Well, I was going to say that most devs use Java or C#, where List means array, but I suspect that's not true any more. Javascript seems to be taking over. At least there it makes perfect sense. For example, you can grow an array by adding two arrays:
Sure, due to totally unrelated data sets trained in on unrelated training data. The only way in which they are all "AlphaZero" is common hardware and common approach. At no point will it generalize outside of its training data.
Machine learning is simply an optimization framework. It cannot produce the ability ti reason outside its training data.
Not so. We do understand that damage to certain elements of the brain causes damage to certain functions. That does not imply these areas create these functions. Ever heard of cutting a cable preventing some technical function from being performed? Now, did that function originate in that cable?
You can generally tell a cable from a processor by looking - neurology isn't mere guesswork, you know? We can do much more invasive studies on animals (to the point I get creeped out reading them), and get very detailed analysis of what certain brain structures do - and human brain anatomy isn't o different from closely-related species. We also know a bunch from what areas of the brain become active when performing a certain task. Any one approach might be misleading, but there are many approaches to confirm one another. Studies of brain damage serve well to confirm that comparative anatomy is worthwhile.
Also, as to consciousness, your statement is just pseudo-profound bullshit, probably spouted by some scientist unable to admit his cluelessness.
What statement is that? We have a lot of near-synonyms for the same concept, because it's hard to measure quantitatively. That's what hard problems often look like.
Your ignorance of psychology, neurology, and philosophy is not mankind's ignorance.
While I agree with your main point, it's worth pointing out that AI researchers have never been striving for "strong AI", rather "AI" as a technical term just means "solving problems that would seem at first to require intelligence", that is, difficult automation.
Is there a difference between "(general) intelligence" and "consciousness" and "free will". I don't see one. There no reason to believe a machine intelligence couldn't exist, but that's not what people are working on as it has no commercial value.
BTW, we have a lot more knowledge about the origins of man's intelligence than you seem to realize. After all, it's been studied quite extensively. We understand what structures in the brain are responsible for what (mostly from study of brain damage). We understand to some extent the relationship between neurology and personality. We understand that consciousness is, neurologically, an extension of the ability to visualize yourself doing something without actually doing it. We understand that your actions can be driven from more primitive areas of the brain, and that's more likely to happen the stronger basic needs become.
All of that could be used to research machine intelligence, by following the one known successful approach. But why would anyone do that?
Obvious counter-example: Alpha-Go Zero, which used NO training data,
I see you don't know what "training data" means. It was trained on games of Go. No matter how good it gets, it will never reason about anything that's not a game of Go.
XML has its strengths and its place, but fuck me it taught me how little some people really fucking understand shit.
There was a time when I was objecting to using XML in kernel-mode code. Management was having none of that - XML was fashionable, end of argument. Sadly I ended up writing a kernel-mode XML parser.
Someone that quickly types out the generic known solution but uses 'i' as a loop counter is exactly the sort of person you thank for taking part and engage no further.
'i' is idiomatic. Admittedly, 'n' is better for an arbitrary number that's not an index into an array, but 'i' is fine. You'd prefer fortyCharacterCoboiNameDescribingAnArbitraryNumber?
The added joke there is that "thou" had become (somewhat) insulting in Shakespeare's time, and was gradually being rejected from common usage. "Dost thou 'thou' me, thou dog?"
But the point of the quote is that people rarely self-declare their own idiocy. OTOH, if SJMage doesn't want to be called an "idiot" because he fears that actual idiots would be insulted by the comparison, well, maybe I see his point.
Nah, you're using academic jargon that doesn't apply to the real world. Out here in the real world, a "list" is an array that can grow. Apologies to LISP, but that idea of a list didn't catch on - people call that a "linked list", to distinguish it from the normal sort of list.
"Ableist slur" is just hilarious. Idiots are idiots, and fools are fools, and folly needs to be called out to prevent bad ideas from spreading. And people rarely call out their own idiocy.
Dost thou not suspect my place? Dost thou not suspect my years? Oh, that he were here to write me down an ass! But masters, remember that I am an ass, though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass.
But you beg the question, why should people have to hide their identity online? If SE were an egalitarian utopia then surely it wouldn't matter. So perhaps we can at least agree that there is a problem.
It raises the question - "begs the question" means something else.
Why should I have to carry an umbrella on a rainy day? Can't we just fix the weather so it won't rain while I'm running errands? Surely in a utopia it wouldn't matter, so perhaps we can at least agree there is a problem.
Complain about human nature all you want, but in the meantime do the obvious stuff to make life more pleasant.
