It's damn annoying that one should have to get a whole friggen laptop computer just to be able to go to any website they want.
But as you said, neither end users nor developers are really in a position to fix it.
What would at least partially mitigate it until the device developers get around to fixing the bug is if the device developers did not require that only one particular engine was allowed to be used on the platform, allowing end users the freedom to choose what serves their ends better.
But I guess they'd rather not have to deal with the competition... the problem with this is that it causes the device developers to be lazy and not actually get around to fixing problems like what I mentioned very quickly.
There are about half a dozen websites that I like to use which don't work correct in iOS... sometimes they crash the app entirely, other times they just don't work right.
I've long since accepted that I can't view most pdf's in a web browser window on my iOS device either. If I want to read it on the device, I have to do so offline, and am better off mounting the device as a writeable disk to my computer, and copying the pdf to Adobe Acrobat's folder, and then opening it from there.
Unless or until I can develop and publish iOS apps with only an iOS device, they cannot possibly claim to offer a combined experience on a single device.
There is a difference between having a realistic world view that the world isn't ever going to be fair and realizing that it is foolish to ever expect to be so, and believing that one should not still personally strive to treat people fairly.
Because in general, what one believes about what they "should" be doing starts and stops only at controlling one's own personal behavior.
I don't think we are in a position to speak about the probability of either. In all of human history, we have a sample-size set of exactly one instance of a planet that has evolved detectable life... making presumptions about its plausibility or implausibility is simply not possible until we can at least find a second planet to correlate with.
As for the likelihood of God, it is no more or less implausible than the Simulation Theory.
My point is that there can be absolutely nothing wrong with the site, or its javascript... rather, the crash can be caused by bugs in the javascript engine on the device itself. A developer might follow all of the published standards, but that means dick-all if the renderer being used isn't actually implementing all of the relevant standards correctly.
And with every browser on that device being forced to use the same javascript runtime, they can all crash if it didn't implement some things right.
And meanwhile, as I said, such sites can load fine on other devices, demonstrating conclusively that the problem is not with the site, but with the specific html renderer and javascript.
If browsers were allowed to use different rendering engines, then a person on an otherwise so restricted platform would generally still be able to visit sites that don't render properly in one browser by using another.
If your web application triggers a bug or missing feature of Apple WebKit, for example, then it won't display correctly on iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad
Or display at all, as the app uncerimoniously crashes while its trying to run some javascript code.
The device developers may eventually get around to fixing the issues, assuming they even find out about them, but in the meantime, the only way to even *visit* the site is to use a different platform entirely, because all the web browsers on that platform use the same rendering engine.
Meanwhile, the same version of the site loads perfectly fine in an android browser as well as every current browser on desktops.
That presumes that the failure is on account of some error in the data being provided by the server, and not on account of some obscure bug in the html renderer and javascript engine, which because every browser on the platform must reuse, means that every browser on that platform has the exact same issue while the page may load fine in any browser on every other platform on the planet.
... rendering engine for all browsers is that if there is a bug in the renderer that causes some otherwise perfectly legitimate web pages to crash the browser, you can't just try loading the page in a different browser.
I can't count how many times I've encountered mobile versions of websites that crash both safari and chrome on iOS, but works fine in Chrome on Android. I can sometimes get around it on iOS by loading the desktop version of the site, but not always.
When someone says that they have sufficient evidence to give all reasonable cause to believe something, and then don't even bother to say what that evidence actually is, I think there's a sufficient basis to believe that they don't really know what they are talking about, and are only trying to make themselves sound much smarter than they actually are for figuring it out.
Just because it happened so quickly doesn't mean it was easy, or necessarily likely.
A person can, after all, win a lottery the very first time they play. When we have such a small data set to work with, we are not in any kind of position to know how likely or unlikely life actually is.
Uh... AI isn't supposed to be "true" intelligence. It's artificial. That's what the "A" stands for.
The dictionary definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and acquire skills. Given AZ's ability to outperform its teachers, I see no reason why it could not be considered to have intelligence.
If you are going to say that many of the things that humans do and learn is not an indication of any intelligence, then what does the word "intelligence" even mean? If you are going to suggest that it doesn't even actually exist at all, why bother having the word. Clearly, the term means something in the real world, so pick a stationary concept that humans meet and stick with it.
I would suggest that anyone or anything that can learn from its own mistakes and successes to perform a task better is almost certainly intelligent.
A four year old child can do that.
So can Alphazero. The fact that the latter has a more limited domain of expertise is immaterial.
I'm fairly certain that even without them, there is enough bureaucracy, greed, and even stupidity left over that there would be no perceptible difference.
Why do you suggest AI is impossible, unless you are also suggesting that intelligence is impossible, which would mean that the entire word "intelligence" doesn't actually even mean anything?
Humans are just biological physical organisms that follow the laws of physics to produce a behavior that we have presumed to be intelligent. These physical processes can, with sufficient processing power and memory, be modelled to any finite desired level of accuracy inside of the state of a computer, which in turn should produce a behavior that is absolutely no different.
