Seriously? 5,000 on staff for that thing? Something is seriously wrong here because I cannot imagine needing that many people for a project like this. What are all these folks doing? Certainly not just Alexa system development. What else are they doing?
What are they doing? Must be Alexa is really a Mechanical Turk!
Every time you say "Alexa,..." one of those 5000 people jumps to attention and handles your request:)
There's a reason my kids don't have smart phones, and that I keep them off FaceTwit.
I'm not going to be happy if they are legally required to go have some bimbo (paid by my tax dollars) "teach" them to use all these stupid marketing services.
"How will customers react to coming outside to get their food?"
Judging by the scary apartment building I delivered to 25 years ago or so, they'll go along with it.
... is legally special stuff, with severe penalties for misuse. (Well, unless you support Republicans or something. Then it's fine to misuse yours, "hater"!)
Anyway, yes, social media stuff is public, but data mined, finely sifted repositories of it stored in government data centers are not. I think we can make the case that they are "IRS tax data" and thus deserve the strict protections.
The next that'll happen is people who DON'T have social media will be targeted. Hell, it probably already happens but we don't know because those people can't post about it!
"Well, why don't you want to share every aspect of your life? You MUST have something to hide!" --Da Gubbamint
So use them but post occasional innocuous stuff. Oh wow, you like cats.
"Women as a group score higher on neuroticism in Schmittâ(TM)s meta-analysis, sure, but he doesnâ(TM)t buy that you can predict the population-level effects of that difference. "It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. Thatâ(TM)s a huge stretch to me)," writes Schmitt. So, yes, thatâ(TM)s the researcher Damore cites disagreeing with Damore."
That's absolute gibberish. Statistically significant differences won't manifest in large workforces?
Unless you believe either that 1. neuroticism has no negative effect in the workplace, or 2. that Google is far better at selecting less neurotic women from the general population than at selecting less neurotic men from the general population.
You can't just leave FTP servers and the like out there for the sake of nostalgia. All these resources require constant maintenance in order to keep them on-line, secure from vandals, etc. Perhaps most critically, it requires constant maintenance to keep them secure from delivering malicious content to people like the article writer.
There is also a difference between keeping content online in perpetuity, and keeping it online in the exact same way. Content worth saving (and pretty much everything else) is still available via the Wayback Machine, search engines, etc. That's why we don't need books and why we don't have to maintain decrepit technologies.
Precisely. A book can sit on a shelf, pretty much until it disintegrates or gets eaten by bugs.
A book does not need maintenance, hosting fees, and domain fees. And it doesn't need to be defended from suddenly containing porn or committing mail fraud.
We block people from scraping our clients' sites all the time, because it places excess load on the server.
We played cat and mouse with one for awhile... eventually, they emailed a generic address with our client and said they weren't going to give up, so we should just make an easy to consume feed available to them. I laid it out to the client and said they might want to consider it, but they didn't go for it.
I can't imagine a court order mandating us to allow scrapers.
Let me repeat: computers playing games is NOT AI. Computers love games. Games have strict rules and limited parameters. Computers love that. Computers excel at that. IT IS NOT AI.
Quite. A game is literally a set of rules. It's an abstraction. What's surprising is how long computers took to get good at some games, not that they did.
1) Labor savings. Since other employers are passing over women and minority employees, they will accept lower pay.
If so, that would already be happening. If other employers were "passing over" women and minority employees for no good reason, Blizzard would already be snapping them up, right? They wouldn't need a "diversity program". It would just be good business.
2) Lawsuit protection. Your diversity program can be used as a shield when sued by a women or member of a minority group. Your 80% white male actual workforce can be used as a shield when sued by a white male.
Possibly, though nothing seems to placate the SJW beast.
3) Positive PR. The number of people who like diversity programs greatly exceeds the number of people who do not. The latter is concentrated among older people in the US, who are far less likely to buy video games or let the diversity program prevent them from buying video games.
Not so sure about that. The number of people who fear saying that they don't like such programs is large, sure. Not sure that translates into video game sales.
As for "older", it sometimes results in "wiser", despite the strenuous efforts to the contrary. Not every 23 today will believe the same things about this stuff when they are 33.
