They'll compute the odds of an accident for all options and select the one with the lowest odds.
I don't think it's as simple as that, slamming the brakes is the benchmark. I would not want to be the person who says we'll make 20% of accidents worse in order to make 80% less severe by swerving around the problem. Over-performing does not buy you "credits" when your fancy maneuver fails spectacularly making everything worse. That's why I think the car will be optimized for best legal performance, not best statistical performance.
By that I mean he subscribes to an ethical stance that basically asserts that certain things are moral or immoral, regardless of circumstance.
Yes, RMS wants the world to be perfect and perfect is the enemy of good. If the world is using 100% "immoral" software and I had an idea to use 95% open source and 5% closed source he'd tell me that my idea was still immoral and that it should be 100% or I should walk away. It doesn't matter if it's better than what was before. It doesn't matter if 95% puts food on the table and going 100% would make me homeless. It's the same on the user side, you never have any other obligations or priorities that would make getting shit done more important than using morally sound software. And you can't waste a few minutes playing Angry Birds without the source code, it's not enough until you join him in the ivory tower of 100% purity.
It's like watching one of those eco-hippies with the carbon footprint of a mouse, I mean they're not bad people. But when being environmentally friendly becomes your one moral imperative that the rest of your life revolves around it's just too much for 99.9% of us. Like if you can't get to work without a car the answer is to move or quit your job. Whether you like steaks or not, being a vegetarian is more eco-friendly so quit eating meat. Stop going places because airplanes are carbon monsters, go camping in the woods. I mean most of us don't want to be polluting, wasteful eco-swines we usually look to be a bit greener but when you go over the top you end up pretty much alone in your lifestyle. I don't think the 0.1% save the world through their moral purity.
And he's like, 'I just want to spend my 20 bucks to get my Fortnite skins.'
In the real world we call this "fashion", where people - particularly girls/women but not only - spend lots of money on clothes, shoes, makeup, hair, accessories etc. that serve no functional purpose. If a boy wants to spend $20 on Fortnite skins it's useless, worthless virtual trinkets. Go figure. I'm a gamer and I'm perfectly aware that gaming is a "waste" of time and money but so are most hobbies and interests and if they have a useful aspect that's not what decides whether it's fun or not. I'm against the theory that young people should not get to do stupid things with their money. When you're 13 and have an allowance that's exactly the time to go broke because it's not really a big deal. For example I remember back in my youth we had these lottery machines, you could put in ~$0.25 and win ~$2.50. It was a totally fine way to learn that gambling away your money isn't very smart.
Today you have to be 18+ to gamble, wasting a few quarters is as serious as drinking beer, smoking and driving a car. While we do have a lot of sensible young adults we also have some that seem to have been extremely shielded and now have the full freedom to take up loans and go really, really broke. Give them a loan. Make them pay it back. Give them chores to get extra money. If they want to work their way to $20 for Fortnite skins, let them. My theory is that a lot of things you should let them learn through experience, parents can lecture all they want but chances are pretty big that you run out of time without the kids maturing and they go "Free at last, now I can finally do what I want with my money" when they turn 18.
Have a backup plan. Like a *real* backup plan.(...) We've had this sort of thing in Germany on and off for a few decades, ever since the 80ies.
Funny how you should bring up Germany, since we have a lot of Nazis from the 40s trying to go into hiding. A whole lot of them failed, with 2018 technology the rest would have probably failed too. This is not the cattle thieves of the wild wild west, today it's extremely hard to escape a past identity. Unless you got a country protecting yourself like Assange and Snowden you probably can't win.
Somebody's got to be on the left end of the emotional intelligence bell curve.
As a distribution sure but the real spacing is that you have "normal" stupid people and the genuinely retarded. Same on the EQ scale, you have the "normal" insensitive people and genuine psychopaths/sociopaths. You got serial killers and whatnot that's even further on the left end than this guy. Bottom 5% and bottom 1% can be very, very different things.
Judging by the current Macbook Pro, I don't think Apple understands what "a machine made for professional use" is. Apparently in a non-portable machine it's "any computer that requires a separate monitor".
I think Apple starts the other way and defines what consumers need. If you want a portable machine it's a MacBook, if it's a stationary machine it's an iMac. And not a million configurations, low/medium/high and small/medium/big is sufficient. If you have needs that aren't covered by those you're some kind of prosumer/professional who wants a niche functionality. Remember Jobs was the guy who wanted to use custom screws so the plebs couldn't even open the case, soldering everything in place and integrating the display is just the realization of that concept.
Apple doesn't want to be everything for everybody, you either fit their vision of who this machine is for or they don't care. For example there's a reason 96% of Steam users are on Windows, Apple never cared about gaming. It doesn't mean they're ignoring the consumer market, but they are ignoring the gaming subset of the consumer market. Same with many subsets of the professional market, they don't have a product for it. I think professional color-calibrated reference monitors are the reason Apple still offers Macs with no display. That consumers use it is just a halo product.
Bottom line: Apple is doing just fine for people who can't calculate or judge hardware by it's specs. Which is 99% of all people.
Or don't measure their computer's value in twitch game FPS or seconds to compile the Linux kernel. Let's compare the latest i9-9900k to the i7-2600k released in January 2011 thanks to Anandtech bench 1 and bench 2 using the i7-6700k as common reference.