Secondly - what are "newer coders" doing in that group. That's not a protected status or marginalized group (unless they are suggesting that it's got more minorities in it than the rest of stack overflow, but I see little evidence of that). From a business perspective, obviously they need to find a way to engage that group without frustrating more experienced contributors - but that's not really in the same category as being more inclusive to people of color.
I think that "newer coders" being abused (just like any forum anywhere, really) is the actual problem at hand. Identity politics shoves its nose under the tent only because some of those "newer coders" are also not evil white males - perhaps disproportionately so, given recent efforts to ramp up the number of female coders.
Given that no one can tell you're a dog on the internet", but everyone call tell you're a newb, it sure seems likely the latter is the actual problem.
Generally not-very-lucrative white-collar administrative work. It's the dirty secret of the profession. I know two people who went through hat - one works crap jobs now, the other started her own firm (she specialized in doing evictions during the last real estate bust, so that turned out OK for her given the huge demand at the time, but odds were low).
If you compare the cumulative lifetime earnings, net of education costs, of a plumber to a dentist, the dentist does not come out ahead until his mid-40s! And if the plumber has his own business by then (a "two truck business"), the dentist never comes out ahead. The best you can say is that a dentist is more likely to become a successful small business owner than a plumber, but if you adjusted for IQ I'm not even sure that's true.
This is because it takes so many years, and costs so much, for a dentist to get to the point where he is past all his education and apprenticeship, compared to a plumber. The dentist only really starts raking it in once he has his own practice - that is, when he becomes a small business owner.
It's much worse for lawyers, as most lawyers leave the field within 10 years (if you work at a law firm, you have about 10 years to become a successful salesmen, bringing in large clients to the firm, or you're out).
American luxury cars are a joke. Tesla Model S is a neat toy, as golf carts go, but there are much better luxury options for the price. Only the Model 3 really has an interesting niche, if they can build enough of them.
All of Netflix's original content (which is a substantial chunk now) has been shot in 4K since about 2013.
Will Netflix stream 4k to a browser? My 4K TV is just the monitor for my laptop, and I can't find anyone streaming 4K to a browser. (I have no interest in the UI of the Roku/Apple/Fire etc set-top boxes).
No doubt, if you press your nose to the screen you can see the difference. 8K is really a theater projector standard: in order to see the difference between 4K and 8K, the screen will more than fill your field of color vision. If you're sitting closer than most people find comfortable, such as the front row of a movie theater, or 5 feet from a screen with a diagonal larger than that, then you'll see the difference.
At a common viewing distance for a given screen size, you can't see the difference, but that's not all use cases.
GPP said "real certificate to a fake site". Did you real that carefully? It's one of the proven DNS-related attacks, although one that's a lot harder these days than when it was first exploited. Attacks included: * Typosquatting name (or common misspelling) * Names with different punctuation, e.g. "bank-of-america.com" has a certificate, and it looks like "bankofamerica.com", but I wouldn't trust it. *Lookalike names via UTF8 tricks (I think every current browser protects against this one now) * long URLs that start with something legit-looking and hide the ".attacker.com" off the irght of the display.
I'm sure you see the pattern. There was even a name like "citibank\0attacker.com" with a null in the registered name at one point, which I though was pretty clever.
Of course, all these required phishing to be useful, but the point is that HTTPS doesn't protect against phishing. Most of the obvious approaches to fake site names have been closed by browser venders or companies waking up to the need to register "nearby" sites to avoid confusion, and not by any improvements to the underlying protocols.
Execs have no legal protection just because they worked for a corporation - not just fines, but prison. The thing is, you have to actually prove they were involved, or at least knew what was going on.
Large fines (and large liability awards) are the criminal justice system for corporations. Those can be assessed without finding an individual manager to blame - just that the company as a whole knew there was a problem and ignored it, or deliberately put people at risk for profit.
All the legal mechanisms are in place, but obviously that didn't fix the problem. The problem is willingness to prosecute in a corrupt system, and new laws coming out of that corrupt system are unlikely to improve things. There are positive examples, though. Sony was fined a large enough amount to make the CEO resign over the rootkit thing (and threatened with the corporate death penalty if it happened again). That's the system, working. Why doesn't it work more often?
Problem is how far behind deliveries are - only ~12k Model 3s built thus far. Tesla has finally reached a reasonable rate of building the Model 3, but only by moving away from the degree of automation originally planned.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I was going to say that most devs use Java or C#, where List means array, but I suspect that's not true any more. Javascript seems to be taking over. At least there it makes perfect sense. For example, you can grow an array by adding two arrays:
> [1] + [2]
12
Naturally!
