"We actually... remind users to do a privacy checkup, and we make it very obvious every month. In fact, in the last 28 days, 160 million users went to their My Account settings,
Wait... how do they know we "went to [our] My Account settings" unless Google is spying on all their users? This attempt at self-exoneration sounds more like an admission of guilt to me.
This, a million times over. Corporations are, and always have been, by definition, psychopaths who would destroy the entire world if they thought it would personally profit them.
That's like saying "Stalin was a thousand times better than Hitler" - it may technically be true, but it doesn't imply in any way that Stalin wasn't a gigantic, evil shithead himself.
It's perfectly reasonable to see both sides as selfish assholes.
If mosquitoes went extinct: Mosquito larvae are very important in aquatic ecology. Many other insects and small fish feed on them and the loss of that food source would cause their numbers to decline as well. Anything that feeds on them, such as game fish, raptorial birds, etc. would in turn suffer too. Mosquitoes can be wiped out but the ecological damage that would be necessary (draining swamps/wetlands, applying pesticides over wide areas), along with strict regulatory enforcement, would make eradication not worth it unless there was a very serious public health emergency.
Maybe it's time for IP property holders to pay a tax on their property as well. Any IP whose tax is unpaid reverts to the public domain, and the pool of IP taxes collected can be used to defray the costs of protecting paid-up intellectual property. Go ahead, shoot holes in this modest proposal!
Deep-pocketed industry groups like the RIAA would love it, as they can afford the tax but small, independant competitors would struggle to pay the fee and find a profit. Thus publishing creative works would be even more cost-prohibitive than it is already, unless you're loaded.
Congratulations, you've achieved the exact opposite of what you set out to do!
In the past, a single house hold earner could provide for a family. Now it takes two.
What's changed? THAT'S what we need to look at.
I suspect it will be a mix of increased costs due to:
Government regulations and their impact on manufacturers. Industry practices...required because they can. fees surcharges, penalties, etc. Increased consumer materialism. You HAVE to have the big screen TV, you HAVE to have that 4 wheeler, new car, etc.
So the question you should be asking is, "Why haven't wages grown along with inflation?" and the simple answer can be found in the CEO wage gap and greedy shareholders only concerned about short-term financial gain for themselves, consequences be damned.
1 bitcoin is always 1 bitcoin. It's relation to a basket of goods only exists through the dollar as a proxy. People are still sniffing dollars and everyone gets mad at bitcoin? WTF?
Because if not for 'the dollar as a proxy' you wouldn't be able to trade your 1's and 0's for that basket of goods.
"If we have billions of people with a high-bandwidth link to an AI extension of themselves, it would actually make everyone hyper-smart."
I am afraid most of us would become immensely powerfully idiotic.
It's a pretty pie-in-the-sky way of looking at the situation, especially considering that "providing more access to accurate information" has decidedly not been the trend in technology over the past few decades; back in the 90's, we saw the fledgling internet (then consisting of mostly government and university websites) as a great means of disseminating information; but since the dot-com boom of the early 2000's, that mission scope has changed; now the internet's mantra is "how can we get more money/clicks/likes/etc from consumers?"
Having lived in reality the past 30 years (instead of being wealthy and privileged enough to live outside of it, like one Elon Musk), I easily see the folly in his thinking.
The plant closings have little to do with electric cars, and much to do with the fact that American sedans have steeply declined in popularity over the past decade.
To whit, Ford did the same thing last year, for the same reasons - slough off the models that are costing us money so we can focus on moving the brand forward.
0.001%? Electric cars are 39% of new car sales in Norway, 8% in California, and around 5% in China. If you live in a backwater that can't even keep up with China, maybe it's not relevant to your area yet.
I think he was specifically referring to Teslas - which very much are still a luxury product - not electric cars in general.
Doubt many 0.001 percenters are rolling around in a Nissan Leaf.
They don't put spares in cars any more because they use up trunk space and that's a competitive point. They still put spares on pickup trucks because they can be stored beneath.
