It's one of many studies. Do the searching and read up please. You are forcing an interpretation that matches your incorrect perception, not the actual facts.
I understand it's counter-intuitive, but more roads and lanes leads to more traffic congestion, not less. The primary reason is because more road capacity encourages people to increase the number of trips they make and to do so in a car instead of other modes of transportation, thereby negating the very short term capacity surplus that was introduced.
You obviously have people taste things and provide data entry, then refine with more tasting inputs as the system progresses. The whole premise of a neural network is that the more iterations you provide the better it gets. Stop being intentionally obtuse.
If you wrap a neural network around it for machine learning, yes.
The grandparent post was complaining that taste was too subjective to compute. Which is false. Whether or not everything billed as "AI" meets the various definitions of AI is an entirely different discussion.
I built a hobby app a few years ago for scotch tasting. If you have people rate things they like using an N-dimensional scale (my taste profile mechanism had 8 characteristics) then you can programmatically do comparisons against a database of records to find likely matches based on the characteristics that you liked or didn't like. With enough individual user feedback it can easily get granular enough to provide personalized recommendations. The aggregated data of what people like and don't like can be used to predict whether new combinations will be popular or not.
This is exactly what Netflix does with its recommendation engine for shows. Why would flavors be any different? The hardest part is building a system for defining and capturing flavors and there's several classification systems out there already that you can use to bootstrap that.
Basically they hash your passwords locally, and compare the first few characters of the hash against the hashes in the database. If there are possible matches the full hashes are downloaded to your browser for further comparison.
Your full plaintext password and full hashed password are never set to Google.
There's a nice diagram on the blog post that explains everything at a fairly deep level.
Back in the first internet boom (when we wore onions on our belts since it was the style at the time) a startup registered the 20,000 most common US surnames as.com domains. They were selling email accounts. In the inevitable bankruptcy the whole thing was sold to Tucows.
Would those agreements still be made if streaming services, like Netflix, didn't exist? If so then it is a moot point.
Yes, that is how traffic is and always has been metered between networks.
How many other streaming/information services does the ISP have to house?
None. Netflix traffic constitutes much of the ISP's usage, so Netflix offered a way for the ISP to reduce their costs. Netflix received no direct benefit here other than improved customer satisfaction from better latency. ISPs setup similar arrangements with other companies all the time. This is how CDNs work.
Why is Netflix able to dictate the business of a different company?
They aren't dictating anything. How do you possibly come to that conclusion?
Besides, just because it is cost effective doesn't mean that an ISP has to do whatever Netflix demands.
You have a warped perspective. Netflix didn't demand anything, they volunteered a way for the ISP to cut costs. They receive no money from the consumer ISP and have no direct business with the consumer ISP. Netflix offered a way for the consumer ISPs to reduce their costs by aggregating and reducing the amount of Netflix traffic on their network. Some took them up on it. Comcast however decided to explicitly throttle Netflix traffic on their network instead, because online streaming is a threat to legacy cable TV. The reports were made public and there are countless articles about it if you do a few minutes of research instead of blindly spouting off whatever nonsense comes to your head.
This has nothing to do with bandwidth, and everything to do with the total amount of traffic on a network (bandwidth is simultaneous capacity, not total volume over a period, which is how all the peering agreements are structured).
Yes, the lopsided peering agreements cost the ISPs far far more than the electricity costs for a couple of rack mounted boxes. Consumer ISPs generally have much more download traffic than upload traffic, and so they end up paying the backbone providers rather than the other way around.
How is it "favorable treatment" on the ISP's side to reduce the ISP's costs? The ISP didn't initiate it, and the ISP isn't the one making the offer, Netflix is.
CDN providers make similar arrangements to get their boxes inside ISPs' networks to improve latency to customers and reduce the ISPs' costs. Comcast singled out Netflix because it's a threat to their legacy business model.
