I'd like to see a computer win consistently at poker, assuming it is forced to play by the rules such as not being able to count cards. Unless you do something like count cards or use a system, which is technically also illegal, it is a lot about reading the other players.
Right.. AI to me is actually understanding what is going on in the human player's head. That's why I think winning at poker would be a more difficult problem. As long as the computer was prevented from counting cards, since a human cannot count cards.
Ok, I thought it was just about calculating as far as you can and then heading towards a grouping of board positions that look the strongest taking into account the probability of being able to reach those positions. Then repeating until the game is over.
I know quite a few military families, and I can't say their kids ended up better off in any fashion. A lot of the military families I know have kids at starting a career age and they don't seem to be branching out into careers that are spectacular in any way. I think it depends a lot on the kid and the ease with which they fit in after going to a new place. The kids of the last military family I was with were wallflowers. They played video games in their basement pretty much the whole time we knew them. Some it helps and some it hurts, it comes down to confidence. Personally I can say it would have destroyed me as a kid, but my kids are a lot more confident then I ever was. I say sports will benefit my kids, just because there are studies that prove being physically fit as a child carries with you into life, and being happy and healthy should be what life is ultimately about no matter what you do for a living. That's why I ask myself if any career move would make my family happier overall and I haven't found that yet. Getting back to the point of the original article, I was just suggesting that companies should be looking at the kind of life they are affording for their employees. The ones that give a better life overall will be the ones that are able to retain them.
Is it really that amazing that a computer could be better at a game that has so many possible moves that it defies the human mind, but one that can be calculated entirely? Really it was all a matter of having enough capacity for the calculations. More impressive would be a computer consistently winning a game where a high degree of human psychology factors into the success of it.
I wouldn't call it sitting on my arse. I'd call it waiting for a deal that makes sense. Frequently in matters of commercialism, inaction is as much of a statement as any.
I rate job quality by salary, benefits, quality of work; but I must also consider the quality of life it gives me, through proximity to family, travel time, cost of living, and remaining personal time. While it is hard to place a value on proximity to family, it is important to I feel. My kids are in a lot of extra curricular sports, which they enjoy and which will benefit them for the rest of their lives. The schedule only works out because we live in a place where we are close to everything, and my parents are willing to help out from time to time. To replace that would be thousands of dollars, not to mention the fact that we would have to use a stranger instead of someone we trust. So you can bet that I am taking that into account when I look for another job. Quickly a job for twice the salary as I have now doesn't look that great. Compound that with the fact that, so far, jobs at twice the salary seem to be in places where I must live an hour or more away from work which would make things even more difficult. Suddenly that adds more to the cost and complexity to obtain the same quality of life that I have where I am.
In fact, as I write all of this, I wonder if these companies are having trouble retaining people because the people that come to them are willing to sacrifice everything for a salary. It is no wonder that they leave at the drop of a hat.
So some people are willing to settle, and some aren't. Perhaps if more people were willing to fight for what was important to them, this world would be a bit better place.
What? That they value other factors in life, such as proximity to family and overall quality of life, as highly if not higher than they value their corporate overlords? I fail to see how that is a problem.
I was never suggesting that a job should make allowances for me. I was suggesting that a solution for their problem would be to make greater allowances in recruiting people. Big difference. They are the ones complaining (constantly) and I am recommending a solution. That's all.
If that's what they want, then fine. I'm just getting tired of companies that don't funnel adequate resources to sustaining themselves and then complain about how hard they have it.
You misunderstand what I mean by loyal. By loyal, I mean that I look for a job once that I feel meets the needs of myself and my family, and then I go work there. Some people I have known constantly have their ear to the ground, never appreciating the job they have and always looking to move on, always moving around, always looking for that better money. I am not one of these people. I would rather just do my work, get paid fairly for it, and then get on with my life. It takes quite a bit of coaxing for me to come out and apply for another job. If companies aren't willing to go the extra mile in recruiting and are not reaching people like me, how can they ever expect to be building a loyal employee base?
And currently I wouldn't say I have a problem, I would just be a fool to think that things couldn't be better. If I had a problem, then maybe I would be looking to move.
Suspend your disbelief for a moment, and trust that I'm a highly qualified developer, the type these places would love to have. Why should I move? I'm being made reasonably happy where I am right now but could be made happier. The problem these companies have is finding loyal people, shouldn't they be looking for solutions to that problem? Is it so inconceivable that one of those solutions could be to find people like me in various places; places that may actually work for them in the end because I won't need the salary that someone local would?
Ok but if high turnover is what they want, why do they constantly complain about how hard it is to retain employees? Then they should just funnel a large amount of money into their recruitment tactics and get on with life.
Slashdot Mirror
At a certain point, a career ladder isn't worth the sacrifices you need to make to participate in it.
How large is your family? How many dependents are you able to support?
Just out of interest, how many people doing that long commute have families? You know, with kids.
Sometimes the only correct move is not to play.
Why get a job there is there are so many better places to live?
I'd like to see a computer win consistently at poker, assuming it is forced to play by the rules such as not being able to count cards. Unless you do something like count cards or use a system, which is technically also illegal, it is a lot about reading the other players.