Actually most cars still have a well for a full-sized spare, the manufacturers just cheap out for aforementioned reasons.
My boss was just telling us about a Malibu he used to own - had a flat, and when he went to change it, in the well where the spare should have been Chevy installed a 12v air compressor and a bottle of that green goo shit that never works... but no spare.
Agreed - the only legitimate way to reconcile this is for both parties to admit to manipulating the system for their own gain, and to the detriment of the American People.
By that do you mean that it would be perfectly fair for Ivanka to argue "what, at this point, does it matter?" Or maybe that it would be fair of the FBI to recommend against charges (despite admitting that a crime was committed) like they did with Hillary?
I don't understand why some people, like you, get all offended and butthurt when someone points out that what we call "AI" today isn't actually an example of what we understand AI to be, to the point where you feel compelled to attack and insult your entire species.
Look - "AI" isn't actual intelligence - it can't reason. It can only give a particular output based on the inputs and human-directed training given to it. Humans, on the other hand, have an ability to rationalize and reason starting at an early age - human babies naturally know that if you pass object A behind object B, it's very likely that object A will re-appear on the other side of object B, and will follow that assumption visually; Nobody has to tell a baby "keep an eye out for object A to re-appear."
A modern "AI," on the other hand, will see object A pass behind object B, and assume that "OMG OBJECT A NO LONGER EXISTS!" Unless, of course, some human has specifically told the "AI" that no, object A will eventually re-appear. It's not intelligence, because intelligence can infer and reason, and does not have to be directly told what the outcome should be.
There's absolutely no reason this information should offend you.
Thanks for the link. I read the article and many of the comments. What do you think about this one?
The same thing I think about anyone who claims that a major moment in human history boils down to 1 factor - it's bullshit, man.
Yes, slavery was a factor, but not the only factor. Consider the tariffs I linked to, then ask yourself: under those trade rules, how would the Southern states have managed to survive without the use of slave labor? The fact is, they wouldn't have, so in a way the Northern states forced the South to rely on slavery, then punished those states for it.
The fact is, our American Civil War was complicated, both the reasons for it's beginning and continuation (fun fact - Lincoln floated the idea of leaving slavery legal in some states, to preserve the union). What's interesting as an American is that the angle historians take on the conflict tends to be defined by where you get the education: Northern states tend to teach the "Civil War was about slavery" concept, Southern states lean towards the "state's rights" ideology, and Border states (like where I'm from) tend to take a more middle-of-the-road, "both of you are assholes" mentality.
The fact that you insist on referring to non-Western Europeans as "savages" strongly indicates that you're a dickhead.
That's what they were referred to as, at the time.
Sure, back when Euro-centric white supremecists ran the world. But that's not the world we live in anymore, and at this point in history we are well aware that the "savage races" weren't actually all that savage, and in fact many of them were highly advanced for their time.
So why is AC still using the term "savages" to refer to non-Western European cultures, and why the fuck are you defending the practice?
The only reason for the previous AI winter was the fact that the AI at that time could not be monetized. We are way beyond that now. AI is making profit, and therefore there is continued effort to market it and make even more money.
FTFY. "marketability" and "improvement" are not necessarily synonymous.
Slashdot Mirror
"We actually ... remind users to do a privacy checkup, and we make it very obvious every month. In fact, in the last 28 days, 160 million users went to their My Account settings,
Wait... how do they know we "went to [our] My Account settings" unless Google is spying on all their users? This attempt at self-exoneration sounds more like an admission of guilt to me.
Google is not your friend. No company is.
This, a million times over. Corporations are, and always have been, by definition, psychopaths who would destroy the entire world if they thought it would personally profit them.
We would do well to remember that.
That's like saying "Stalin was a thousand times better than Hitler" - it may technically be true, but it doesn't imply in any way that Stalin wasn't a gigantic, evil shithead himself.
It's perfectly reasonable to see both sides as selfish assholes.
