We really shouldn't. Elon Musk has bought into Nick Bostrom's ideas on super-intelligence. What do they both have in common? Neither of them are experts in AI.
If in fact, you do look at what experts in AI are saying (Geoff Hinton, Andrew Ng, Yann Le Cunn), they generally agree that this is mostly a useless distraction - we are nowhere near general intelligence, never mind super-intelligence. There will be a time to have this conversation, but this level of scare mongering, at this early stage, is not warranted.
There's also no need to anthropomorphize AI. Just because they are many violent humans with genocidal impulses, it does not mean that AIs will magically acquire such tendencies, unless we explicitly tune them to do so.
Let's take this to the extreme. Imagine that we invented AIs that matched the average human intellect. All of a sudden, most jobs would be eliminated (including robot repair, because robots would repair themselves), because most jobs no longer require humans. This is similar to how most horses are still out of a job since the advent of the automobile. So the idea that when one job is eliminated, a new one will always arise is simply false.
That is therefore, not an argument to say that we should not welcome an AI revolution - I think such a revolution would bring more positives than negatives for the future of humanity. But to assume that jobs will continue to "invent" themselves is magical thinking - we should consider serious alternatives such as UBI.
In general, one wouldn't go into StackOverflow to learn a language, you go there to find solutions to common tasks and issues. Ergo, the more answers which are sought on Stack Overflow, the greater the number of common tasks being implemented in said language.
Can you elaborate more on how the concentration of wealth in a few and free markets can be kept separate? I assume that this will be through enforcing a process of diminishing returns on concentrating wealth? Also, why did Marx think it was unavoidable a byproduct of free markets?
The primary interaction surface of a phone is the screen. Once a basic level of performance and functionality is met, the things that mattered the most to me is:
1. Is the thing pocketable? My limit for how large a phone can be without impeding one's movement is the original Galaxy Note - anything larger, and you have to adjust your lifestyle, clothing and gait to suit the phone.
2. Given that size limit, the next criteria is how large the screen-to-body ratio is, as bezels are mostly a waste of space as far as a user is concerned (barring a bit for gripping the phone)
3. Afterwards, the phone needs to offer a decent resolution, CPU and RAM, not have bloatware etc. Most flagships meet the latter criteria fairly well.
Therefore, I boughthttps://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/11/02/2135240/samsung-galaxy-s8-screen-to-body-ratio-could-surpass-90-near-bezel-less-design# an LG G3 a few years ago precisely because it was perhaps the only phone that met the above criteria at the time. After the G4, LG has lost the plot and done everything except optimise the screen-to-body ratio. My next phone will likely be a Galaxy S8, provided it does not violate no. 1 above.
The pundits have weighed in with their disdain for uninformed millennials - but don't seem to grasp the basic question their generation is confronted with - how does unbounded inequality lead to equality of opportunity? - a central paradox at the heart of Capitalism.
The reward/optimisation function in capitalism is greed - why act surprised when the end-game is inevitably an oligopoly? All this yada yada about crony capitalism is just a facile rationalisation from people who are unable to provide a clear-cut answer to this simple paradox inherent in a capitalist system. Millennials are seeing through this - and they are seeing through the fact that most ideologically driven systems that fail to take real-world evidence into account, inevitably lead to injustice.
PV and HVM are not mutually exclusive. The basic idea of having a modified, "virtualization-aware" guest-os (a.k.a PV) is a good one and results in better performance. Hardware Virtualization often simplifies the implementation of both the hypervisor and PV on the guest, but does not obviate the need for PV.
Using both in tandem can result in even greater performance gains.
http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/PV_on...
I don't disagree. Static typing shines for the tasks you mentioned, and I have felt its absence in Python on several occasions. I have wondered about Python's scalability in larger projects - but I think the lower cognitive burden in Python counteracts any losses incurred from the lack of static typing. Plus, test cases can take care of that to a great degree too.
In Python, people rarely use code generators. It's hardly ever needed. I think that says something too. There's often a lot less boilerplate.