Sure, due to totally unrelated data sets trained in on unrelated training data. The only way in which they are all "AlphaZero" is common hardware and common approach. At no point will it generalize outside of its training data.
Machine learning is simply an optimization framework. It cannot produce the ability ti reason outside its training data.
Not so. We do understand that damage to certain elements of the brain causes damage to certain functions. That does not imply these areas create these functions. Ever heard of cutting a cable preventing some technical function from being performed? Now, did that function originate in that cable?
You can generally tell a cable from a processor by looking - neurology isn't mere guesswork, you know? We can do much more invasive studies on animals (to the point I get creeped out reading them), and get very detailed analysis of what certain brain structures do - and human brain anatomy isn't o different from closely-related species. We also know a bunch from what areas of the brain become active when performing a certain task. Any one approach might be misleading, but there are many approaches to confirm one another. Studies of brain damage serve well to confirm that comparative anatomy is worthwhile.
Also, as to consciousness, your statement is just pseudo-profound bullshit, probably spouted by some scientist unable to admit his cluelessness.
What statement is that? We have a lot of near-synonyms for the same concept, because it's hard to measure quantitatively. That's what hard problems often look like.
Your ignorance of psychology, neurology, and philosophy is not mankind's ignorance.
While I agree with your main point, it's worth pointing out that AI researchers have never been striving for "strong AI", rather "AI" as a technical term just means "solving problems that would seem at first to require intelligence", that is, difficult automation.
Is there a difference between "(general) intelligence" and "consciousness" and "free will". I don't see one. There no reason to believe a machine intelligence couldn't exist, but that's not what people are working on as it has no commercial value.
BTW, we have a lot more knowledge about the origins of man's intelligence than you seem to realize. After all, it's been studied quite extensively. We understand what structures in the brain are responsible for what (mostly from study of brain damage). We understand to some extent the relationship between neurology and personality. We understand that consciousness is, neurologically, an extension of the ability to visualize yourself doing something without actually doing it. We understand that your actions can be driven from more primitive areas of the brain, and that's more likely to happen the stronger basic needs become.
All of that could be used to research machine intelligence, by following the one known successful approach. But why would anyone do that?
Obvious counter-example: Alpha-Go Zero, which used NO training data,
I see you don't know what "training data" means. It was trained on games of Go. No matter how good it gets, it will never reason about anything that's not a game of Go.
So you're saying
Lobsters!
XML has its strengths and its place, but fuck me it taught me how little some people really fucking understand shit.
There was a time when I was objecting to using XML in kernel-mode code. Management was having none of that - XML was fashionable, end of argument. Sadly I ended up writing a kernel-mode XML parser.
Someone that quickly types out the generic known solution but uses 'i' as a loop counter is exactly the sort of person you thank for taking part and engage no further.
'i' is idiomatic. Admittedly, 'n' is better for an arbitrary number that's not an index into an array, but 'i' is fine. You'd prefer fortyCharacterCoboiNameDescribingAnArbitraryNumber?
Well played, sir!
The added joke there is that "thou" had become (somewhat) insulting in Shakespeare's time, and was gradually being rejected from common usage. "Dost thou 'thou' me, thou dog?"
But the point of the quote is that people rarely self-declare their own idiocy. OTOH, if SJMage doesn't want to be called an "idiot" because he fears that actual idiots would be insulted by the comparison, well, maybe I see his point.
Nah, you're using academic jargon that doesn't apply to the real world. Out here in the real world, a "list" is an array that can grow. Apologies to LISP, but that idea of a list didn't catch on - people call that a "linked list", to distinguish it from the normal sort of list.
Hey, at least it's not called a "Plex".
"Ableist slur" is just hilarious. Idiots are idiots, and fools are fools, and folly needs to be called out to prevent bad ideas from spreading. And people rarely call out their own idiocy.
Dost thou not suspect my place? Dost thou not suspect my years? Oh, that he were here to write me down an ass! But
masters, remember that I am an ass, though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass.
But you beg the question, why should people have to hide their identity online? If SE were an egalitarian utopia then surely it wouldn't matter. So perhaps we can at least agree that there is a problem.
It raises the question - "begs the question" means something else.
Why should I have to carry an umbrella on a rainy day? Can't we just fix the weather so it won't rain while I'm running errands? Surely in a utopia it wouldn't matter, so perhaps we can at least agree there is a problem.
Complain about human nature all you want, but in the meantime do the obvious stuff to make life more pleasant.