Hence the proverb, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Do you want fewer mosquitoes, for at least a little while, or not?
If so, shaddup!
No, I'd rather maintain a reasonable amount of biodiversity.
If mosquitoes went extinct: Mosquito larvae are very important in aquatic ecology. Many other insects and small fish feed on them and the loss of that food source would cause their numbers to decline as well. Anything that feeds on them, such as game fish, raptorial birds, etc. would in turn suffer too. Mosquitoes can be wiped out but the ecological damage that would be necessary (draining swamps/wetlands, applying pesticides over wide areas), along with strict regulatory enforcement, would make eradication not worth it unless there was a very serious public health emergency.
Maybe it's time for IP property holders to pay a tax on their property as well. Any IP whose tax is unpaid reverts to the public domain, and the pool of IP taxes collected can be used to defray the costs of protecting paid-up intellectual property. Go ahead, shoot holes in this modest proposal!
Deep-pocketed industry groups like the RIAA would love it, as they can afford the tax but small, independant competitors would struggle to pay the fee and find a profit. Thus publishing creative works would be even more cost-prohibitive than it is already, unless you're loaded.
Congratulations, you've achieved the exact opposite of what you set out to do!
In the past, a single house hold earner could provide for a family. Now it takes two.
What's changed? THAT'S what we need to look at.
I suspect it will be a mix of increased costs due to:
Government regulations and their impact on manufacturers.
Industry practices...required because they can. fees surcharges, penalties, etc.
Increased consumer materialism. You HAVE to have the big screen TV, you HAVE to have that 4 wheeler, new car, etc.
You're mostly wrong - since the 1970's, inflation has increased at a steady rate, but wages haven't kept up; in fact, real wages have been decreasing over the past few years, while inflation has continued to grow.
So the question you should be asking is, "Why haven't wages grown along with inflation?" and the simple answer can be found in the CEO wage gap and greedy shareholders only concerned about short-term financial gain for themselves, consequences be damned.
1 bitcoin is always 1 bitcoin. It's relation to a basket of goods only exists through the dollar as a proxy. People are still sniffing dollars and everyone gets mad at bitcoin? WTF?
Because if not for 'the dollar as a proxy' you wouldn't be able to trade your 1's and 0's for that basket of goods.
Then stop using the publicly funded internet, thief.
You can either have the government set the rules, or corporations. There will be no rule-less world.
So, which would you rather set the rules: a government that may or may not be compelled to do what is best for society at large,
or,
a corporation who is only compelled to make itself richer, consequences be damned?
I'm not a fan of either, but I know which one I'd pick if there was a metaphorical gun to my head...
"If we have billions of people with a high-bandwidth link to an AI extension of themselves, it would actually make everyone hyper-smart."
I am afraid most of us would become immensely powerfully idiotic.
It's a pretty pie-in-the-sky way of looking at the situation, especially considering that "providing more access to accurate information" has decidedly not been the trend in technology over the past few decades; back in the 90's, we saw the fledgling internet (then consisting of mostly government and university websites) as a great means of disseminating information; but since the dot-com boom of the early 2000's, that mission scope has changed; now the internet's mantra is "how can we get more money/clicks/likes/etc from consumers?"
Having lived in reality the past 30 years (instead of being wealthy and privileged enough to live outside of it, like one Elon Musk), I easily see the folly in his thinking.
The plant closings have little to do with electric cars, and much to do with the fact that American sedans have steeply declined in popularity over the past decade.
To whit, Ford did the same thing last year, for the same reasons - slough off the models that are costing us money so we can focus on moving the brand forward.
0.001%? Electric cars are 39% of new car sales in Norway, 8% in California, and around 5% in China. If you live in a backwater that can't even keep up with China, maybe it's not relevant to your area yet.
I think he was specifically referring to Teslas - which very much are still a luxury product - not electric cars in general.
Doubt many 0.001 percenters are rolling around in a Nissan Leaf.
