I've heard lidar is blinded by fog. Also it needs to stop for every shopping bag blowing in the wind, and they don't seem to be able to figure out where to mount them so that they can detect everything from roof level to a few inches off the ground.
Believe it or not, I have gone into that icon view several times to find many icons on top of each other. Sometimes it looks like a big mess with everything strewn about. You can double-tap 'clean-up' and then it aligns everything in order but why Apple thought people would want it that way is beyond me.
I don't know what the NeXT-like browser mode is, but I find anything other then the icon and list views overly cumbersome. If I am in a directory, I just want to see that directory. The chance that I have a use for the parent and child directories is very low so the view with the directories in vertical strips is too bloated. And I don't like the preview view because if I want to see what is in a file I'll just open it. What I would like to do is to open a directory I have in my favorites into a new window so I can drag across, but the only option I can find is to open in a new tab which forces me to then drag the tab to open a new window in a separate movement.
I could select a block of icons, but that isn't the same as selecting a range. In the list you select the first one, hold shift, and then select the last one and it selects all in between. But 'rubberbanding' isn't the same thing because a range of icons is in a row not a block. I've used many of the Linux DMs, and in terms of file manipulation they all work in the same way, which is to basically model themselves after windows.
The touch bar isn't so great for a developer.. With most of my IDEs I need the function keys. The only way to 'force' them is to add every application you need them for, one by one. There are places in GUIs where I would have normally hit 'ESC' to exit so my hand goes to that place on the touch bar and it does nothing, which forces me to look down, and then I find there is a 'cancel' button in dead center instead of where the ESC key was. I can understand that it would probably be nicer for someone who likes to take the time to set up a photo library etc, but to me it seems quicker to just work in the finder.
I am no OSX expert, but it seems surprisingly rough in several areas. The functions you can perform in the different views of finder aren't even consistent. For example, you can select a range of files in the list view but not in the icon view. Often in icon view you are forced to scroll both horizontally and vertically to see all files since the icons don't wrap. They abandoned the standard nomenclature of 'cut/paste' for files, and instead you must 'copy/move-paste' which is difficult to find because you have to double-tap and press the option key to even see the option. Overall I can get things done ok, but it seems quite clumsy in many ways for an OS that is required on 'Pro' machines.
But that isn't public facing twitter, that just sounds like instant messaging. What is it about Twitter direct messaging that couldn't be replaced by the other hundreds of direct messaging services out there? Direct messaging is like blogging; very easy to do and everyone has it. Why couldn't these companies take an email instead of using Twitter? Is there something specific about Twitter or is it just some insistence to use what is perceived to be the coolest thing, without even bothering to make anything else work? Personally I would consider that a red flag that the company you're dealing with lacks in professionalism.
Really? I can buy that with something like Facebook, because people are relatively serious on Facebook. I don't have an account but my wife does and usually it's the only way you're getting invited to something. But Twitter? Snapchat? I have a very hard time anyone is using those for anything useful. Maybe in a humanity is going down the toilet kind of way, but not in a way that holds society together.
She'll be in the privileged princess unemployment line, where they just give you a check for a million dollars if they can't find a CEO position for you. I doubt you have access to that line.
Right, so what I'm saying is that it's not really interesting to see a computer play Go because the computer already has all the information it needs and is just a matter of doing a deep calculation on it. No different then pressing buttons on a calculator because the math in the calculator is already known. A more interesting application of AI is where it must build its cache of information about the world and make decisions based on it successfully. In fact I propose the former isn't really AI, just a hard calculation that is so complex it looks like human thinking. But because everything was already known it isn't "really" human thinking, therefore not AI.
Not that this is a good thing, but I see a silver lining. The sooner the general public realizes how stupid it is to give these companies their private information the better. Maybe then the internet can move past this phase and become more useful and less creepy.
People keep saying that car radios have bluetooth now but I have yet to see it in any vehicle I have been in. Certainly none of my vehicles have bluetooth.
they're still not quite comfortable for those of us who don't regularly wear glasses
Trust me, they're even worse for people who do regularly wear glasses... Because you have to wear double glasses. I can stand it for a couple movies a year in the theater but I don't want it in my home.