AI is just intelligence that happens to be artificial, as opposed to natural. Full stop. Do we have any of it yet? Personally, I think so... albeit in very limited forms. Just as there can be varying levels of natural intelligence, after all, it is only fair to say that there ought to be varying levels of real intelligence. However, whether we have AI or not is already immaterial.... intelligence is just the byproduct of real world physical laws which can be modeled mathematically, and to suggest that AI is somehow forever impossible is equivalent to saying that natural intelligence is actually magic.
If there's anything magic going on, it's the way that this kind of bullshit can spontaneously come out of nowhere.
If so, why not AI? Which, by definition, is just intelligence that happens to be artificial.
And of course, just as certainly as their can be varying levels of natural intelligence, there should quite obviously also be varying levels of artificial intelligence as well.
But how do you define intelligence? As I said previously, is someone intelligent if they can memorize a sufficient amount of information and rules to be able to independently perform a complex task. What is the difference between a human that has memorized rules and is following them to perform some task that we may have otherwise said was a sign of intelligence, and a computer that is simply following the instructions of an algorithm to perform a similar task? Computers can even sometimes follow an algorithm and wind up becoming better than even their teacher. Alphazero is a prime example of this, so how can anyone argue that its behavior is not an example of at least some measure of intelligence? It's intelligence only in a very narrow field, perhaps... but it sure as heck seems intelligent to me, especially since it learns both from mistakes and successes, as humans do.
Microsoft lost a lot of trust with a lot of users over the the years with how MS handled issues with Internet Explorer. People don't trust Edge because of what happened previously, and rightly or wrongly, this has led to a lot fewer people using Edge.
And of course, if people aren't willing to give them a chance with a new product, it's that much harder for them to win back any trust.
I'm not necessarily saying Microsoft deserves to be given a second chance, but it seems pretty obvious to me why Edge isn't doing very well today.
I'm in Canada and mny cell phone bill is about $80/mo for a smartphone plan, which includes 2gigabytes of data, with an overage charge of $10 for every gigabyte or portion thereof over it. It has unlimited talk minutes, no charges for long distance anywhere in Canada, and can be used without paying roaming charges anywhere in the country that is within my provider's network (and their coverage is quite reasonable... including all of the major cities, many smaller ones, as well as all of the highways I've ever driven on). Not sure how that compares to typical US plans, but there's your comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
It's damn annoying that one should have to get a whole friggen laptop computer just to be able to go to any website they want.
But as you said, neither end users nor developers are really in a position to fix it.
What would at least partially mitigate it until the device developers get around to fixing the bug is if the device developers did not require that only one particular engine was allowed to be used on the platform, allowing end users the freedom to choose what serves their ends better.
But I guess they'd rather not have to deal with the competition... the problem with this is that it causes the device developers to be lazy and not actually get around to fixing problems like what I mentioned very quickly.
There are about half a dozen websites that I like to use which don't work correct in iOS... sometimes they crash the app entirely, other times they just don't work right.
I've long since accepted that I can't view most pdf's in a web browser window on my iOS device either. If I want to read it on the device, I have to do so offline, and am better off mounting the device as a writeable disk to my computer, and copying the pdf to Adobe Acrobat's folder, and then opening it from there.
Unless or until I can develop and publish iOS apps with only an iOS device, they cannot possibly claim to offer a combined experience on a single device.
There is a difference between having a realistic world view that the world isn't ever going to be fair and realizing that it is foolish to ever expect to be so, and believing that one should not still personally strive to treat people fairly.
Because in general, what one believes about what they "should" be doing starts and stops only at controlling one's own personal behavior.
As for the likelihood of God, it is no more or less implausible than the Simulation Theory.
My point is that there can be absolutely nothing wrong with the site, or its javascript... rather, the crash can be caused by bugs in the javascript engine on the device itself. A developer might follow all of the published standards, but that means dick-all if the renderer being used isn't actually implementing all of the relevant standards correctly.
And with every browser on that device being forced to use the same javascript runtime, they can all crash if it didn't implement some things right.
And meanwhile, as I said, such sites can load fine on other devices, demonstrating conclusively that the problem is not with the site, but with the specific html renderer and javascript.
If browsers were allowed to use different rendering engines, then a person on an otherwise so restricted platform would generally still be able to visit sites that don't render properly in one browser by using another.
Or display at all, as the app uncerimoniously crashes while its trying to run some javascript code.
The device developers may eventually get around to fixing the issues, assuming they even find out about them, but in the meantime, the only way to even *visit* the site is to use a different platform entirely, because all the web browsers on that platform use the same rendering engine.
Meanwhile, the same version of the site loads perfectly fine in an android browser as well as every current browser on desktops.
I'm suggesting that any notion of what things "should" be is entirely irrelevant to what happens in the real world.
Right up there with perpetual motion machines.
That presumes that the failure is on account of some error in the data being provided by the server, and not on account of some obscure bug in the html renderer and javascript engine, which because every browser on the platform must reuse, means that every browser on that platform has the exact same issue while the page may load fine in any browser on every other platform on the planet.