The ISP doesnâ(TM)t connect directly to Netflix and has no financial arrangement with Netflix. The ISP pays their backbone provider for the unbalanced data coming into the ISPâ(TM)s network. Netflix offered free caching servers so the ISPs could reduce their bandwidth on the backbone and peering agreements, directly reducing their costs. Why wouldnâ(TM)t they take it? Oh, right, because online video services are a threat to the legacy cable TV goose that is reaching menopause and no longer laying golden eggs.
The TGV cars donâ(TM)t meet antiquated US safety standards that require cars to be heavy steel cages instead of modern safety engineering ideas like crumple zones.
The regulations got updated, opening the doors for importing trains, but Trump blocked it until this past week because it was an Obama administration policy change.
Trolling? I currently have an X and a 7. Have had a 6, 5, 4s, and 3GS. Not a single one has taken more than 30m to charge from empty to full with any of the chargers they came with. Either youâ(TM)re charging off a computer USB port or you are using a 3rd party transformer with lower power.
Because Alexander Hamilton explicitly says so in the Federalist Papers? The process and arguments that resulted in the Constitution isnâ(TM)t lost to the mists of time.
"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union"
Yes, because there's existing laws that cover that scenario. Those laws specifically cover "motor vehicles" and probably even make different scenarios for different types of rental vehicles (commercial trucks vs cars, fleets vs. rentals, in-state vs. out-of-state, etc.).
Bikes and scooters are new transportation vehicle types not covered under existing laws. Hence why towns are having to work through the process of dealing with them.
That requires a policy or legislative change. In most jurisdictions they have internal rules that require them to go through public input and review processes to ensure they aren't singling people or companies out.
Can they do it? Yes. But it will take some time. Hence why you're hearing about it as they start the processes.
I think you've hit on the problem, but missed that the current status leaves governments unable to take action. The governments can (currently) legally target the users, since the laws were written with individual owners of individual bikes or scooters. The governments cannot target the companies, or even require that the companies provide data about their customers or pass through fines through to the customers without changes to the laws.
Hence why you're going to continue seeing stories like this as governments go through the inherently slow process of revising policies and regulations.
Wow - personal attacks because I try to be helpful and provide you materials to learn from? And name calling? Who's the fool?
You've completely blown things out of proportion.
Again, I NEVER used an appeal to authority. If I did, I would have laid out my experience and my company's work up front... like you did in your last dismissive claim.
I've only tried to give you the tools to learn, teach yourself, and break some misconceptions that you've expressed as fact. What you do with those is up to you.
And my company also goes on speaking tours (in fact, I'm speaking at a conference next month on the subject). We also do a LOT of work in this space and are currently transforming culture and operations at several major global banks. So yes, we know the financial space (in addition to all the other industries we service). We're also a major Microsoft partner (our CEO and Satya Nadella make global announcements together). Get off your fixation on appeals to authority.
I'm not giving you examples to discredit your company or work that you've done. I'm giving you examples so you can further your own understanding and clear some misconceptions. There's a lot of misunderstanding around DevOps, and that's largely because the founders have done a poor job of defining it.
Either the article writer didn't understand the whitepaper, or the researchers haven't actually done anything novel.
Having been trained, the network then uses a standard search tree to hunt for suggested moves for each configuration.
This works because the beginning state and end state of a Rubik's Cube are effectively identical. It's the same number of tiles, in a specific arrangement. As humans, we've defined the "solved" state to be all the tiles color-matched to a side. But the "solved" state could just as arbitrarily be any pattern or arrangement of colors across the cube.
Reversing the simulation to work backwards from the "solved" to some specific state of scrambled is exactly the same problem as starting from some specific state of scrambled and trying to get to the solved.
Slashdot Mirror
I gave you a link with proof, and a google search reveals many more similar studies (this is an area I someone actively maintain an interest in).
You are the one who needs to prove their unsupported claim at this point.
It's one of many studies. Do the searching and read up please. You are forcing an interpretation that matches your incorrect perception, not the actual facts.