If they guy really believes what he wrote, why doesn't he put his "gender-based superiority" to the test and just go start his own tech biz filled with guys who think like him and make bazillions consulting to all those mature companies he says want guys like him, instead of working for Google?
Google already did. Now that they are huge and rich, they can dabble in this nonsense.
Why is your conclusion, with a sample size of two, that men and women prefer different things rather than you and your wife, as two different people, prefer different things. That is pretty much the textbook definition of prejudice.
Or it could be that he has eyes, and looks at the rest of the world too. Or at BLS statistics (like how certain jobs are dominated by one gender or the other).
The point being, if Facebook was so concerned about their site being used to propagate false news, where the hell are the "alternate articles" calling this a hoax? If you google "call 112 instead of 911" the first 20 or so hits are articles pleading with you to not fall for this.
I mean WTF, Facebook? Is debunking some story about Ivanka's charities more important than calling the wrong emergency services number in an emergency?
Yes, it is more important to Facebook... which is why I don't trust them on this.
It may not have been a "hack", but SOMETHING definitely happened....
Something happened all right.
The recount was stopped because it wasn't showing the desired result (cheating on behalf of Trump) but rather the opposite (cheating on behalf of Dems).
Living out in the sticks generally means lower land prices, but most other things are more expensive because you're further away. Let people figure out their own trade-offs.
Fine by me, as long as it goes both ways. California has "great weather"? Enjoy it, but keep your hands off our water then.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously? 5,000 on staff for that thing? Something is seriously wrong here because I cannot imagine needing that many people for a project like this. What are all these folks doing? Certainly not just Alexa system development. What else are they doing?
What are they doing? Must be Alexa is really a Mechanical Turk!
Every time you say "Alexa, ..." one of those 5000 people jumps to attention and handles your request :)
The ads helped him get elected. He wouldn't have become president without those ads.
See, that there is the hand waving part. Evidence needed.
Alexa: Pick me!
Google: Pick me!
Siri: Pick me!
There's a reason my kids don't have smart phones, and that I keep them off FaceTwit.
I'm not going to be happy if they are legally required to go have some bimbo (paid by my tax dollars) "teach" them to use all these stupid marketing services.
"How will customers react to coming outside to get their food?" Judging by the scary apartment building I delivered to 25 years ago or so, they'll go along with it.
... is legally special stuff, with severe penalties for misuse. (Well, unless you support Republicans or something. Then it's fine to misuse yours, "hater"!)
Anyway, yes, social media stuff is public, but data mined, finely sifted repositories of it stored in government data centers are not. I think we can make the case that they are "IRS tax data" and thus deserve the strict protections.
The next that'll happen is people who DON'T have social media will be targeted. Hell, it probably already happens but we don't know because those people can't post about it!
"Well, why don't you want to share every aspect of your life? You MUST have something to hide!" --Da Gubbamint
So use them but post occasional innocuous stuff. Oh wow, you like cats.
So ... now Facebook wants me to pay them to promote their biases to me as "news"?
WTF? And they say US care is bad?
One of my kids needed an ENT last year and was seen the same day
Shh ... it's an article of faith for them that US care is awful and Euro care is awesome.
"Women as a group score higher on neuroticism in Schmittâ(TM)s meta-analysis, sure, but he doesnâ(TM)t buy that you can predict the population-level effects of that difference. "It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. Thatâ(TM)s a huge stretch to me)," writes Schmitt. So, yes, thatâ(TM)s the researcher Damore cites disagreeing with Damore."
That's absolute gibberish. Statistically significant differences won't manifest in large workforces?
Unless you believe either that 1. neuroticism has no negative effect in the workplace, or 2. that Google is far better at selecting less neurotic women from the general population than at selecting less neurotic men from the general population.
This is a week old account which has only posted on topics about the Google memo. Most of the posts appear to be badly copy/pasted.
I tried to read it but it's an impenetrable wall of text.
There you go, with your male lack of empathy! You are going to bring on the Terminators!
Seriously, that's your motto, "crashes 39% less!"?
The gym membership model .... well, it works for gyms. We'll see.
