seriously. Just like governments are banning loot boxes now there's need to look more deeply into how content is affecting people, and try to stop it at a global level, not leave it up to individuals.
It's also rather hard when a lot of people are expected to work 50 hour weeks + commute, when both parents are expected to work, deal with all the bureaucracies of life on top of that (including stuff like their kids' school and extracurricular activities), spend time with their kids on top of that and then also try to stay sane. Some people can do it, but it's rather hard.
What I'd say is:
- If research proves something is definitely bad for kids, laws should prohibit it. - Reduce work hours to allow parents to actually raise their kids. - Educate parents on raising kids and the various stuff in their life. Offer free counseling. - Direct parents to content that's good for kids. Help create such content. There's good stuff out there, it's just hard to find. - I'm sure I had some more ideas.
The short of it is, if things are bad, think seriously about making them better and considering what you're working towards.
On the flip side, I'm convinced that our society is moving towards a society of content creators and consumers. This isn't bad. Many jobs will eventually be taken by robots and AI. Which is where considering what we're working towards comes in. Trying to simply move back in time to when technology didn't shape our free time won't work.
It shouldn't be 'optional' but rather discouraged. Contracts should include a maximum number of overtime hours over which people are simply forced to stop working.
First of all, I have to say that the summary here makes him sound completely delusional, while the article itself sounds a little more intelligent, yet still not well thought out and full of internal contradictions.
But I wanted to mention something else. We're all thinking about jobs as they used to be, but we're much more a world of content creation and consumption than in the past. We spend our time posting and browsing on Facebook or Instagram. My kids watch their favourite youtubers more than they watch TV. They watch games being played more than they play them. And that's not to comment on how they waste their time, but how many people are creating lots of content in their free time. When companies sell phones, they sell the cameras in them, because we're a world of content creators.
And UBI plays into this. If we don't need to waste our time doing menial jobs, we can create things we want to create. And sure, a lot of people won't do that, but they'd consume the content, and that's just as important.
Really, a lot of jobs people do are utterly pointless, and not all that fulfilling. Even the fulfilling ones are often stressful and leave us with little free time to enjoy with ourselves or with our kids. Eliminating them will be a good thing.
Crypto in general is a highly centralised waste of electricity. It's rather pointless. Regulating it is like regulating drugs, the wrong direction to go.
A number of researches have shown that it applies very well to welfare. It helps much more than other welfare systems (which have little benefit) and has much clearer results for reduced crime, increased education, helping people find work, etc.
I'm sure that it won't solve all cases, but it will solve a lot more cases then current welfare systems do, and will cost less.
Utopia for Realists and How We Can Get There, by Rutger Bregman
A lot of the book is dedicated to the proven benefits of basic income, and how giving money directly to the poor is not only much more effective but also a lot less costly.
Another large chunk is about the 15 hour work week, the benefit of working less and how working more and more, which is has been the trend over the last few decades is bad.
There's a shorter part about the benefits of open borders.
I'm near the end, a discussion about cognitive dissonance, discussing how people find it hard to accept truths, and how even the author may be biased in his selection of proof.
Really? You asked it before? Did you ask Google? I did and I got quite a few answers. You might argue with them, but I can't believe you're honestly asking for blockchain uses.
How can you make things easy when what you're trying to achieve changes all the time? Sure, if you want static pages that work at desktop resolutions of 10 years ago, I think you've got the problem licked. Want something dynamic that changes style between desktop and mobile? Sure, you could design it now. By the time it's done and bug free, things would likely have moved enough that it won't fit the bill.
It's easy to make something that would be easy to use -- just limit its scope severely. There's pretty much no other way to do it (although AI might get to that some day, and you'll be looking for a new job). You already have a multitude of solutions of this sort. I can create a nifty site quite easily at Wix or a nice blog at WordPress.com. The only problem is, they're not what your client or your boss wants, and they will never be.
