This. How can this ever happen. Also, the battery rundown difference is very large for this half pitch difference, unless the battery test switches off everything else like the screen and wifi, or there are other big process differences.
TFA says it's inmates with violent criminal records in a maximum security facility. I suppose Harvard students on their debate team are good academic performers and are out of the school in five years. You have a lot more time for honing your skills on a prison debate team. Lifelong learning FTW!
It's funny that there are rules of similar origin, e.g. emissions reductions out of concern for global warming, that are codified into law, and are as objective and measurable as they can get, and corporations have departments and processes whose sole focus is to ensure that the corporation abides by the law, and wham, something like the Volkswagen scandal comes to light. But you're right that a motto like "don't be evil" is better at slightly biasing individual and collective organizational behavior than "do the right thing".
> There's also a market for diamond-encrusted cars and solid gold toilets.
Nice strawman, but comparing 600dpi and 1200dpi printing to solid gold toilets is excessive... like solid gold toilet excessive. And yes there's a market for that, but let's consider that niche and leave it at that.
Of course your flawed point above doesn't mean that the essence of your previous post is invalid, as evidenced by how Intel introduced the Pentium 4 at the time - competing on just the PR metric of the CPU frequency. But in the big scheme of things, the market rectifies it... as with the case of the Pentium 4:-) Not only that, but also, we're still on the same frequency where the P4 peaked, and it didn't stop sales; progress shifted to parallelism and efficiency.
With displays, sure, it would be good to increase the color spectrum, lower the power consumption, make it thinner or less fragile, make it transflexive, or holographic, etc. Some of these (e.g. color spectrum, response time, thin borders) do show various levels of improvement over time. But, as with semiconductors, one of the low hanging fruits is miniaturization, i.e. trying to do essentially the same thing on a finer scale. If I can increase product sales by quadrupling the resolution less expensively than I can by increasing the color spectrum by 10% then I'll do the former.
This doesn't mean that resolution is the only thing. But it's on the uptick now since the initial iPhone, through the retina iPhone, to the 400-600dpi Androids. I don't choose a 600dpi phone over a 400dpi phone if its BOM is a lot higher (i.e. the street price is slightly higher). But some stuff scales more with physical size than resolution, once that resolution has become mainstream. The LCD is somewhere in the range of $20 per phone so don't worry much.
What's good however is that we're getting past the desktop resolution winter. Back in the last millennium it was easy to get a CRT with a resolution of 1600x1200 and more was possible. Then the age of desktop LCDs came and it made almost everyone stuck at 1920 x 1200 or worse, for almost twenty years. My 13" Thinkpad 600 from 1997 had a resolution of 1280 x 1024 and then for almost 20 years, laptops with 1366x768 and some FHD ruled. So it's high time that desktop and laptop users benefit from what the mobile users benefit from: pixels that are hard or impossible to make out. The ultimate threshold is not what's invisible individually. It's useful to go a couple of times past what the human eye can't see even in proximity, because that'll eliminate the need for aliasing, and it'll allow smooth upscaling of whatever content (try to upscale a 800x600 desktop to 1024x768 lots of distortions unlike upscaling to 1600x1200 - round multiple - or some random large 6439x4389 - indecipherable pixels).
It's not true that there's no utility to progress even if you don't need that resolution today. For example, VR requires incredibly high resolutions. Technology always works by realising gains via exploiting low hanging fruit, economies of scale, mass market etc. - only then can new technologies proliferate, as they don't need to pay for the entire tech tree from the discrete transistor or LED up to whatever we have now. VR is an expected future application, and there may be future unexpected applications, the same way the Web wasn't really anticipated by Babbage.
You personally may be content with a phone with state of the art internals but a low res screen. You can buy an iPhone with a 326dpi resolution and the fastest mobile CPU/GPU on Earth. Or you can buy a non-flagship Android. But if you find that you can't buy the phone of your high general expectations and low DPI, then maybe you're the niche market. Maybe they'll cater for such niche markets the same way you can buy diamond studded cars. Features need to be in some balance and even in this niche, you can probably buy a diamond studded Ferrari more easily than a diamond studded Yugo.