How about you use that AI for making good content
Because that's not what "AI" does.
#Triggered
LMAO
fucked on race day
FTFY
They don't put spares in cars any more because they use up trunk space and that's a competitive point. They still put spares on pickup trucks because they can be stored beneath.
Actually most cars still have a well for a full-sized spare, the manufacturers just cheap out for aforementioned reasons.
My boss was just telling us about a Malibu he used to own - had a flat, and when he went to change it, in the well where the spare should have been Chevy installed a 12v air compressor and a bottle of that green goo shit that never works... but no spare.
Agreed - the only legitimate way to reconcile this is for both parties to admit to manipulating the system for their own gain, and to the detriment of the American People.
By that do you mean that it would be perfectly fair for Ivanka to argue "what, at this point, does it matter?" Or maybe that it would be fair of the FBI to recommend against charges (despite admitting that a crime was committed) like they did with Hillary?
That would be fair.
I don't understand why some people, like you, get all offended and butthurt when someone points out that what we call "AI" today isn't actually an example of what we understand AI to be, to the point where you feel compelled to attack and insult your entire species.
Look - "AI" isn't actual intelligence - it can't reason. It can only give a particular output based on the inputs and human-directed training given to it. Humans, on the other hand, have an ability to rationalize and reason starting at an early age - human babies naturally know that if you pass object A behind object B, it's very likely that object A will re-appear on the other side of object B, and will follow that assumption visually; Nobody has to tell a baby "keep an eye out for object A to re-appear."
A modern "AI," on the other hand, will see object A pass behind object B, and assume that "OMG OBJECT A NO LONGER EXISTS!" Unless, of course, some human has specifically told the "AI" that no, object A will eventually re-appear. It's not intelligence, because intelligence can infer and reason, and does not have to be directly told what the outcome should be.
There's absolutely no reason this information should offend you.
"True art". What does that even mean?
That was my first thought. Along the lines of --- first, define "True Art."
To misappropriate a quote from Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it.
Whether or not black pixels save energy is the technological equivalent of the "are eggs healthy" debate:
CRT screen? Black saves energy over white by not firing the beam at the dark pixels.
LCD screen? White saves energy over black by not diffusing the backlight.
OLED/AMOLED screen? Black saves energy by not lighting the pixel.
So will the next revolution in display technology swing the pendulum back?
Thanks for the link. I read the article and many of the comments.
What do you think about this one?
The same thing I think about anyone who claims that a major moment in human history boils down to 1 factor - it's bullshit, man.
Yes, slavery was a factor, but not the only factor. Consider the tariffs I linked to, then ask yourself: under those trade rules, how would the Southern states have managed to survive without the use of slave labor? The fact is, they wouldn't have, so in a way the Northern states forced the South to rely on slavery, then punished those states for it.
The fact is, our American Civil War was complicated, both the reasons for it's beginning and continuation (fun fact - Lincoln floated the idea of leaving slavery legal in some states, to preserve the union). What's interesting as an American is that the angle historians take on the conflict tends to be defined by where you get the education: Northern states tend to teach the "Civil War was about slavery" concept, Southern states lean towards the "state's rights" ideology, and Border states (like where I'm from) tend to take a more middle-of-the-road, "both of you are assholes" mentality.
The fact that you insist on referring to non-Western Europeans as "savages" strongly indicates that you're a dickhead.
That's what they were referred to as, at the time.
Sure, back when Euro-centric white supremecists ran the world. But that's not the world we live in anymore, and at this point in history we are well aware that the "savage races" weren't actually all that savage, and in fact many of them were highly advanced for their time.
So why is AC still using the term "savages" to refer to non-Western European cultures, and why the fuck are you defending the practice?
The only reason for the previous AI winter was the fact that the AI at that time could not be monetized. We are way beyond that now. AI is making profit, and therefore there is continued effort to market it and make even more money.
FTFY. "marketability" and "improvement" are not necessarily synonymous.