I don't see how 'guaranteed work' can work, if one assumes that indeed people will be let go because they've been replaced by AI/robots. The more advanced AI will become, the more people will be supplanted by it. We won't be able to meaningfully assign all these people to jobs.
Reducing the retirement age could help. Older people already have it harder, both in finding a job and in doing it (in general; this doesn't apply to all jobs equally). Younger people are also easier to retrain. If we thin out the job market by removing older people (say 50+) who'd rather retire, and giving them a way to continue to live which is not dependent on previous savings, we provide more space in the work market for younger people. It could be a win-win situation for all age brackets.
Granted the issue of a job being an important part of one's life is also something to be considered at 50+, but if we can't afford to employ everyone, I think we'd rather tilt the job market in a way that would give younger people the jobs, and let the older ones rest and find more meaning in life.
I think that such products are aimed more at meat eaters than long time vegetarians. I'd say that most meat eaters do it because they like the taste rather than because they want animals slaughtered, so offering something which tastes the same (and has similar or better nutritional values and isn't more expensive) would allow them to switch out of eating meat.
It doesn't. That's just one way of using it. All it requires is speculation regarding the return address. In this sense it's no different than previously discovered variants. The basic idea of all these attacks is that user space processes can get access to memory which would normally be protected.
Just because something is beneficial for someone doesn't make it a con. It's not like people are dying to use cash and are tricked into using cards or other digital means. What the banks say is true: people have largely moved out of cash simply because it's less convenient. Most people buy online these days, where cash is impractical, and if they can use the same means of payment in brick and mortar, why wouldn't they?
So sure, banks do get something from this too, but likely not nearly as much as users, most of whom would lose a lot of money and convenience if they couldn't buy online. And sure, there are drawbacks to digital money, but in practice they're rather small.
The reason we use visual communication over aural is that it's a lot more efficient. That's why print made such a difference to learning, for example. Being able to get the information you want at your own pace and in the order you want is very helpful.
Anyone here communicated with people who use audio messages on WhatsApp? Imagine the horror of having to go through a multitude of them instead of just glancing over all those garbage messages that form the bulk of the conversation?
Does anyone really think that it would be better if people mumbled to themselves and listened to voices all the time instead of taking out a phone and looking at it?
Yeah. Haven't personally seen these surveys, but just from experience, if I'm not satisfied with service at a restaurant, it's typically because they're understaffed and the waiters (and sometimes the kitchen) can't effectively manage all the customers. Sure, better waiters might handle this better, but adding staff would be the better solution.
Slashdot Mirror
What I like about the Xbox One is how Microsoft opened it up. Not only can a normal console be used for development, but it's also possible to publish to Xbox (to the 'Creator's Collection' section of the store) without having to become a certified developer or anything like that. This makes it rather tempting to just muck about with console development to see what it's like.
Thanks for educating people on this. One day hopefully people will realise that mining is just social engineering with no good technical backing. It's a way to get people to get on the bandwagon and support the network. For that it works, but for any other goal it's pretty terrible. In particular, crypto is supposed to be distributed, but mining encourages centralisation, because most profit can be made in areas where electricity costs less. Money also goes to those with the more money, those who can afford to build a server farm in a remote area, not the 'little people', which, according to crypto propaganda, crypto supposedly helps.
It would be nice if the crypto crowd got together and tried to create a system that's less flawed, and doesn't waste the order of magnitudes of unnecessary power that mining wastes.
In my experience, most doctors work well with computers, they like that they have the patient's history at their fingertips, as well as all the test data. It streamlines their work quite a bit.
I own an Oculus Go, and I have to say, resolution is most of the problem -- both display resolution and content resolution. The feeling of 'being there' is something that's impossible to get without VR, but when 'there' is rather blurry it hurts the effect quite a bit.
Forget VR games. They have a way to go. But having a personal screen to watch content, either in 2D or in 3D, is quite powerful. Watching NBA or Tennis on NextVR, that's an experience I can't get on a TV. If only it wasn't that blurry. Watching Netflix on a big screen while in bed or while walking the elliptical is useful. If only it felt HD.