WRT to your comment on the two examples - yes, the boilerplate could have been reduced. Yet, it hasn't been - why is kind of my point. If you work with Python libraries for an extended period of time, you will see this simplicity recurring again and again and wonder why the Java equivalent is almost always more complex. In fact, I would be happy to throw down the gauntlet and say that for any given piece of Java code, the equivalent Python code would often be easier to grok. (One way to test this would be to compare equivalent code using the standard libs)
Exactly. Having used Java in an enterprise setting for many years, and having had the good fortune to move to Python, I couldn't be happier. I realised how much more verbose Java was than its Python equivalent. Even if you overlook that - there's an inherent structural complexity that Java engenders to its code - one only need look at the Python equivalent to see why. For example, take a look at a basic Hadoop WordCount example here: http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/...
Now compare a rough Python equivalent here: http://mrjob.readthedocs.org/e...
It's not just stuff like the lack of lambdas (it looks like Java 8 has fixed this), or the static typing that contributes to this complexity. I suspect that the culture that has sprung up around Java favours over-architecting and over-engineering, which is exacerbated by its statically typed nature. The Java language itself is simple enough.
In contrast, there is a cult of simplicity around Python, and the language itself has a high-level of expressivity, allowing for a clearer exposition of one's intent - instead of burying it in layer upon layer of abstraction built to please the language and its type system. C# is a language that fares much better than Java in this regard - it's a lot cleaner. For starters - no type erasure!
I'd recommend a mechanical keyboard. Mechanical keyboards often tend to be solidly built, have a reassuring clickety-clack (you can choose switch types with different characteristics btw) and just plain feel good to type on.
Your primary tasks when selecting one will be to choose the switch type (mx-brown, mx-blue etc), any additional features you need (shortcut keys, n-key rollover) and decide on the manufacturer itself.
I have a Ducky Shine 2 and it's an absolutely fantastic keyboard. I'd recommend something of a similar nature - solidly built and has all the features I need. For example, one of the features I specifically looked for were shortcuts to a calculator, and other programmable option keys. A lot of mechanical keyboards tend to be minimalist in nature, and fortunately, the Ducky was an exception.
The model I have has the ability to turn off the backlighting, which is great, because I don't need a christmas tree on my desk. I noticed that some of the newer Ducky models are starting to look a bit silly though, with all sort of logos and stuff which are undesirable. I can vouch for the model I have without reservation however, having used it for a couple of years.
The big corps would now have us believe that a special breed of troll called a "patent troll" is the only problem with the system, and they, like every entrepreneur, are merely victims. This is all just the same manipulative BS. The patent troll exists only because the patent system is broken. Fix the problem at its root and patent trolls will be irrelevant.
The tone of this post is insane. It makes it sound like Americans are the only people on this planet with a right to privacy. What about the rest of the world? So the NSA's only crime is that it spied on US citizens? Is it perfectly ok to undermine those same rights for other human beings?
What is the point in a test that measures scientific literacy, if that test does not measure a person's commitment to the philosophy of science? A key indicator of an understanding of science is one's commitment to the scientific method. Evolution is a direct result of that commitment. When one eschews that commitment, what kind of literacy are we left with?
No, I agree that the Java language itself is not over-engineered. I said that the frameworks and community that have grown around it, have a tendency to over-engineer (especially in the enterprise). That is not to say there are no efforts within the community to overcome that, but having shifted from enterprise Java to C/Python and also having worked a fair bit with C#, I do have some experience with the general ethos in each of the communities.
Java's problem isn't verbosity IMHO. It's the general mindset and community that has grown around the language. Instead of simplicity, they've gone into massive over-engineering, with factory factory factories and the like. A combination of pattern mania, and "enterprise" java, has resulted in turning an otherwise simple language into a veritable nightmare. Contrast this with the python community for example.
Language wise, compare Java with C#. C# has done things a lot better in general. It may help that newer versions of Java will achieve some degree of feature parity with it but in the long run, I think it also has to be accompanied by a shift in the general notion of what's "normal" design in the Java world.
Picture in your mind for a moment, that someone actually typed this shit up, had lawyers obfuscate the inanity within and filed this application in the name of em.... "innovation". 'nuff said?
Agree with what you say a 100%. To me, and correct me if I'm wrong, tests are mainly about a means to automate testing I might otherwise have had to do manually. Beyond that, I see the law of diminishing returns hitting back too hard - and the overhead of maintaining test code more onerous than maintaining the original code itself.