I understand it's counter-intuitive, but more roads and lanes leads to more traffic congestion, not less. The primary reason is because more road capacity encourages people to increase the number of trips they make and to do so in a car instead of other modes of transportation, thereby negating the very short term capacity surplus that was introduced.
First hit on Google - plenty of supporting information and real science out there if you are actually interested:
https://usa.streetsblog.org/20...
You obviously have people taste things and provide data entry, then refine with more tasting inputs as the system progresses. The whole premise of a neural network is that the more iterations you provide the better it gets. Stop being intentionally obtuse.
If you wrap a neural network around it for machine learning, yes.
The grandparent post was complaining that taste was too subjective to compute. Which is false. Whether or not everything billed as "AI" meets the various definitions of AI is an entirely different discussion.
I built a hobby app a few years ago for scotch tasting. If you have people rate things they like using an N-dimensional scale (my taste profile mechanism had 8 characteristics) then you can programmatically do comparisons against a database of records to find likely matches based on the characteristics that you liked or didn't like. With enough individual user feedback it can easily get granular enough to provide personalized recommendations. The aggregated data of what people like and don't like can be used to predict whether new combinations will be popular or not.
This is exactly what Netflix does with its recommendation engine for shows. Why would flavors be any different? The hardest part is building a system for defining and capturing flavors and there's several classification systems out there already that you can use to bootstrap that.
You could read the article or the original blog post:
https://security.googleblog.co...
Basically they hash your passwords locally, and compare the first few characters of the hash against the hashes in the database. If there are possible matches the full hashes are downloaded to your browser for further comparison.
Your full plaintext password and full hashed password are never set to Google.
There's a nice diagram on the blog post that explains everything at a fairly deep level.
That's exactly what they're doing. If your site craps out under this mode, you'll be pressured to fix it.
You donâ(TM)t know what youâ(TM)re talking about. Chromium (Chrome, Opera, and soon Edge) uses Blink which forked from WebKit almost 6 years ago.
BTW, they aren't offering to let you rent your surname domain. They're offering you a single email address @ your surname domain for $35/year.
Back in the first internet boom (when we wore onions on our belts since it was the style at the time) a startup registered the 20,000 most common US surnames as .com domains. They were selling email accounts. In the inevitable bankruptcy the whole thing was sold to Tucows.
Yes, that is how traffic is and always has been metered between networks.
None. Netflix traffic constitutes much of the ISP's usage, so Netflix offered a way for the ISP to reduce their costs. Netflix received no direct benefit here other than improved customer satisfaction from better latency. ISPs setup similar arrangements with other companies all the time. This is how CDNs work.
They aren't dictating anything. How do you possibly come to that conclusion?
You have a warped perspective. Netflix didn't demand anything, they volunteered a way for the ISP to cut costs. They receive no money from the consumer ISP and have no direct business with the consumer ISP. Netflix offered a way for the consumer ISPs to reduce their costs by aggregating and reducing the amount of Netflix traffic on their network. Some took them up on it. Comcast however decided to explicitly throttle Netflix traffic on their network instead, because online streaming is a threat to legacy cable TV. The reports were made public and there are countless articles about it if you do a few minutes of research instead of blindly spouting off whatever nonsense comes to your head.
This has nothing to do with bandwidth, and everything to do with the total amount of traffic on a network (bandwidth is simultaneous capacity, not total volume over a period, which is how all the peering agreements are structured).
Yes, the lopsided peering agreements cost the ISPs far far more than the electricity costs for a couple of rack mounted boxes. Consumer ISPs generally have much more download traffic than upload traffic, and so they end up paying the backbone providers rather than the other way around.
How is it "favorable treatment" on the ISP's side to reduce the ISP's costs? The ISP didn't initiate it, and the ISP isn't the one making the offer, Netflix is.
CDN providers make similar arrangements to get their boxes inside ISPs' networks to improve latency to customers and reduce the ISPs' costs. Comcast singled out Netflix because it's a threat to their legacy business model.
