Of course, I did know that. I read Slashdot. But I haven't heard a single word from Google about it. Not an email, not a notification, nothing. If it were up to them, I'd have no idea. I bet a lot of G+ users still don't know it's shutting down. Can't Google bother to even tell its users when it's going to shut down a service they use?
Headlines that say "New finding shocks scientists" are almost always clickbait written by reporters who don't know what they're talking about. Scientists are rarely very surprised by their results. You don't know in advance what the result will be, but it usually is somewhere in the range where you thought it might be. Truly surprising results are rare. But when they do happen, they of course get a lot of press.
I don't see how this is any different from some people paying more to get a faster internet connection. You personally pay so that you personally get faster access. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's different from someone else having to pay so that you will get faster access. That's what causes the potential for abuse.
Now, if Bittorrent started saying you have to pay more to get faster access, except for their "sponsored torrents" that give full speed even without paying, that would be a problem.
5G is supposed to be capable of 4 Gb/sec, but let's assume you won't really get anything close to that. 1 Gb/sec is probably more realistic. At that speed, you'll need 8 seconds to transfer 1 GB, 120 seconds to transfer 15 GB. So yeah, not even 3 minutes.
That makes this absurd. The only advantage of 5G is its speed. Then they set a data cap so low the service is useless if you actually try to use that speed.
This is exactly why we need net neutrality. ISP with an agenda decides to mess with its customers' internet access, interfere with their ability to view certain web sites, and force political statements to appear on their computers. Anyone who tells you we don't need net neutrality, point to this as exhibit number one.
And of course, it's right there in the open source definition. Item 6 is, "no discrimination against fields of endeavor". The definitions of "free software" and "open source" are practically identical, and what these people are doing doesn't meet either one.
Whitespace is significant in lots of languages. Python is just one of the few that handles it in a logical, consistent way. Here are some examples of places where whitespace is significant in C++.
You can't put a line break in the middle of a string literal.// comments are terminated by a line break.
Preprocessor commands are terminated by a line break. If you want them to take multiple lines you need to end with a special continuation character. Unlikely most other parts of the language that terminate lines with semicolons and ignore line breaks.
There are some really weird places where you have to add whitespace or it won't be parsed correctly. For example, vector >. Notice the space between then two >'s? Without that it will parse it as a >> operator and fail to compile.
By the way, you forgot one of the classic examples of a language with significant whitespace: old style Fortran. Every line had to start with a specific number of spaces, and characters in particular columns had special meaning. That was not a good idea. Python does it well.
Only if you only look at Intel processors. Current ARM processors blow away the ones from five years ago. Same with GPUs from AMD and NVIDIA. AMD's current x86 processors are also way faster than their ones from five years ago. It's just Intel that's falling behind.
If you give readers a better experience, in the long run that should boost traffic to your site. But that takes time, and you can't see it in an A/B test. A fast loading story might make people more likely to come back and read more stories, but the next one they read is just as likely to be an old style slow loading one.
What they really showed is that bivalves have found a survival strategy that doesn't need much energy. Hard shell to protect you from most predators, so you don't need to worry about running away. Filter feeding, so you don't need to chase prey. There's a nice ecological niche, and they're filling it well. That strategy would work badly for a lion or gazelle. They've found different survival strategies that also work, but only if you have a faster metabolism,
That's different in several ways. First that's a hand coded AI. The developers spent a lot of time coding rules for how it should work. No one coded any rules for the Dota 2 agent. They just let it play the game millions of times and figure out for itself what worked. Second even a weak AI can beat a novice player. I bet experts have no trouble beating it. The Dota 2 agent beat a team of elite players. Most of them were former professional players. Third the AIs built into games often cheat. I don't know if the Starcraft one does, but developers often have to do that to make it challenging to play against. For example it might have access to more information than a human does.
Here are some ways Dota 2 is more complicated than other games computers have beat humans at. At each step it chooses from about a thousand actions (compared to 18 max for Atari games, around 20 average for chess, or around 200 average for go). A game lasts tens of thousands of steps (compared to a few dozen for chess). It requires long term strategy (unlike most video games computers have played). It has incomplete information (you don't know everything that's happening). Even the visible state is tens of thousands of numbers (compared to 6 numbers for Pong, 64 numbers for chess, or around 400 bits for go). The rules are super complicated (eighteen supported heroes, each with unique abilities, complicated special cases about particular attacks or techniques that are especially effective in special situations). It's played in real time, so it only gets around a hundred milliseconds to select each move.