The truth is - unless people realize it for themselves - it's really hard to do. Not every programmer has pride in their code and a genuine desire to learn and improve. Let's say you get approval to rewrite the code and reduce the unnecessary complexity. Most likely, the code will break and you won't know till it's too late. This is because, no matter how convoluted the logic - it would still be relatively debugged code. Rewriting stuff will break things, and without the unit tests - it's really hard to even get a clue where. As a result - people will blame the rewrite for the new bugs - and still never get the point.
My suggestion is, start with pushing for process and get tests written for existing code. Try to convince people that the reasons for your release problems are the absence of good process and good tests. Explain that tests are a way to automate the drudgery of manual testing and will save time - so that it is comprehensible to management. Once those two are in place - you can safely rewrite the code without breaking existing functionality - thus avoiding being blamed for your "meddling". You can then start pushing for code refactoring next. Eventually - it will be possible to display the tangible benefits of a well-structured code based. It'll be a long hard slog.
Sometimes though - the people around you are too calcified in their thinking to want to learn or to do things "better". In that case, find another job.
Your comment assumes that the person who criticises bad code is always a factory factory factory guy but fails to take into account that there IS such a thing as good code and bad code. The OP has outlined the reasons for why the code is bad - such as buggy releases, lack of test coverage etc. That indicates that the code or process is bad, somewhere.
Over-engineering is a problem yes, but just as commonly, under-engineering/non-engineering is an equally big problem. Both lead to bad code.
Spot on. It's better to be occasionally infected by a virus, and to format and reinstall your system, than to suffer daily slowdowns and annoyances with a real-time anti-virus program. I've long since decided to make this trade off to maintain my sanity, and I haven't regretted that decision at all.
I've not been infected in years, with no realtime anti-virus, and that's by following a few simple ground rules.
1. Do not run junk software from unknown sources. If you must, then run an AV scan manually to double check. (or use a virtual machine)
2. Keep your browser up to date, use a browser secure by design (e.g. Chrome and of late IE - although IE is still more likely to be targeted by malware) and avoid installing crappy plug-ins.
3. Avoid visiting untrusted sites and executing untrusted crap off them (see 1)
That's it really.
If an occasional virus gets in, find the process, kill it, and delete the executable and startup hooks. Most are that dumb. For the rest, format and reinstall.
Slashdot Mirror
Essential should market their phone as a vaccine-dispelling device with a yoni healing aura, and it will surely sell like hot cakes.
We really shouldn't. Elon Musk has bought into Nick Bostrom's ideas on super-intelligence. What do they both have in common? Neither of them are experts in AI.
If in fact, you do look at what experts in AI are saying (Geoff Hinton, Andrew Ng, Yann Le Cunn), they generally agree that this is mostly a useless distraction - we are nowhere near general intelligence, never mind super-intelligence. There will be a time to have this conversation, but this level of scare mongering, at this early stage, is not warranted.
There's also no need to anthropomorphize AI. Just because they are many violent humans with genocidal impulses, it does not mean that AIs will magically acquire such tendencies, unless we explicitly tune them to do so.
Let's take this to the extreme. Imagine that we invented AIs that matched the average human intellect. All of a sudden, most jobs would be eliminated (including robot repair, because robots would repair themselves), because most jobs no longer require humans. This is similar to how most horses are still out of a job since the advent of the automobile. So the idea that when one job is eliminated, a new one will always arise is simply false.
That is therefore, not an argument to say that we should not welcome an AI revolution - I think such a revolution would bring more positives than negatives for the future of humanity. But to assume that jobs will continue to "invent" themselves is magical thinking - we should consider serious alternatives such as UBI.
In general, one wouldn't go into StackOverflow to learn a language, you go there to find solutions to common tasks and issues. Ergo, the more answers which are sought on Stack Overflow, the greater the number of common tasks being implemented in said language.
Can you elaborate more on how the concentration of wealth in a few and free markets can be kept separate? I assume that this will be through enforcing a process of diminishing returns on concentrating wealth? Also, why did Marx think it was unavoidable a byproduct of free markets?
Therefore, I boughthttps://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/11/02/2135240/samsung-galaxy-s8-screen-to-body-ratio-could-surpass-90-near-bezel-less-design# an LG G3 a few years ago precisely because it was perhaps the only phone that met the above criteria at the time. After the G4, LG has lost the plot and done everything except optimise the screen-to-body ratio. My next phone will likely be a Galaxy S8, provided it does not violate no. 1 above.