.... is that they've invented viagra for batteries?
You appear to presume that the world around you is somehow supposed to be fair.
It's a common misunderstanding.
I can't count how many times I've encountered mobile versions of websites that crash both safari and chrome on iOS, but works fine in Chrome on Android. I can sometimes get around it on iOS by loading the desktop version of the site, but not always.
When someone says that they have sufficient evidence to give all reasonable cause to believe something, and then don't even bother to say what that evidence actually is, I think there's a sufficient basis to believe that they don't really know what they are talking about, and are only trying to make themselves sound much smarter than they actually are for figuring it out.
Kind of like Intelligent Design, or even the Simulation theory.
Just because it happened so quickly doesn't mean it was easy, or necessarily likely.
A person can, after all, win a lottery the very first time they play. When we have such a small data set to work with, we are not in any kind of position to know how likely or unlikely life actually is.
It seems that it could be construed as evidence that man's ascent from simpler lifeforms hasn't even started yet.
The thing you need to be explaining is why the internet even got innovated in the first place when there originally wasn't any net neutrality.
Uh... AI isn't supposed to be "true" intelligence. It's artificial. That's what the "A" stands for.
The dictionary definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and acquire skills. Given AZ's ability to outperform its teachers, I see no reason why it could not be considered to have intelligence.
If you are going to say that many of the things that humans do and learn is not an indication of any intelligence, then what does the word "intelligence" even mean? If you are going to suggest that it doesn't even actually exist at all, why bother having the word. Clearly, the term means something in the real world, so pick a stationary concept that humans meet and stick with it.
I would suggest that anyone or anything that can learn from its own mistakes and successes to perform a task better is almost certainly intelligent.
A four year old child can do that.
So can Alphazero. The fact that the latter has a more limited domain of expertise is immaterial.
I'm fairly certain that even without them, there is enough bureaucracy, greed, and even stupidity left over that there would be no perceptible difference.
What difference would the lack of technology make?
Or do you seriously think that all religious people are incapable of both understanding or even developing their own technology?
And building boats is not exactly rocket science. At best, your suggestion may achieve your desired ends for a few months.
Why do you suggest AI is impossible, unless you are also suggesting that intelligence is impossible, which would mean that the entire word "intelligence" doesn't actually even mean anything?
Humans are just biological physical organisms that follow the laws of physics to produce a behavior that we have presumed to be intelligent. These physical processes can, with sufficient processing power and memory, be modelled to any finite desired level of accuracy inside of the state of a computer, which in turn should produce a behavior that is absolutely no different.
AI is just intelligence that happens to be artificial, as opposed to natural. Full stop. Do we have any of it yet? Personally, I think so... albeit in very limited forms. Just as there can be varying levels of natural intelligence, after all, it is only fair to say that there ought to be varying levels of real intelligence. However, whether we have AI or not is already immaterial.... intelligence is just the byproduct of real world physical laws which can be modeled mathematically, and to suggest that AI is somehow forever impossible is equivalent to saying that natural intelligence is actually magic.
If there's anything magic going on, it's the way that this kind of bullshit can spontaneously come out of nowhere.
Is intelligence real?
If so, why not AI? Which, by definition, is just intelligence that happens to be artificial.
And of course, just as certainly as their can be varying levels of natural intelligence, there should quite obviously also be varying levels of artificial intelligence as well.
But how do you define intelligence? As I said previously, is someone intelligent if they can memorize a sufficient amount of information and rules to be able to independently perform a complex task. What is the difference between a human that has memorized rules and is following them to perform some task that we may have otherwise said was a sign of intelligence, and a computer that is simply following the instructions of an algorithm to perform a similar task? Computers can even sometimes follow an algorithm and wind up becoming better than even their teacher. Alphazero is a prime example of this, so how can anyone argue that its behavior is not an example of at least some measure of intelligence? It's intelligence only in a very narrow field, perhaps... but it sure as heck seems intelligent to me, especially since it learns both from mistakes and successes, as humans do.
Microsoft lost a lot of trust with a lot of users over the the years with how MS handled issues with Internet Explorer. People don't trust Edge because of what happened previously, and rightly or wrongly, this has led to a lot fewer people using Edge.
And of course, if people aren't willing to give them a chance with a new product, it's that much harder for them to win back any trust.
I'm not necessarily saying Microsoft deserves to be given a second chance, but it seems pretty obvious to me why Edge isn't doing very well today.
If they say that they can do that in Word, ask them where they suppose that Word comes from.
There will probably be a few seconds of silence while they let the concept sink in, and then they'll probably get it.
I'm in Canada and mny cell phone bill is about $80/mo for a smartphone plan, which includes 2gigabytes of data, with an overage charge of $10 for every gigabyte or portion thereof over it. It has unlimited talk minutes, no charges for long distance anywhere in Canada, and can be used without paying roaming charges anywhere in the country that is within my provider's network (and their coverage is quite reasonable... including all of the major cities, many smaller ones, as well as all of the highways I've ever driven on). Not sure how that compares to typical US plans, but there's your comparison.