By this logic, why did print resolutions go past 300dpi? There is no reason at all to expect monitor resolutions to stay inferior to print resolutions. Also, no matter what the averages are from however many billion measurements, there's always a market for those who are more discerning than the average. Btw. 20/20 never ever meant perfect vision, and, given the variation in the anatomy of the eye, probably there's no such thing.
Yes, it's useful. And yet, while other politicians may play to voter emotions by omitting costs and expected consequences of warfare, it might also be a PR device to be vocal about the _presence_ of such consequences. A lot of us respond positively to a leader mentioning the other side of the coin; it lends credibility, trustworthiness, and other supportive emotions. For the fact that it's an emotional component, it can be exploited as part of a political PR toolkit. It's not like the population (including some of us in this thread) will want anything more than a fleeting admission of what's really obvious anyway - that war is, to a significant extent, is indiscriminate; also harms bystanders or ourselves; that there are things that are hard to model, predict or foresee.
It would be equally impossible for a government to fully engage the population in the outcome estimation process, because that would by definition reveal critical information for the adversary which then would shift the odds, rendering the estimation overly optimistic, not to mention cutting the tree under yourself while giving questionable benefit.
The voting population does'n seem to uphold these standards, as, evidently, politicians get away with misrepresenting or omitting facts. Maybe some people just don't care; some others are naive and eat up the PR; and even some of those with a critical eye just take it for granted that certain things go unsaid, in the grand act called national politics, especially if there's plausible deniability, as part of the PR of any government party that doesn't want to write itself out of history.
Large amounts of data on war and casualties might slowly end up tilting the balance toward better disclosure and transparency; war automation may counteract this by exporting the civilian casualties to the other side. Even this piece of news has become a topic here because presumably, members and facilities of a high profile Western organization were the casualty.
But there's also a human level tendency to downplay or turn a blind eye to inevitable tragedy. For example, everyone knows we're all mortals, yet it's not something we remind one another each and every day and we rarely consult things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Often, personal interaction also leads to hope extended to the terminally ill, with both sides knowing they are talking on an untrue basis as that's the social norm. Even marriage is really smooth to get into and can be very difficult and complex to dissolve. We're just not the rational, unbiased species we like to assume. Even Churchill's famous 'Blood, toil, tears, and sweat' was probably more of a way of desensitization, buildup of dedication and emotional support, and shoring up the motivation, than a way of giving full disclosure, especially that it was an unquantified (and at the time, unquantifiable) aggregate exposure with no confidence intervals and no breakdown to smaller slices of the society.
Underappreciating sacrifice in times of war, fight for resources, blind optimism etc. might be basic human instinct that in the past improved the survival fitness of a lineage, and at odds with your rationality based expectation.
Yeah, and sometimes, not being evil is the wrong thing to do. So what now? Both are incredibly vague, unactionable, unmeasurable things whose meanings completely hinge on interpretation and value system. It's a corporate motto, and adherence to it is impossible to measure, even if there existed common understanding about what's good and evil. I.e. it's just part of a company's PR.
This. All the squarehead engineers here start to speculate and reason, and the intern who probably suggested that the negatively formed sentence be recast as a positive, 'actionable' sentence is having lots of giggles as people seek 'meaning' to it. It's just a fscking motto.
This language is being hyperboled away as we speak; the meaning of words are inflated away. A 25% decrease over 20 years? That's an annual decrease of a measly 1.1%! What's the word then to use for what happened to the Volkswagen stock?
Nah, the expression to be used would be: 'slowly eroding, culminating in a 25% decrease over the past 20 years that some observers[who?] consider significant.'
What do you mean by 'we'? I'm sure the military has more experience in warfare than 'we' therefore they know there'll be casualties. Even if religious fanatics were not inclined to use human shields which they do.
Or do you expect government communications toward 'us', with updates on next week's forecast civilian casualties? The executive branch is the government and there's a military chain of command. It's not like you and I vote on each airstrike beforehand.
Btw. not defending the major cock-up that this hospital bombing was, all I'm saying is, sure they accepted civilian casualties and also the harm to US soldiers.
It doesn't work like that. Sometimes numerous sets of codes can be alternatively describe the medical situation. From that point on it's a matter of optimization to figure out which set results in the highest reimbursement. Sometimes it's an NP-hard problem, and sometimes there are differences in the risk of rejection.