Secondly - what are "newer coders" doing in that group. That's not a protected status or marginalized group (unless they are suggesting that it's got more minorities in it than the rest of stack overflow, but I see little evidence of that). From a business perspective, obviously they need to find a way to engage that group without frustrating more experienced contributors - but that's not really in the same category as being more inclusive to people of color.
I think that "newer coders" being abused (just like any forum anywhere, really) is the actual problem at hand. Identity politics shoves its nose under the tent only because some of those "newer coders" are also not evil white males - perhaps disproportionately so, given recent efforts to ramp up the number of female coders.
Given that no one can tell you're a dog on the internet", but everyone call tell you're a newb, it sure seems likely the latter is the actual problem.
Generally not-very-lucrative white-collar administrative work. It's the dirty secret of the profession. I know two people who went through hat - one works crap jobs now, the other started her own firm (she specialized in doing evictions during the last real estate bust, so that turned out OK for her given the huge demand at the time, but odds were low).
If you compare the cumulative lifetime earnings, net of education costs, of a plumber to a dentist, the dentist does not come out ahead until his mid-40s! And if the plumber has his own business by then (a "two truck business"), the dentist never comes out ahead. The best you can say is that a dentist is more likely to become a successful small business owner than a plumber, but if you adjusted for IQ I'm not even sure that's true.
This is because it takes so many years, and costs so much, for a dentist to get to the point where he is past all his education and apprenticeship, compared to a plumber. The dentist only really starts raking it in once he has his own practice - that is, when he becomes a small business owner.
It's much worse for lawyers, as most lawyers leave the field within 10 years (if you work at a law firm, you have about 10 years to become a successful salesmen, bringing in large clients to the firm, or you're out).
American luxury cars are a joke. Tesla Model S is a neat toy, as golf carts go, but there are much better luxury options for the price. Only the Model 3 really has an interesting niche, if they can build enough of them.
All of Netflix's original content (which is a substantial chunk now) has been shot in 4K since about 2013.
Will Netflix stream 4k to a browser? My 4K TV is just the monitor for my laptop, and I can't find anyone streaming 4K to a browser. (I have no interest in the UI of the Roku/Apple/Fire etc set-top boxes).
No doubt, if you press your nose to the screen you can see the difference. 8K is really a theater projector standard: in order to see the difference between 4K and 8K, the screen will more than fill your field of color vision. If you're sitting closer than most people find comfortable, such as the front row of a movie theater, or 5 feet from a screen with a diagonal larger than that, then you'll see the difference.
At a common viewing distance for a given screen size, you can't see the difference, but that's not all use cases.
GPP said "real certificate to a fake site". Did you real that carefully? It's one of the proven DNS-related attacks, although one that's a lot harder these days than when it was first exploited. Attacks included:
* Typosquatting name (or common misspelling)
* Names with different punctuation, e.g. "bank-of-america.com" has a certificate, and it looks like "bankofamerica.com", but I wouldn't trust it.
*Lookalike names via UTF8 tricks (I think every current browser protects against this one now)
* long URLs that start with something legit-looking and hide the ".attacker.com" off the irght of the display.
I'm sure you see the pattern. There was even a name like "citibank\0attacker.com" with a null in the registered name at one point, which I though was pretty clever.
Of course, all these required phishing to be useful, but the point is that HTTPS doesn't protect against phishing. Most of the obvious approaches to fake site names have been closed by browser venders or companies waking up to the need to register "nearby" sites to avoid confusion, and not by any improvements to the underlying protocols.
That's not "security", that's "good intentions".
Execs have no legal protection just because they worked for a corporation - not just fines, but prison. The thing is, you have to actually prove they were involved, or at least knew what was going on.
Large fines (and large liability awards) are the criminal justice system for corporations. Those can be assessed without finding an individual manager to blame - just that the company as a whole knew there was a problem and ignored it, or deliberately put people at risk for profit.
All the legal mechanisms are in place, but obviously that didn't fix the problem. The problem is willingness to prosecute in a corrupt system, and new laws coming out of that corrupt system are unlikely to improve things. There are positive examples, though. Sony was fined a large enough amount to make the CEO resign over the rootkit thing (and threatened with the corporate death penalty if it happened again). That's the system, working. Why doesn't it work more often?
Well played sir, but 1 out of 10 for style. Try paragraph breaks next time.
He might not have colluded. But his inane bs about how he only hires the 'best' people is an outright lie. You can't have it both ways.
Trump? Hyperbole? Nah, can't be.
Problem is how far behind deliveries are - only ~12k Model 3s built thus far. Tesla has finally reached a reasonable rate of building the Model 3, but only by moving away from the degree of automation originally planned.