The ISP doesnâ(TM)t connect directly to Netflix and has no financial arrangement with Netflix. The ISP pays their backbone provider for the unbalanced data coming into the ISPâ(TM)s network. Netflix offered free caching servers so the ISPs could reduce their bandwidth on the backbone and peering agreements, directly reducing their costs. Why wouldnâ(TM)t they take it? Oh, right, because online video services are a threat to the legacy cable TV goose that is reaching menopause and no longer laying golden eggs.
The TGV cars donâ(TM)t meet antiquated US safety standards that require cars to be heavy steel cages instead of modern safety engineering ideas like crumple zones.
The regulations got updated, opening the doors for importing trains, but Trump blocked it until this past week because it was an Obama administration policy change.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/20...
Bold experiment at least 70 years old. I grew up in the 80s with one of these in the house:
https://www.amazon.com/Christi...
I'm sure there's examples going back to the middle ages and probably even ancient Greece if they survived that long.
Trolling? I currently have an X and a 7. Have had a 6, 5, 4s, and 3GS. Not a single one has taken more than 30m to charge from empty to full with any of the chargers they came with. Either youâ(TM)re charging off a computer USB port or you are using a 3rd party transformer with lower power.
Because Alexander Hamilton explicitly says so in the Federalist Papers? The process and arguments that resulted in the Constitution isnâ(TM)t lost to the mists of time.
Read it yourself, it isnâ(TM)t long:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18t...
See my other comments in this thread. The Hertz scenario is covered by existing laws and regulations. Scooters are not.
Yes, because there's existing laws that cover that scenario. Those laws specifically cover "motor vehicles" and probably even make different scenarios for different types of rental vehicles (commercial trucks vs cars, fleets vs. rentals, in-state vs. out-of-state, etc.).
Bikes and scooters are new transportation vehicle types not covered under existing laws. Hence why towns are having to work through the process of dealing with them.
That requires a policy or legislative change. In most jurisdictions they have internal rules that require them to go through public input and review processes to ensure they aren't singling people or companies out.
Can they do it? Yes. But it will take some time. Hence why you're hearing about it as they start the processes.
I think you've hit on the problem, but missed that the current status leaves governments unable to take action. The governments can (currently) legally target the users, since the laws were written with individual owners of individual bikes or scooters. The governments cannot target the companies, or even require that the companies provide data about their customers or pass through fines through to the customers without changes to the laws.
Hence why you're going to continue seeing stories like this as governments go through the inherently slow process of revising policies and regulations.
Wow - personal attacks because I try to be helpful and provide you materials to learn from? And name calling? Who's the fool?
You've completely blown things out of proportion.
Again, I NEVER used an appeal to authority. If I did, I would have laid out my experience and my company's work up front... like you did in your last dismissive claim.
I've only tried to give you the tools to learn, teach yourself, and break some misconceptions that you've expressed as fact. What you do with those is up to you.
And my company also goes on speaking tours (in fact, I'm speaking at a conference next month on the subject). We also do a LOT of work in this space and are currently transforming culture and operations at several major global banks. So yes, we know the financial space (in addition to all the other industries we service). We're also a major Microsoft partner (our CEO and Satya Nadella make global announcements together). Get off your fixation on appeals to authority.
I'm not giving you examples to discredit your company or work that you've done. I'm giving you examples so you can further your own understanding and clear some misconceptions. There's a lot of misunderstanding around DevOps, and that's largely because the founders have done a poor job of defining it.
Either the article writer didn't understand the whitepaper, or the researchers haven't actually done anything novel.
This works because the beginning state and end state of a Rubik's Cube are effectively identical. It's the same number of tiles, in a specific arrangement. As humans, we've defined the "solved" state to be all the tiles color-matched to a side. But the "solved" state could just as arbitrarily be any pattern or arrangement of colors across the cube.
Reversing the simulation to work backwards from the "solved" to some specific state of scrambled is exactly the same problem as starting from some specific state of scrambled and trying to get to the solved.