Whoa whoa. Why is it that some people act rationally on a personal level, but lose reasoning power if the question is about the larger society.
If stealth is going on in my dorm room, and I suspect someone, it's possible that I can catch him in the act, or after the fact. There are known techniques, like, you know, watching, or using bills with previously recorded serial number, or marking bills with UV ink. Similarly, for other types of crime, once you have a strong suspicion, it's possible to come up with techniques that lead to proof that the crime happened, or was going to happen, had the police not stopped it (e.g. theft of marked bills is OK, but you wouldn't wait for a victim to be killed, and you could still charge the perp with attempted murder).
So it's not the logical fallacy you make it look like.
They didn't have proper internal audit for regulatory compliance. In places where they do, they build FMEA tables etc. and, if there's commercial interest is at odds with regulatory compliance, they'll entertain the possibility that they cheat. If it wasn't a known risk element to them, they had no proper risk management and it's ultimately the CEO's responsibility. My opinion isn't what it is because it's popular.
In this case you may as well consider a proper SQL database instead of MySQL which was what I alluded to originally. I.e. unlike how you phrased it, I'd pick either SQL or NoSQL but I wouldn't pick MySQL by default.
> And those tips from that Enterpriseprojects.com article? Empty buzzwords. "Leverage relationships with decision-makers", "Move at the speed of trust" (Really? Really?! What does that even mean), "If it ain’t broken, consider fixing it", "Use process as business accelerator". These are copied verbatim from the article, and if this is what the best and brightest CIOs in the bunsiess have to offer us, it is small wonder that the IT profession is in such a shite state.
Exactly. Which is the very reason why they'll be übered, thoroughly, again and again.
Slashdot Mirror
This. How can this ever happen. Also, the battery rundown difference is very large for this half pitch difference, unless the battery test switches off everything else like the screen and wifi, or there are other big process differences.
TFA says it's inmates with violent criminal records in a maximum security facility.
I suppose Harvard students on their debate team are good academic performers and are out of the school in five years.
You have a lot more time for honing your skills on a prison debate team.
Lifelong learning FTW!
It's funny that there are rules of similar origin, e.g. emissions reductions out of concern for global warming, that are codified into law, and are as objective and measurable as they can get, and corporations have departments and processes whose sole focus is to ensure that the corporation abides by the law, and wham, something like the Volkswagen scandal comes to light. But you're right that a motto like "don't be evil" is better at slightly biasing individual and collective organizational behavior than "do the right thing".
> There's also a market for diamond-encrusted cars and solid gold toilets.
Nice strawman, but comparing 600dpi and 1200dpi printing to solid gold toilets is excessive... like solid gold toilet excessive. And yes there's a market for that, but let's consider that niche and leave it at that.
Of course your flawed point above doesn't mean that the essence of your previous post is invalid, as evidenced by how Intel introduced the Pentium 4 at the time - competing on just the PR metric of the CPU frequency. But in the big scheme of things, the market rectifies it... as with the case of the Pentium 4 :-) Not only that, but also, we're still on the same frequency where the P4 peaked, and it didn't stop sales; progress shifted to parallelism and efficiency.
With displays, sure, it would be good to increase the color spectrum, lower the power consumption, make it thinner or less fragile, make it transflexive, or holographic, etc. Some of these (e.g. color spectrum, response time, thin borders) do show various levels of improvement over time. But, as with semiconductors, one of the low hanging fruits is miniaturization, i.e. trying to do essentially the same thing on a finer scale. If I can increase product sales by quadrupling the resolution less expensively than I can by increasing the color spectrum by 10% then I'll do the former.
This doesn't mean that resolution is the only thing. But it's on the uptick now since the initial iPhone, through the retina iPhone, to the 400-600dpi Androids. I don't choose a 600dpi phone over a 400dpi phone if its BOM is a lot higher (i.e. the street price is slightly higher). But some stuff scales more with physical size than resolution, once that resolution has become mainstream. The LCD is somewhere in the range of $20 per phone so don't worry much.