Really, just up the resolution, and I will likely stay with that thing over my head for quite a bit longer. In a hectic household, having a place of my own in VR is great. I can sit or stand anywhere without taking control of a screen (the TV, the family laptop, etc.) that someone else might want, and it's clear that I'm not available when the headset is on my head (something that doesn't seem to be clear if I just sit in front of the laptop).
There are several underlying problems, and preventing kids from using technological devices probably won't solve them. We can't on one hand say 'we need more STEM' (which typically means nothing of the sort, but rather that we need more programmers) and on the other hand keep our kids off technological devices.
If games or other content is geared to cause addiction, just ban that and jail content creators. I mean that semi-seriously. Just like governments are banning loot boxes now there's need to look more deeply into how content is affecting people, and try to stop it at a global level, not leave it up to individuals.
It's also rather hard when a lot of people are expected to work 50 hour weeks + commute, when both parents are expected to work, deal with all the bureaucracies of life on top of that (including stuff like their kids' school and extracurricular activities), spend time with their kids on top of that and then also try to stay sane. Some people can do it, but it's rather hard.
What I'd say is:
- If research proves something is definitely bad for kids, laws should prohibit it.
- Reduce work hours to allow parents to actually raise their kids.
- Educate parents on raising kids and the various stuff in their life. Offer free counseling.
- Direct parents to content that's good for kids. Help create such content. There's good stuff out there, it's just hard to find.
- I'm sure I had some more ideas.
The short of it is, if things are bad, think seriously about making them better and considering what you're working towards.
On the flip side, I'm convinced that our society is moving towards a society of content creators and consumers. This isn't bad. Many jobs will eventually be taken by robots and AI. Which is where considering what we're working towards comes in. Trying to simply move back in time to when technology didn't shape our free time won't work.
It shouldn't be 'optional' but rather discouraged. Contracts should include a maximum number of overtime hours over which people are simply forced to stop working.
First of all, I have to say that the summary here makes him sound completely delusional, while the article itself sounds a little more intelligent, yet still not well thought out and full of internal contradictions.
But I wanted to mention something else. We're all thinking about jobs as they used to be, but we're much more a world of content creation and consumption than in the past. We spend our time posting and browsing on Facebook or Instagram. My kids watch their favourite youtubers more than they watch TV. They watch games being played more than they play them. And that's not to comment on how they waste their time, but how many people are creating lots of content in their free time. When companies sell phones, they sell the cameras in them, because we're a world of content creators.
And UBI plays into this. If we don't need to waste our time doing menial jobs, we can create things we want to create. And sure, a lot of people won't do that, but they'd consume the content, and that's just as important.
Really, a lot of jobs people do are utterly pointless, and not all that fulfilling. Even the fulfilling ones are often stressful and leave us with little free time to enjoy with ourselves or with our kids. Eliminating them will be a good thing.
Here's how I got to the project page:
Played on the video.
Clicked on "YouTube" to open it on YouTube.
Opened the description.
Clicked on the project page.
An error in understanding doesn't translate to clickbait, and getting to the source isn't that hard.
Crypto in general is a highly centralised waste of electricity. It's rather pointless. Regulating it is like regulating drugs, the wrong direction to go.
A number of researches have shown that it applies very well to welfare. It helps much more than other welfare systems (which have little benefit) and has much clearer results for reduced crime, increased education, helping people find work, etc.
I'm sure that it won't solve all cases, but it will solve a lot more cases then current welfare systems do, and will cost less.
Utopia for Realists and How We Can Get There, by Rutger Bregman
A lot of the book is dedicated to the proven benefits of basic income, and how giving money directly to the poor is not only much more effective but also a lot less costly.
Another large chunk is about the 15 hour work week, the benefit of working less and how working more and more, which is has been the trend over the last few decades is bad.
There's a shorter part about the benefits of open borders.