We've never had a computer that could beat humans at a game anywhere close to as complicated as this. And it learned to do it entirely on its own. No one taught it how to play. This is a huge advance.
And computers don't? Being able to figure out the best move, and do it faster than a human is an amazing accomplishment. This isn't Pong, where you can figure out where the ball is going to go with just a few calculations. It's a huge complicated environment that takes a lot of work to understand and react to.
Anyway, reaction time is only a small part of it at most. Dota 2 is about developing long term strategies and executing them in the face of incomplete, constantly changing information. Reaction time without smarts won't get you far.
This is exactly right. For me the rule is simple. Any time I'm standing still but the viewpoint moves, I immediately feel sick. The rest of the time, I'm fine. Designers have come up with good solutions to this. Always move and rotate in discrete jumps with a really fast fade to black in between so your brain doesn't interpret it as movement. It totally fixes the problem. Unfortunately some devs don't use these solutions. They have smooth movement even when there's no need. I don't play those games because they make me sick.
Some genres may never work in VR, or only for people with iron stomachs. I tried a demo of a driving game. Really not a happy experience. But I don't see how they could have fixed in. Fast first person motion is what driving games are all about. For me that has to stay in 2D.
In 2013, the IPCC estimated the current rate of sea level rise as 3.2 mm/year. If we assume that rate, we get 48 mm in the next 15 years, or about 1.9 inches. But that's an underestimate, because sea level rise is accelerating. It has increased substantially in the last 20 years, and that 2013 number is already out of date. The current rate is estimated at 3.4 mm/year. That gives 51 mm or 2 inches. But of course it's still accelerating, so the actual rise over the next 15 years will be a bit more than that.
That's the global average rate, but it isn't the same everywhere. It's faster in some places and slower in others. On most of the US east coast sea level is rising faster than the global average, and on the gulf coast it's rising even faster. So a lot of the coastal US will get bigger increases than that.
no additional conduit will be submerged if the average ocean depth increases 45mm more.
You just made that up. Maybe you should talk to the people who've actually looked at the data.
waves are higher than 45mm! tides are more than 45mm
Totally irrelevant. We're talking about buried cables. The water table doesn't go up and down with every wave that hits the beach.
Stop making things up. They didn't say we'd all drown, so why do you pretend they did? They actually said, "more than 4,000 miles of buried fiber optic conduit will be underwater." That's not a made up number. They looked at where conduit is buried, how deeply it's buried, and which segments will be underwater in 15 years. And yes, it doesn't take a lot of rise to do that. They were surprised at how much is just a few inches above the current water level. But I guess if you don't like facts, it's easier to just deny them and use sarcasm as a substitute for logic.
This was peer reviewed. Did you even bother to read the article?
The peer-reviewed study combined data from the Internet Atlas, a comprehensive global map of the internet's physical structure, and projections of sea level incursion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
or who make a living off of Federally funded grants.
You mean scientists at universities? Sure, anyone who does science for a living obviously can't be trusted. We shouldn't believe anything they say. Unless all their funding comes from a private company, like Exxon or Chevron. Then we should believe whatever they say, because they obviously have no bias.
You're making incorrect assumptions based on a few lines from the summary. Read the full article. He was very clear what policies he was referring to, and they're entirely on topic. Here is the relevant passage.
"We do worry about a couple of the very specific immigration questions that people appear to be debating in Washington," Smith told CNBC's Akiko Fujita in an interview on Wednesday.
He pointed to two particular examples. The first is another Obama-era rule that allows some spouses of people who have a non-immigrant H-1B visa to take on paid work. The Trump administration has proposed revoking that type of work authorization last year but a lack of update has left many in limbo, according to reports.
The second is a rule that allows international graduates in science, technology, engineering or mathematics from U.S. universities to continue working while they're trying to apply for a work visa.
This isn't a political attack on Trump as you claim. It's legitimate concerns about specific proposed changes that really would affect their ability to hire skilled workers.
Do you actually have information about this, or are you just making things up? Reviews of Microsoft as a place to work are pretty positive. They have their issues as a company, but abusing their workers isn't one of them. As a rule, large US tech companies treat their engineers well. They may be dysfunctional in a lot of ways, but they pay well, give good benefits, and don't demand insane hours.
Low skilled workers are another matter. You really don't want to end up filling boxes in one of Amazon's warehouses. But they aren't going to waste H1Bs on jobs like that. Unskilled workers are easy to find.