What's good however is that we're getting past the desktop resolution winter. Back in the last millennium it was easy to get a CRT with a resolution of 1600x1200 and more was possible. Then the age of desktop LCDs came and it made almost everyone stuck at 1920 x 1200 or worse, for almost twenty years. My 13" Thinkpad 600 from 1997 had a resolution of 1280 x 1024 and then for almost 20 years, laptops with 1366x768 and some FHD ruled. So it's high time that desktop and laptop users benefit from what the mobile users benefit from: pixels that are hard or impossible to make out. The ultimate threshold is not what's invisible individually. It's useful to go a couple of times past what the human eye can't see even in proximity, because that'll eliminate the need for aliasing, and it'll allow smooth upscaling of whatever content (try to upscale a 800x600 desktop to 1024x768 lots of distortions unlike upscaling to 1600x1200 - round multiple - or some random large 6439x4389 - indecipherable pixels).
It's not true that there's no utility to progress even if you don't need that resolution today. For example, VR requires incredibly high resolutions. Technology always works by realising gains via exploiting low hanging fruit, economies of scale, mass market etc. - only then can new technologies proliferate, as they don't need to pay for the entire tech tree from the discrete transistor or LED up to whatever we have now. VR is an expected future application, and there may be future unexpected applications, the same way the Web wasn't really anticipated by Babbage.
You personally may be content with a phone with state of the art internals but a low res screen. You can buy an iPhone with a 326dpi resolution and the fastest mobile CPU/GPU on Earth. Or you can buy a non-flagship Android. But if you find that you can't buy the phone of your high general expectations and low DPI, then maybe you're the niche market. Maybe they'll cater for such niche markets the same way you can buy diamond studded cars. Features need to be in some balance and even in this niche, you can probably buy a diamond studded Ferrari more easily than a diamond studded Yugo.
By this logic, why did print resolutions go past 300dpi? There is no reason at all to expect monitor resolutions to stay inferior to print resolutions.
Also, no matter what the averages are from however many billion measurements, there's always a market for those who are more discerning than the average.
Btw. 20/20 never ever meant perfect vision, and, given the variation in the anatomy of the eye, probably there's no such thing.
Yes, it's useful. And yet, while other politicians may play to voter emotions by omitting costs and expected consequences of warfare, it might also be a PR device to be vocal about the _presence_ of such consequences. A lot of us respond positively to a leader mentioning the other side of the coin; it lends credibility, trustworthiness, and other supportive emotions. For the fact that it's an emotional component, it can be exploited as part of a political PR toolkit. It's not like the population (including some of us in this thread) will want anything more than a fleeting admission of what's really obvious anyway - that war is, to a significant extent, is indiscriminate; also harms bystanders or ourselves; that there are things that are hard to model, predict or foresee.
It would be equally impossible for a government to fully engage the population in the outcome estimation process, because that would by definition reveal critical information for the adversary which then would shift the odds, rendering the estimation overly optimistic, not to mention cutting the tree under yourself while giving questionable benefit.
The voting population does'n seem to uphold these standards, as, evidently, politicians get away with misrepresenting or omitting facts. Maybe some people just don't care; some others are naive and eat up the PR; and even some of those with a critical eye just take it for granted that certain things go unsaid, in the grand act called national politics, especially if there's plausible deniability, as part of the PR of any government party that doesn't want to write itself out of history.
Large amounts of data on war and casualties might slowly end up tilting the balance toward better disclosure and transparency; war automation may counteract this by exporting the civilian casualties to the other side. Even this piece of news has become a topic here because presumably, members and facilities of a high profile Western organization were the casualty.
But there's also a human level tendency to downplay or turn a blind eye to inevitable tragedy. For example, everyone knows we're all mortals, yet it's not something we remind one another each and every day and we rarely consult things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Often, personal interaction also leads to hope extended to the terminally ill, with both sides knowing they are talking on an untrue basis as that's the social norm. Even marriage is really smooth to get into and can be very difficult and complex to dissolve. We're just not the rational, unbiased species we like to assume. Even Churchill's famous 'Blood, toil, tears, and sweat' was probably more of a way of desensitization, buildup of dedication and emotional support, and shoring up the motivation, than a way of giving full disclosure, especially that it was an unquantified (and at the time, unquantifiable) aggregate exposure with no confidence intervals and no breakdown to smaller slices of the society.