Right.. AI to me is actually understanding what is going on in the human player's head. That's why I think winning at poker would be a more difficult problem. As long as the computer was prevented from counting cards, since a human cannot count cards.
Ok, I thought it was just about calculating as far as you can and then heading towards a grouping of board positions that look the strongest taking into account the probability of being able to reach those positions. Then repeating until the game is over.
I know quite a few military families, and I can't say their kids ended up better off in any fashion. A lot of the military families I know have kids at starting a career age and they don't seem to be branching out into careers that are spectacular in any way. I think it depends a lot on the kid and the ease with which they fit in after going to a new place. The kids of the last military family I was with were wallflowers. They played video games in their basement pretty much the whole time we knew them. Some it helps and some it hurts, it comes down to confidence. Personally I can say it would have destroyed me as a kid, but my kids are a lot more confident then I ever was. I say sports will benefit my kids, just because there are studies that prove being physically fit as a child carries with you into life, and being happy and healthy should be what life is ultimately about no matter what you do for a living. That's why I ask myself if any career move would make my family happier overall and I haven't found that yet. Getting back to the point of the original article, I was just suggesting that companies should be looking at the kind of life they are affording for their employees. The ones that give a better life overall will be the ones that are able to retain them.
Yet they seem to be calculating enough for it to become obvious what the best chance is for a win.
Is it really that amazing that a computer could be better at a game that has so many possible moves that it defies the human mind, but one that can be calculated entirely? Really it was all a matter of having enough capacity for the calculations. More impressive would be a computer consistently winning a game where a high degree of human psychology factors into the success of it.
I wouldn't call it sitting on my arse. I'd call it waiting for a deal that makes sense. Frequently in matters of commercialism, inaction is as much of a statement as any.
I rate job quality by salary, benefits, quality of work; but I must also consider the quality of life it gives me, through proximity to family, travel time, cost of living, and remaining personal time. While it is hard to place a value on proximity to family, it is important to I feel. My kids are in a lot of extra curricular sports, which they enjoy and which will benefit them for the rest of their lives. The schedule only works out because we live in a place where we are close to everything, and my parents are willing to help out from time to time. To replace that would be thousands of dollars, not to mention the fact that we would have to use a stranger instead of someone we trust. So you can bet that I am taking that into account when I look for another job. Quickly a job for twice the salary as I have now doesn't look that great. Compound that with the fact that, so far, jobs at twice the salary seem to be in places where I must live an hour or more away from work which would make things even more difficult. Suddenly that adds more to the cost and complexity to obtain the same quality of life that I have where I am.
In fact, as I write all of this, I wonder if these companies are having trouble retaining people because the people that come to them are willing to sacrifice everything for a salary. It is no wonder that they leave at the drop of a hat.
.. or if you want a decent OS.
So some people are willing to settle, and some aren't. Perhaps if more people were willing to fight for what was important to them, this world would be a bit better place.
What? That they value other factors in life, such as proximity to family and overall quality of life, as highly if not higher than they value their corporate overlords? I fail to see how that is a problem.
I was never suggesting that a job should make allowances for me. I was suggesting that a solution for their problem would be to make greater allowances in recruiting people. Big difference. They are the ones complaining (constantly) and I am recommending a solution. That's all.
I wasnt aware 'Paint a turd with gold paint and glitter' was a metaphor!
Yes I know it is 'to'. Stupid autocorrect.
In that case I would have to question the logic of using a turd in the first place, if the end result was too have it totally obscured.
The C-level officers are probably just trying to satisfy the shareholders who expect more profit every year. Consistent growth is not realistic.
If that's what they want, then fine. I'm just getting tired of companies that don't funnel adequate resources to sustaining themselves and then complain about how hard they have it.
Actually, Mythbusters was able to polish a turd with some degree of success.
You misunderstand what I mean by loyal. By loyal, I mean that I look for a job once that I feel meets the needs of myself and my family, and then I go work there. Some people I have known constantly have their ear to the ground, never appreciating the job they have and always looking to move on, always moving around, always looking for that better money. I am not one of these people. I would rather just do my work, get paid fairly for it, and then get on with my life. It takes quite a bit of coaxing for me to come out and apply for another job. If companies aren't willing to go the extra mile in recruiting and are not reaching people like me, how can they ever expect to be building a loyal employee base?
And currently I wouldn't say I have a problem, I would just be a fool to think that things couldn't be better. If I had a problem, then maybe I would be looking to move.
Suspend your disbelief for a moment, and trust that I'm a highly qualified developer, the type these places would love to have. Why should I move? I'm being made reasonably happy where I am right now but could be made happier. The problem these companies have is finding loyal people, shouldn't they be looking for solutions to that problem? Is it so inconceivable that one of those solutions could be to find people like me in various places; places that may actually work for them in the end because I won't need the salary that someone local would?
Ok but if high turnover is what they want, why do they constantly complain about how hard it is to retain employees? Then they should just funnel a large amount of money into their recruitment tactics and get on with life.