This is just another distraction. The real problem is that the FCC is owned by the industry it's supposed to regulate. It doesn't matter what comments you send. It doesn't matter who sends fake comments in your name. They don't give a damn about anyone's comments anyway. They're just going to ignore them and do whatever they want. But now they can pretend they're doing something good, and if they can get people talking about fake comments, maybe that'll distract the public from all the gifts they're giving to industry.
You'll still sometimes need to do experiments to get new data, but hopefully a lot less often. This model will work best if you already have data for lots of similar compounds. And in that case, there's not much benefit to doing experiments on the new compound. Any data they produced wouldn't improve the model much.
When you start working on a really novel chemical that's very different from anything you have training data on, this model won't work well, so you'll need to do experiments. Then you can add the new data to the model, and that will help it work for a new area of chemical space.
There are lots of ways to value data. How much does it cost to collect the data? How much can you earn by using it? How much harm can you cause to other people by using it? These values can be very different from each other.
Consider a criminal gang hacking computers to steal information. For each person whose data they steal they have to spend $1, but they can earn $10 using it, and then someone has to spend hours dealing with the consequences of having their data stolen, so figuring a reasonable hourly rate let's say it costs them $100. What is the value of that data?
Consider Facebook. It's really cheap for them to get people to voluntarily turn over their data, and then they use that data to sell advertizing. The maximum value of an ad is whatever that ad convinces someone to spend. Some people object to ads and don't want their data used for that purpose (and would gladly spend money to prevent it from being used that way, if they had the choice). Other people don't mind it, and appreciate getting ads that are relevant to them. What is the value of that data?
Consider the Large Hadron Collider. That data is incredibly expensive to collect, and no one is making any money from it. But it just might revolutionize our understanding of the universe. What is the value of that data?
After reading Deroir's tweets, I really can't tell what you're referring to. His/her comments were polite, civil, and totally on-topic. They were entirely about issues of game design. There's nothing in them even tangentially related to gender: not his/her own gender, not Price's gender, not depictions of gender in games. They even go out of their way to complement her, calling the original thread "interesting" and "insightful". And Price responded with a bunch of insulting, sexist comments. (Yes, calling someone "my dude" is sexist. Talking about "hurt manfeels" is sexist.)
Sure, there's a long history of discrimination in the game industry. But this particular interaction didn't have any hint of that until Price decided to introduce it.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, I did know that. I read Slashdot. But I haven't heard a single word from Google about it. Not an email, not a notification, nothing. If it were up to them, I'd have no idea. I bet a lot of G+ users still don't know it's shutting down. Can't Google bother to even tell its users when it's going to shut down a service they use?
Headlines that say "New finding shocks scientists" are almost always clickbait written by reporters who don't know what they're talking about. Scientists are rarely very surprised by their results. You don't know in advance what the result will be, but it usually is somewhere in the range where you thought it might be. Truly surprising results are rare. But when they do happen, they of course get a lot of press.
I don't see how this is any different from some people paying more to get a faster internet connection. You personally pay so that you personally get faster access. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's different from someone else having to pay so that you will get faster access. That's what causes the potential for abuse.
Now, if Bittorrent started saying you have to pay more to get faster access, except for their "sponsored torrents" that give full speed even without paying, that would be a problem.
5G is supposed to be capable of 4 Gb/sec, but let's assume you won't really get anything close to that. 1 Gb/sec is probably more realistic. At that speed, you'll need 8 seconds to transfer 1 GB, 120 seconds to transfer 15 GB. So yeah, not even 3 minutes.
That makes this absurd. The only advantage of 5G is its speed. Then they set a data cap so low the service is useless if you actually try to use that speed.
This is exactly why we need net neutrality. ISP with an agenda decides to mess with its customers' internet access, interfere with their ability to view certain web sites, and force political statements to appear on their computers. Anyone who tells you we don't need net neutrality, point to this as exhibit number one.
And of course, it's right there in the open source definition. Item 6 is, "no discrimination against fields of endeavor". The definitions of "free software" and "open source" are practically identical, and what these people are doing doesn't meet either one.
Whitespace is significant in lots of languages. Python is just one of the few that handles it in a logical, consistent way. Here are some examples of places where whitespace is significant in C++.
You can't put a line break in the middle of a string literal. // comments are terminated by a line break.
Preprocessor commands are terminated by a line break. If you want them to take multiple lines you need to end with a special continuation character. Unlikely most other parts of the language that terminate lines with semicolons and ignore line breaks.
There are some really weird places where you have to add whitespace or it won't be parsed correctly. For example, vector >. Notice the space between then two >'s? Without that it will parse it as a >> operator and fail to compile.