I'm near the end, a discussion about cognitive dissonance, discussing how people find it hard to accept truths, and how even the author may be biased in his selection of proof.
A worthwhile read, IMO.
Anyone who wants to back Bitcoin is an idiot. Either that or is making big bucks off it. Bitcoin is a terrible coin.
Really? You asked it before? Did you ask Google? I did and I got quite a few answers. You might argue with them, but I can't believe you're honestly asking for blockchain uses.
How can you make things easy when what you're trying to achieve changes all the time? Sure, if you want static pages that work at desktop resolutions of 10 years ago, I think you've got the problem licked. Want something dynamic that changes style between desktop and mobile? Sure, you could design it now. By the time it's done and bug free, things would likely have moved enough that it won't fit the bill.
It's easy to make something that would be easy to use -- just limit its scope severely. There's pretty much no other way to do it (although AI might get to that some day, and you'll be looking for a new job). You already have a multitude of solutions of this sort. I can create a nifty site quite easily at Wix or a nice blog at WordPress.com. The only problem is, they're not what your client or your boss wants, and they will never be.
The little lake that couldn't.
I don't see how 'guaranteed work' can work, if one assumes that indeed people will be let go because they've been replaced by AI/robots. The more advanced AI will become, the more people will be supplanted by it. We won't be able to meaningfully assign all these people to jobs.
Reducing the retirement age could help. Older people already have it harder, both in finding a job and in doing it (in general; this doesn't apply to all jobs equally). Younger people are also easier to retrain. If we thin out the job market by removing older people (say 50+) who'd rather retire, and giving them a way to continue to live which is not dependent on previous savings, we provide more space in the work market for younger people. It could be a win-win situation for all age brackets.
Granted the issue of a job being an important part of one's life is also something to be considered at 50+, but if we can't afford to employ everyone, I think we'd rather tilt the job market in a way that would give younger people the jobs, and let the older ones rest and find more meaning in life.
I think that such products are aimed more at meat eaters than long time vegetarians. I'd say that most meat eaters do it because they like the taste rather than because they want animals slaughtered, so offering something which tastes the same (and has similar or better nutritional values and isn't more expensive) would allow them to switch out of eating meat.
It doesn't. That's just one way of using it. All it requires is speculation regarding the return address. In this sense it's no different than previously discovered variants. The basic idea of all these attacks is that user space processes can get access to memory which would normally be protected.
The stats in the article show that it's almost only girls who use the phones for gaming, and boys use them a lot more than girls for social.
Just because something is beneficial for someone doesn't make it a con. It's not like people are dying to use cash and are tricked into using cards or other digital means. What the banks say is true: people have largely moved out of cash simply because it's less convenient. Most people buy online these days, where cash is impractical, and if they can use the same means of payment in brick and mortar, why wouldn't they?
So sure, banks do get something from this too, but likely not nearly as much as users, most of whom would lose a lot of money and convenience if they couldn't buy online. And sure, there are drawbacks to digital money, but in practice they're rather small.
I've been on Netflix for a few months and never imagined they have a review system.
The reason we use visual communication over aural is that it's a lot more efficient. That's why print made such a difference to learning, for example. Being able to get the information you want at your own pace and in the order you want is very helpful.
Anyone here communicated with people who use audio messages on WhatsApp? Imagine the horror of having to go through a multitude of them instead of just glancing over all those garbage messages that form the bulk of the conversation?
Does anyone really think that it would be better if people mumbled to themselves and listened to voices all the time instead of taking out a phone and looking at it?
I'm curious where Lucas could have taken this. More curious than I am about anything else in the Star Wars universe.
Yeah. Haven't personally seen these surveys, but just from experience, if I'm not satisfied with service at a restaurant, it's typically because they're understaffed and the waiters (and sometimes the kitchen) can't effectively manage all the customers. Sure, better waiters might handle this better, but adding staff would be the better solution.
If you're arguing word abuse, don't do it yourself.