Perhaps AIs will become multi-talented or have some intuition about the world, but I believe approaches like AlphaGo will not tend to be expanded into a multipurpose AIs. AlphaGo is too much like a drag car designed to drive a 1/4 mile as fast as possible. The only way to get to a daily driver car is to scrap everything and start with a different approach.
You're looking at it the wrong way. The fact of the matter is, AlphaGo can do one thing in it's life, play Go. Make an exhaustive list of the things in life a preschooler may be capable of (identify a color, identify an animal, read a book) and quickly the preschooler looks vastly more intelligent. If a person was born that could do nothing but beat everyone at Go, they wouldn't call him/her intelligent, they would call them a 'savant'. They used to be called 'idiot savants' but, political correctness..
This just emphasizes my point. Understanding human behavior is the ultimate goal of AI. You can't 'be like' a human if you don't understand human behavior. Take for example the Google car that turned into a bus. If it understood human behavior and the world in general then it would have understood that you can't just turn in front of a 1 ton vehicle carrying people who would possibly get injured if the bus stopped suddenly.
AI won't be able to drive cars in a safe way until it understands why the humans drive the way they do, because understanding is the only thing that will make it fully compatible with human drivers on public roads and not do unexpected things. This is an impressive harnessing of powerful computation for sure but it is not real intelligence.
The service is really useful in the way that if it were a dealership that didn't care about your convenience it could be far worse, but it is still massively inconvenient when you compare to the car not breaking in the first place. Therefore I would never purchase a car that was known to be less than average reliability. My hours are all spoken for, and I don't have any to spare for the sake of my car.
I've always thought poker would be a better test for AI. Not in a card counting way, the computer would have to be forbidden from card counting since it is illegal to play the game that way. The computer instead would have to study the other players through a camera and understand what their tells are, and whether they are bluffing or not. Basically any game where the psychology of the other players matters as much as the rules of the game would be a better test.
To be fair, that doesn't matter to a lot of people. You want a car to work, period. If you have to get it fixed it's a pain in the ass, even if it's free.
Slashdot Mirror
it may refuse to start driving in such bad weather,
Is it going to go do my job for me? Because my boss won't give a shit whether my car refuses to drive me there.
I've heard lidar is blinded by fog. Also it needs to stop for every shopping bag blowing in the wind, and they don't seem to be able to figure out where to mount them so that they can detect everything from roof level to a few inches off the ground.
Believe it or not, I have gone into that icon view several times to find many icons on top of each other. Sometimes it looks like a big mess with everything strewn about. You can double-tap 'clean-up' and then it aligns everything in order but why Apple thought people would want it that way is beyond me.
I don't know what the NeXT-like browser mode is, but I find anything other then the icon and list views overly cumbersome. If I am in a directory, I just want to see that directory. The chance that I have a use for the parent and child directories is very low so the view with the directories in vertical strips is too bloated. And I don't like the preview view because if I want to see what is in a file I'll just open it. What I would like to do is to open a directory I have in my favorites into a new window so I can drag across, but the only option I can find is to open in a new tab which forces me to then drag the tab to open a new window in a separate movement.
I could select a block of icons, but that isn't the same as selecting a range. In the list you select the first one, hold shift, and then select the last one and it selects all in between. But 'rubberbanding' isn't the same thing because a range of icons is in a row not a block. I've used many of the Linux DMs, and in terms of file manipulation they all work in the same way, which is to basically model themselves after windows.
The touch bar isn't so great for a developer.. With most of my IDEs I need the function keys. The only way to 'force' them is to add every application you need them for, one by one. There are places in GUIs where I would have normally hit 'ESC' to exit so my hand goes to that place on the touch bar and it does nothing, which forces me to look down, and then I find there is a 'cancel' button in dead center instead of where the ESC key was. I can understand that it would probably be nicer for someone who likes to take the time to set up a photo library etc, but to me it seems quicker to just work in the finder.
I am no OSX expert, but it seems surprisingly rough in several areas. The functions you can perform in the different views of finder aren't even consistent. For example, you can select a range of files in the list view but not in the icon view. Often in icon view you are forced to scroll both horizontally and vertically to see all files since the icons don't wrap. They abandoned the standard nomenclature of 'cut/paste' for files, and instead you must 'copy/move-paste' which is difficult to find because you have to double-tap and press the option key to even see the option. Overall I can get things done ok, but it seems quite clumsy in many ways for an OS that is required on 'Pro' machines.