You can't just leave FTP servers and the like out there for the sake of nostalgia. All these resources require constant maintenance in order to keep them on-line, secure from vandals, etc. Perhaps most critically, it requires constant maintenance to keep them secure from delivering malicious content to people like the article writer.
There is also a difference between keeping content online in perpetuity, and keeping it online in the exact same way. Content worth saving (and pretty much everything else) is still available via the Wayback Machine, search engines, etc. That's why we don't need books and why we don't have to maintain decrepit technologies.
Precisely. A book can sit on a shelf, pretty much until it disintegrates or gets eaten by bugs.
A book does not need maintenance, hosting fees, and domain fees. And it doesn't need to be defended from suddenly containing porn or committing mail fraud.
I mean, the person who did that got into some trouble, so I heard.
No, she didn't. You heard wrong. She was of the approved class, and can do no wrong.
We block people from scraping our clients' sites all the time, because it places excess load on the server.
We played cat and mouse with one for awhile ... eventually, they emailed a generic address with our client and said they weren't going to give up, so we should just make an easy to consume feed available to them. I laid it out to the client and said they might want to consider it, but they didn't go for it.
I can't imagine a court order mandating us to allow scrapers.
Let me repeat: computers playing games is NOT AI. Computers love games. Games have strict rules and limited parameters. Computers love that. Computers excel at that. IT IS NOT AI.
Quite. A game is literally a set of rules. It's an abstraction. What's surprising is how long computers took to get good at some games, not that they did.
1) Labor savings. Since other employers are passing over women and minority employees, they will accept lower pay.
If so, that would already be happening. If other employers were "passing over" women and minority employees for no good reason, Blizzard would already be snapping them up, right? They wouldn't need a "diversity program". It would just be good business.
2) Lawsuit protection. Your diversity program can be used as a shield when sued by a women or member of a minority group. Your 80% white male actual workforce can be used as a shield when sued by a white male.
Possibly, though nothing seems to placate the SJW beast.
3) Positive PR. The number of people who like diversity programs greatly exceeds the number of people who do not. The latter is concentrated among older people in the US, who are far less likely to buy video games or let the diversity program prevent them from buying video games.
Not so sure about that. The number of people who fear saying that they don't like such programs is large, sure. Not sure that translates into video game sales.
As for "older", it sometimes results in "wiser", despite the strenuous efforts to the contrary. Not every 23 today will believe the same things about this stuff when they are 33.
If they guy really believes what he wrote, why doesn't he put his "gender-based superiority" to the test and just go start his own tech biz filled with guys who think like him and make bazillions consulting to all those mature companies he says want guys like him, instead of working for Google?
Google already did. Now that they are huge and rich, they can dabble in this nonsense.
Why is your conclusion, with a sample size of two, that men and women prefer different things rather than you and your wife, as two different people, prefer different things. That is pretty much the textbook definition of prejudice.
Or it could be that he has eyes, and looks at the rest of the world too. Or at BLS statistics (like how certain jobs are dominated by one gender or the other).
The point being, if Facebook was so concerned about their site being used to propagate false news, where the hell are the "alternate articles" calling this a hoax? If you google "call 112 instead of 911" the first 20 or so hits are articles pleading with you to not fall for this.
I mean WTF, Facebook? Is debunking some story about Ivanka's charities more important than calling the wrong emergency services number in an emergency?
Yes, it is more important to Facebook ... which is why I don't trust them on this.
Can't we just get rid of Massachusetts instead?
Now yer talkin'! Why can't more people think outside the box like you? The solution was right there, embedded in the problem!
Cue the usual ... "every generation says that!" ... in other words, don't question my vices :)
I'm very glad that my kids don't have Internet connected pocket computers. For all sorts of reasons.
(And screen time was a concern before smartphones and tablets. And it should remain a concern. )
It may not have been a "hack", but SOMETHING definitely happened....
Something happened all right.
The recount was stopped because it wasn't showing the desired result (cheating on behalf of Trump) but rather the opposite (cheating on behalf of Dems).
Living out in the sticks generally means lower land prices, but most other things are more expensive because you're further away. Let people figure out their own trade-offs.
Fine by me, as long as it goes both ways. California has "great weather"? Enjoy it, but keep your hands off our water then.