The pundits have weighed in with their disdain for uninformed millennials - but don't seem to grasp the basic question their generation is confronted with - how does unbounded inequality lead to equality of opportunity? - a central paradox at the heart of Capitalism.
The reward/optimisation function in capitalism is greed - why act surprised when the end-game is inevitably an oligopoly? All this yada yada about crony capitalism is just a facile rationalisation from people who are unable to provide a clear-cut answer to this simple paradox inherent in a capitalist system. Millennials are seeing through this - and they are seeing through the fact that most ideologically driven systems that fail to take real-world evidence into account, inevitably lead to injustice.
PV and HVM are not mutually exclusive. The basic idea of having a modified, "virtualization-aware" guest-os (a.k.a PV) is a good one and results in better performance. Hardware Virtualization often simplifies the implementation of both the hypervisor and PV on the guest, but does not obviate the need for PV. Using both in tandem can result in even greater performance gains. http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/PV_on...
I don't disagree. Static typing shines for the tasks you mentioned, and I have felt its absence in Python on several occasions. I have wondered about Python's scalability in larger projects - but I think the lower cognitive burden in Python counteracts any losses incurred from the lack of static typing. Plus, test cases can take care of that to a great degree too.
In Python, people rarely use code generators. It's hardly ever needed. I think that says something too. There's often a lot less boilerplate.
WRT to your comment on the two examples - yes, the boilerplate could have been reduced. Yet, it hasn't been - why is kind of my point. If you work with Python libraries for an extended period of time, you will see this simplicity recurring again and again and wonder why the Java equivalent is almost always more complex. In fact, I would be happy to throw down the gauntlet and say that for any given piece of Java code, the equivalent Python code would often be easier to grok. (One way to test this would be to compare equivalent code using the standard libs)
Exactly. Having used Java in an enterprise setting for many years, and having had the good fortune to move to Python, I couldn't be happier. I realised how much more verbose Java was than its Python equivalent. Even if you overlook that - there's an inherent structural complexity that Java engenders to its code - one only need look at the Python equivalent to see why. For example, take a look at a basic Hadoop WordCount example here: http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/... Now compare a rough Python equivalent here: http://mrjob.readthedocs.org/e...
It's not just stuff like the lack of lambdas (it looks like Java 8 has fixed this), or the static typing that contributes to this complexity. I suspect that the culture that has sprung up around Java favours over-architecting and over-engineering, which is exacerbated by its statically typed nature. The Java language itself is simple enough.
In contrast, there is a cult of simplicity around Python, and the language itself has a high-level of expressivity, allowing for a clearer exposition of one's intent - instead of burying it in layer upon layer of abstraction built to please the language and its type system. C# is a language that fares much better than Java in this regard - it's a lot cleaner. For starters - no type erasure!
I'd recommend a mechanical keyboard. Mechanical keyboards often tend to be solidly built, have a reassuring clickety-clack (you can choose switch types with different characteristics btw) and just plain feel good to type on.
Your primary tasks when selecting one will be to choose the switch type (mx-brown, mx-blue etc), any additional features you need (shortcut keys, n-key rollover) and decide on the manufacturer itself.
I have a Ducky Shine 2 and it's an absolutely fantastic keyboard. I'd recommend something of a similar nature - solidly built and has all the features I need. For example, one of the features I specifically looked for were shortcuts to a calculator, and other programmable option keys. A lot of mechanical keyboards tend to be minimalist in nature, and fortunately, the Ducky was an exception.
The model I have has the ability to turn off the backlighting, which is great, because I don't need a christmas tree on my desk. I noticed that some of the newer Ducky models are starting to look a bit silly though, with all sort of logos and stuff which are undesirable. I can vouch for the model I have without reservation however, having used it for a couple of years.
The big corps would now have us believe that a special breed of troll called a "patent troll" is the only problem with the system, and they, like every entrepreneur, are merely victims. This is all just the same manipulative BS. The patent troll exists only because the patent system is broken. Fix the problem at its root and patent trolls will be irrelevant.
The tone of this post is insane. It makes it sound like Americans are the only people on this planet with a right to privacy. What about the rest of the world? So the NSA's only crime is that it spied on US citizens? Is it perfectly ok to undermine those same rights for other human beings?