But that isn't public facing twitter, that just sounds like instant messaging. What is it about Twitter direct messaging that couldn't be replaced by the other hundreds of direct messaging services out there? Direct messaging is like blogging; very easy to do and everyone has it. Why couldn't these companies take an email instead of using Twitter? Is there something specific about Twitter or is it just some insistence to use what is perceived to be the coolest thing, without even bothering to make anything else work? Personally I would consider that a red flag that the company you're dealing with lacks in professionalism.
It won't stay that way.
Really? I can buy that with something like Facebook, because people are relatively serious on Facebook. I don't have an account but my wife does and usually it's the only way you're getting invited to something. But Twitter? Snapchat? I have a very hard time anyone is using those for anything useful. Maybe in a humanity is going down the toilet kind of way, but not in a way that holds society together.
She'll be in the privileged princess unemployment line, where they just give you a check for a million dollars if they can't find a CEO position for you. I doubt you have access to that line.
Fraud is the new business. Keep up!
Right, so what I'm saying is that it's not really interesting to see a computer play Go because the computer already has all the information it needs and is just a matter of doing a deep calculation on it. No different then pressing buttons on a calculator because the math in the calculator is already known. A more interesting application of AI is where it must build its cache of information about the world and make decisions based on it successfully. In fact I propose the former isn't really AI, just a hard calculation that is so complex it looks like human thinking. But because everything was already known it isn't "really" human thinking, therefore not AI.
Not that this is a good thing, but I see a silver lining. The sooner the general public realizes how stupid it is to give these companies their private information the better. Maybe then the internet can move past this phase and become more useful and less creepy.
Well presumably it would come with new vehicles, as FM comes with older vehicles.
I'm thinking that is very biased by commercial vehicles. Rentals, fleet vehicles, not personally owned.
Which is probably 90% of vehicles out there.
People keep saying that car radios have bluetooth now but I have yet to see it in any vehicle I have been in. Certainly none of my vehicles have bluetooth.
they're still not quite comfortable for those of us who don't regularly wear glasses
Trust me, they're even worse for people who do regularly wear glasses... Because you have to wear double glasses. I can stand it for a couple movies a year in the theater but I don't want it in my home.
Perhaps AIs will become multi-talented or have some intuition about the world, but I believe approaches like AlphaGo will not tend to be expanded into a multipurpose AIs. AlphaGo is too much like a drag car designed to drive a 1/4 mile as fast as possible. The only way to get to a daily driver car is to scrap everything and start with a different approach.
You're looking at it the wrong way. The fact of the matter is, AlphaGo can do one thing in it's life, play Go. Make an exhaustive list of the things in life a preschooler may be capable of (identify a color, identify an animal, read a book) and quickly the preschooler looks vastly more intelligent. If a person was born that could do nothing but beat everyone at Go, they wouldn't call him/her intelligent, they would call them a 'savant'. They used to be called 'idiot savants' but, political correctness..
This just emphasizes my point. Understanding human behavior is the ultimate goal of AI. You can't 'be like' a human if you don't understand human behavior. Take for example the Google car that turned into a bus. If it understood human behavior and the world in general then it would have understood that you can't just turn in front of a 1 ton vehicle carrying people who would possibly get injured if the bus stopped suddenly.
AI won't be able to drive cars in a safe way until it understands why the humans drive the way they do, because understanding is the only thing that will make it fully compatible with human drivers on public roads and not do unexpected things. This is an impressive harnessing of powerful computation for sure but it is not real intelligence.
The service is really useful in the way that if it were a dealership that didn't care about your convenience it could be far worse, but it is still massively inconvenient when you compare to the car not breaking in the first place. Therefore I would never purchase a car that was known to be less than average reliability. My hours are all spoken for, and I don't have any to spare for the sake of my car.
I've always thought poker would be a better test for AI. Not in a card counting way, the computer would have to be forbidden from card counting since it is illegal to play the game that way. The computer instead would have to study the other players through a camera and understand what their tells are, and whether they are bluffing or not. Basically any game where the psychology of the other players matters as much as the rules of the game would be a better test.
To be fair, that doesn't matter to a lot of people. You want a car to work, period. If you have to get it fixed it's a pain in the ass, even if it's free.