By the way, you forgot one of the classic examples of a language with significant whitespace: old style Fortran. Every line had to start with a specific number of spaces, and characters in particular columns had special meaning. That was not a good idea. Python does it well.
Only if you only look at Intel processors. Current ARM processors blow away the ones from five years ago. Same with GPUs from AMD and NVIDIA. AMD's current x86 processors are also way faster than their ones from five years ago. It's just Intel that's falling behind.
If you give readers a better experience, in the long run that should boost traffic to your site. But that takes time, and you can't see it in an A/B test. A fast loading story might make people more likely to come back and read more stories, but the next one they read is just as likely to be an old style slow loading one.
What they really showed is that bivalves have found a survival strategy that doesn't need much energy. Hard shell to protect you from most predators, so you don't need to worry about running away. Filter feeding, so you don't need to chase prey. There's a nice ecological niche, and they're filling it well. That strategy would work badly for a lion or gazelle. They've found different survival strategies that also work, but only if you have a faster metabolism,
That's different in several ways. First that's a hand coded AI. The developers spent a lot of time coding rules for how it should work. No one coded any rules for the Dota 2 agent. They just let it play the game millions of times and figure out for itself what worked. Second even a weak AI can beat a novice player. I bet experts have no trouble beating it. The Dota 2 agent beat a team of elite players. Most of them were former professional players. Third the AIs built into games often cheat. I don't know if the Starcraft one does, but developers often have to do that to make it challenging to play against. For example it might have access to more information than a human does.
Name one example.
Here are some ways Dota 2 is more complicated than other games computers have beat humans at. At each step it chooses from about a thousand actions (compared to 18 max for Atari games, around 20 average for chess, or around 200 average for go). A game lasts tens of thousands of steps (compared to a few dozen for chess). It requires long term strategy (unlike most video games computers have played). It has incomplete information (you don't know everything that's happening). Even the visible state is tens of thousands of numbers (compared to 6 numbers for Pong, 64 numbers for chess, or around 400 bits for go). The rules are super complicated (eighteen supported heroes, each with unique abilities, complicated special cases about particular attacks or techniques that are especially effective in special situations). It's played in real time, so it only gets around a hundred milliseconds to select each move.
We've never had a computer that could beat humans at a game anywhere close to as complicated as this. And it learned to do it entirely on its own. No one taught it how to play. This is a huge advance.
> Human beings have mental reaction time
And computers don't? Being able to figure out the best move, and do it faster than a human is an amazing accomplishment. This isn't Pong, where you can figure out where the ball is going to go with just a few calculations. It's a huge complicated environment that takes a lot of work to understand and react to.
Anyway, reaction time is only a small part of it at most. Dota 2 is about developing long term strategies and executing them in the face of incomplete, constantly changing information. Reaction time without smarts won't get you far.
This is exactly right. For me the rule is simple. Any time I'm standing still but the viewpoint moves, I immediately feel sick. The rest of the time, I'm fine. Designers have come up with good solutions to this. Always move and rotate in discrete jumps with a really fast fade to black in between so your brain doesn't interpret it as movement. It totally fixes the problem. Unfortunately some devs don't use these solutions. They have smooth movement even when there's no need. I don't play those games because they make me sick.
Some genres may never work in VR, or only for people with iron stomachs. I tried a demo of a driving game. Really not a happy experience. But I don't see how they could have fixed in. Fast first person motion is what driving games are all about. For me that has to stay in 2D.
In 2013, the IPCC estimated the current rate of sea level rise as 3.2 mm/year. If we assume that rate, we get 48 mm in the next 15 years, or about 1.9 inches. But that's an underestimate, because sea level rise is accelerating. It has increased substantially in the last 20 years, and that 2013 number is already out of date. The current rate is estimated at 3.4 mm/year. That gives 51 mm or 2 inches. But of course it's still accelerating, so the actual rise over the next 15 years will be a bit more than that.
That's the global average rate, but it isn't the same everywhere. It's faster in some places and slower in others. On most of the US east coast sea level is rising faster than the global average, and on the gulf coast it's rising even faster. So a lot of the coastal US will get bigger increases than that.
no additional conduit will be submerged if the average ocean depth increases 45mm more.
You just made that up. Maybe you should talk to the people who've actually looked at the data.
waves are higher than 45mm! tides are more than 45mm
Totally irrelevant. We're talking about buried cables. The water table doesn't go up and down with every wave that hits the beach.