Underappreciating sacrifice in times of war, fight for resources, blind optimism etc. might be basic human instinct that in the past improved the survival fitness of a lineage, and at odds with your rationality based expectation.
Is there some tl;dr version of this?
Yeah, and sometimes, not being evil is the wrong thing to do. So what now? Both are incredibly vague, unactionable, unmeasurable things whose meanings completely hinge on interpretation and value system. It's a corporate motto, and adherence to it is impossible to measure, even if there existed common understanding about what's good and evil. I.e. it's just part of a company's PR.
This. All the squarehead engineers here start to speculate and reason, and the intern who probably suggested that the negatively formed sentence be recast as a positive, 'actionable' sentence is having lots of giggles as people seek 'meaning' to it. It's just a fscking motto.
This language is being hyperboled away as we speak; the meaning of words are inflated away. A 25% decrease over 20 years? That's an annual decrease of a measly 1.1%! What's the word then to use for what happened to the Volkswagen stock?
Nah, the expression to be used would be: 'slowly eroding, culminating in a 25% decrease over the past 20 years that some observers[who?] consider significant.'
What do you mean by 'we'? I'm sure the military has more experience in warfare than 'we' therefore they know there'll be casualties. Even if religious fanatics were not inclined to use human shields which they do.
Or do you expect government communications toward 'us', with updates on next week's forecast civilian casualties? The executive branch is the government and there's a military chain of command. It's not like you and I vote on each airstrike beforehand.
Btw. not defending the major cock-up that this hospital bombing was, all I'm saying is, sure they accepted civilian casualties and also the harm to US soldiers.
It doesn't work like that. Sometimes numerous sets of codes can be alternatively describe the medical situation. From that point on it's a matter of optimization to figure out which set results in the highest reimbursement. Sometimes it's an NP-hard problem, and sometimes there are differences in the risk of rejection.
We've been probing the Moon for half a century and have no conception of how to make meaningful quantities of water there.
My mistake on the 2nd point.
Dark side of the Moon? Do you refer to the polar area where some craters don't get sunlight?
Also, you misread the GP's sentence on the balmy paradise.
Whoa whoa. Why is it that some people act rationally on a personal level, but lose reasoning power if the question is about the larger society.
If stealth is going on in my dorm room, and I suspect someone, it's possible that I can catch him in the act, or after the fact. There are known techniques, like, you know, watching, or using bills with previously recorded serial number, or marking bills with UV ink. Similarly, for other types of crime, once you have a strong suspicion, it's possible to come up with techniques that lead to proof that the crime happened, or was going to happen, had the police not stopped it (e.g. theft of marked bills is OK, but you wouldn't wait for a victim to be killed, and you could still charge the perp with attempted murder).
So it's not the logical fallacy you make it look like.
They didn't have proper internal audit for regulatory compliance. In places where they do, they build FMEA tables etc. and, if there's commercial interest is at odds with regulatory compliance, they'll entertain the possibility that they cheat. If it wasn't a known risk element to them, they had no proper risk management and it's ultimately the CEO's responsibility. My opinion isn't what it is because it's popular.
No matter what the chain of reporting is on the bottom, the CEO is on the top and thus responsible.
How is it pronounced?
In this case you may as well consider a proper SQL database instead of MySQL which was what I alluded to originally. I.e. unlike how you phrased it, I'd pick either SQL or NoSQL but I wouldn't pick MySQL by default.
> And those tips from that Enterpriseprojects.com article? Empty buzzwords. "Leverage relationships with decision-makers", "Move at the speed of trust" (Really? Really?! What does that even mean), "If it ain’t broken, consider fixing it", "Use process as business accelerator". These are copied verbatim from the article, and if this is what the best and brightest CIOs in the bunsiess have to offer us, it is small wonder that the IT profession is in such a shite state.
Exactly. Which is the very reason why they'll be übered, thoroughly, again and again.
Never heard of 'he jeeped' or 'he has jept' but for 'let's go jeeping' I found 163k hits when I Googled it.
Are you saying that MySQL is neither SQL nor noSQL?
> Wow, two years ago everyone here told us that NoSQL is evil and tried to convince us that we should stick to MySQL.
The proper alternative to NoSQL would be an SQL database, rather than the misleadingly named MySQL database.