Agree, that's the problem :-) If there's a proper understanding of the philosophy behind science, that can't happen.
What is the point in a test that measures scientific literacy, if that test does not measure a person's commitment to the philosophy of science? A key indicator of an understanding of science is one's commitment to the scientific method. Evolution is a direct result of that commitment. When one eschews that commitment, what kind of literacy are we left with?
No, I agree that the Java language itself is not over-engineered. I said that the frameworks and community that have grown around it, have a tendency to over-engineer (especially in the enterprise). That is not to say there are no efforts within the community to overcome that, but having shifted from enterprise Java to C/Python and also having worked a fair bit with C#, I do have some experience with the general ethos in each of the communities.
RE: "Which factory e.g. did annoy you in particular, and why?" Joel explains it better: http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/?joel.3.219431.12
Java's problem isn't verbosity IMHO. It's the general mindset and community that has grown around the language. Instead of simplicity, they've gone into massive over-engineering, with factory factory factories and the like. A combination of pattern mania, and "enterprise" java, has resulted in turning an otherwise simple language into a veritable nightmare. Contrast this with the python community for example. Language wise, compare Java with C#. C# has done things a lot better in general. It may help that newer versions of Java will achieve some degree of feature parity with it but in the long run, I think it also has to be accompanied by a shift in the general notion of what's "normal" design in the Java world.
Picture in your mind for a moment, that someone actually typed this shit up, had lawyers obfuscate the inanity within and filed this application in the name of em.... "innovation". 'nuff said?
Well, you did ask for the fastest route.
Well, that didn't take long!
Agree with what you say a 100%. To me, and correct me if I'm wrong, tests are mainly about a means to automate testing I might otherwise have had to do manually. Beyond that, I see the law of diminishing returns hitting back too hard - and the overhead of maintaining test code more onerous than maintaining the original code itself.
The truth is - unless people realize it for themselves - it's really hard to do. Not every programmer has pride in their code and a genuine desire to learn and improve. Let's say you get approval to rewrite the code and reduce the unnecessary complexity. Most likely, the code will break and you won't know till it's too late. This is because, no matter how convoluted the logic - it would still be relatively debugged code. Rewriting stuff will break things, and without the unit tests - it's really hard to even get a clue where. As a result - people will blame the rewrite for the new bugs - and still never get the point.
My suggestion is, start with pushing for process and get tests written for existing code. Try to convince people that the reasons for your release problems are the absence of good process and good tests. Explain that tests are a way to automate the drudgery of manual testing and will save time - so that it is comprehensible to management. Once those two are in place - you can safely rewrite the code without breaking existing functionality - thus avoiding being blamed for your "meddling". You can then start pushing for code refactoring next. Eventually - it will be possible to display the tangible benefits of a well-structured code based. It'll be a long hard slog.
Sometimes though - the people around you are too calcified in their thinking to want to learn or to do things "better". In that case, find another job.
Your comment assumes that the person who criticises bad code is always a factory factory factory guy but fails to take into account that there IS such a thing as good code and bad code. The OP has outlined the reasons for why the code is bad - such as buggy releases, lack of test coverage etc. That indicates that the code or process is bad, somewhere.
Over-engineering is a problem yes, but just as commonly, under-engineering/non-engineering is an equally big problem. Both lead to bad code.
Spot on. It's better to be occasionally infected by a virus, and to format and reinstall your system, than to suffer daily slowdowns and annoyances with a real-time anti-virus program. I've long since decided to make this trade off to maintain my sanity, and I haven't regretted that decision at all.
I've not been infected in years, with no realtime anti-virus, and that's by following a few simple ground rules.
1. Do not run junk software from unknown sources. If you must, then run an AV scan manually to double check. (or use a virtual machine)
2. Keep your browser up to date, use a browser secure by design (e.g. Chrome and of late IE - although IE is still more likely to be targeted by malware) and avoid installing crappy plug-ins.
3. Avoid visiting untrusted sites and executing untrusted crap off them (see 1)
That's it really.
If an occasional virus gets in, find the process, kill it, and delete the executable and startup hooks. Most are that dumb. For the rest, format and reinstall.
God damn you Sagan, no one wants to eat radioactive cheese. Leave the moon alone!