Stop making things up. They didn't say we'd all drown, so why do you pretend they did? They actually said, "more than 4,000 miles of buried fiber optic conduit will be underwater." That's not a made up number. They looked at where conduit is buried, how deeply it's buried, and which segments will be underwater in 15 years. And yes, it doesn't take a lot of rise to do that. They were surprised at how much is just a few inches above the current water level. But I guess if you don't like facts, it's easier to just deny them and use sarcasm as a substitute for logic.
This was peer reviewed. Did you even bother to read the article?
The peer-reviewed study combined data from the Internet Atlas, a comprehensive global map of the internet's physical structure, and projections of sea level incursion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
or who make a living off of Federally funded grants.
You mean scientists at universities? Sure, anyone who does science for a living obviously can't be trusted. We shouldn't believe anything they say. Unless all their funding comes from a private company, like Exxon or Chevron. Then we should believe whatever they say, because they obviously have no bias.
The IT world would be poorer without all his work. Time for a well deserved vacation.
You're making incorrect assumptions based on a few lines from the summary. Read the full article. He was very clear what policies he was referring to, and they're entirely on topic. Here is the relevant passage.
"We do worry about a couple of the very specific immigration questions that people appear to be debating in Washington," Smith told CNBC's Akiko Fujita in an interview on Wednesday.
He pointed to two particular examples. The first is another Obama-era rule that allows some spouses of people who have a non-immigrant H-1B visa to take on paid work. The Trump administration has proposed revoking that type of work authorization last year but a lack of update has left many in limbo, according to reports.
The second is a rule that allows international graduates in science, technology, engineering or mathematics from U.S. universities to continue working while they're trying to apply for a work visa.
This isn't a political attack on Trump as you claim. It's legitimate concerns about specific proposed changes that really would affect their ability to hire skilled workers.
Do you actually have information about this, or are you just making things up? Reviews of Microsoft as a place to work are pretty positive. They have their issues as a company, but abusing their workers isn't one of them. As a rule, large US tech companies treat their engineers well. They may be dysfunctional in a lot of ways, but they pay well, give good benefits, and don't demand insane hours.
Low skilled workers are another matter. You really don't want to end up filling boxes in one of Amazon's warehouses. But they aren't going to waste H1Bs on jobs like that. Unskilled workers are easy to find.
This is just another distraction. The real problem is that the FCC is owned by the industry it's supposed to regulate. It doesn't matter what comments you send. It doesn't matter who sends fake comments in your name. They don't give a damn about anyone's comments anyway. They're just going to ignore them and do whatever they want. But now they can pretend they're doing something good, and if they can get people talking about fake comments, maybe that'll distract the public from all the gifts they're giving to industry.
You'll still sometimes need to do experiments to get new data, but hopefully a lot less often. This model will work best if you already have data for lots of similar compounds. And in that case, there's not much benefit to doing experiments on the new compound. Any data they produced wouldn't improve the model much.
When you start working on a really novel chemical that's very different from anything you have training data on, this model won't work well, so you'll need to do experiments. Then you can add the new data to the model, and that will help it work for a new area of chemical space.
There are lots of ways to value data. How much does it cost to collect the data? How much can you earn by using it? How much harm can you cause to other people by using it? These values can be very different from each other.
Consider a criminal gang hacking computers to steal information. For each person whose data they steal they have to spend $1, but they can earn $10 using it, and then someone has to spend hours dealing with the consequences of having their data stolen, so figuring a reasonable hourly rate let's say it costs them $100. What is the value of that data?
Consider Facebook. It's really cheap for them to get people to voluntarily turn over their data, and then they use that data to sell advertizing. The maximum value of an ad is whatever that ad convinces someone to spend. Some people object to ads and don't want their data used for that purpose (and would gladly spend money to prevent it from being used that way, if they had the choice). Other people don't mind it, and appreciate getting ads that are relevant to them. What is the value of that data?
Consider the Large Hadron Collider. That data is incredibly expensive to collect, and no one is making any money from it. But it just might revolutionize our understanding of the universe. What is the value of that data?
After reading Deroir's tweets, I really can't tell what you're referring to. His/her comments were polite, civil, and totally on-topic. They were entirely about issues of game design. There's nothing in them even tangentially related to gender: not his/her own gender, not Price's gender, not depictions of gender in games. They even go out of their way to complement her, calling the original thread "interesting" and "insightful". And Price responded with a bunch of insulting, sexist comments. (Yes, calling someone "my dude" is sexist. Talking about "hurt manfeels" is sexist.)
Sure, there's a long history of discrimination in the game industry. But this particular interaction didn't have any hint of that until Price decided to introduce it.