Cinebench R15 Single Threaded: 216 vs 133 Cinebench R15 Multi-Threaded: 2032 vs 617
So 7.5 years later single threaded performance is still 62% and multi threaded 30% of what today must be considered ancient hardware. Give it enough RAM and an SSD and for most practical purposes I don't think most people would notice the difference unless it was side-by-side with a stop clock. People use a Mac because of macOS and iApps, not because it runs 20% slower or faster. And maybe because Win10 has jumped off the deep end.
If launch costs fall by half, the number of launches will more than double. If launch costs fall to 10% (wasn't that a SpaceX goal?), launches will increase by far more than 10x, probably 100x. We've seen that with just about every technology. Entire new industries are enabled when costs get low enough.
Depends on the market and how large the launch costs are compared to the total cost of ownership. Like going from paper books to eBooks lowers distribution costs massively but doesn't necessarily lead to an explosion of books being written. SpaceX is quite disruptive in the launch business, but we're not going to build another ISS or JWST or GPS system because of it. Of course it's always hard to predict what new business will come but I haven't heard any major player say they're just waiting for lower launch costs to make major expansions, SpaceX is mainly pointing to Starlink and themselves as the future growth potential. And somewhere SpaceX must also make the money to invest in that and the BFR...
I think it's important to distinguish between emotion as a source of goals and a source of behavioral logic. Computers don't have goals of their own, while for us they're a source of irrational goals. But when it comes to behavior purely associative relationships are "emotional" and honestly it's what humans use most the time and neural networks all the time. Like if you were in a very traumatizing experience then a simple sight or sound or smell could make you panic even though you know that rationally it was just a coincidence. Or you have your lucky socks or that song you fell in love to or that smell that reminds you of home. If you gave an AI a pair of dice and Spotify it would create a whole lot of superstitious beliefs that the song that's playing is related to your dice rolls, it wouldn't be able to meta-analyze the situation and say that's nonsense. It's why some say it's not really thinking, it's just blindly following a pattern that has had some prior success.
Imagine you were trying to teach a computer to drive a drag race. The current AI method is simply to push every button, turn every dial, pull every lever until you find the ignition switch, gear handle and gas pedal. That can work if it's a virtual car and you can do this a zillion times. The alternative is to work yourself backwards, for the car to move forwards the wheels must turn. For the wheels to turn, the gearbox must be in gear. For the gearbox to be in gear you must move the gear handle. For the engine to deliver power, the engine must run. For the engine to to start, the starter must run. To run the starter, flip the ignition switch. And to actually deliver power, the gas pedal must be pushed. We can basically analyze ourselves back the whole way and get it right on the first try. Many classic optimization algorithms are written this way, just loop the combinations and find the most optimal project plan or whatever.
The problem are those in the middle, where doing the purely associative thing is looking for a needle in a haystack because you have a million degrees of freedom and yet there's no simple analytical solution where we can work our way back from the goal. We have a complex heuristic where we try to break it down into meaningful sub-goals and rational branches of exploration combined with experimentation and improvisation, where we typically strive to find a solution that's "good enough" with no real expectation of finding a perfect or optimal solution. This is essentially where humans are when we play chess, we haven't worked out a mate and we're not randomly moving pieces around. We have a heuristic of material and position that's sometimes flawed but lets us navigate a situation far too complex to try everything. And there will be situations too complex for computers to try everything too.
The real challenge for SpaceX is to launch often enough that they can realize the savings of being able to launch the same rocket 100 times and of potentially being able to have 24 hour turnaround time. They've improved slightly, but they're still only averaging about 2 launches a month.
Not really because 24 launches/year at 1 launch/rocket = production of 24 rockets. At 2 launches/rocket = 12, at 3 launches/rocket = 8, at 4 launches/rocket = 6... they don't have to increase their launch rate to save massive amounts of money. Even with three month refurb a booster with 10 launches (which is the goal AFAIK, 100 is just for BFR pie-in-the-sky dreams) has less than a three year lifespan, they don't need faster turnaround to expend them in a timely fashion. Of course if you're making money then higher volume equals more money, but it's not necessary.
They probably do need to grow the market though, of 27 US launches so far this year the Falcon has had 17. Even if SpaceX steals some Soyuz launches to the ISS through the Commercial Crew program and a few more from Atlas/Delta there's not a lot of growth potential, unless China/Russia/ESA/Japan/India want to give up their own rocket programs. But no, nothing bad happens if those plans slide another year while they do their 4th-5th-6th launch of the same rocket. It's the only way SpaceX could avoid breaking their back on Starlink which is a massive investment, bigger than creating the BFR.
Right now, the feed cuts out, and then we usually don't see the landing until a few days later. If they could instead show it in the same live broadcast with a short delay, that would be much better.
Yeah, they generally show a picture of it having landed shortly afterwards which means communication is re-established pretty quick. Since there's not really anything interesting happening after that they could have a rolling buffer and switch to that, like here's a replay on a one minute delay. I'm guessing the delay now is because they have a simple signal split between the broadcast and recording systems with no easy playback. The recording is probably transferred back to HQ as a data file. Like this:
Signal | Splitter -> Wanted: delay buffer -> Broadcast | Recorder -> File -> Data Transfer
Why not wear a chipped ring instead? That way you can change your ID if it gets compromised and no knives are involved.
One way or the other the main thing is getting everything to work on the same standard. I mean I could replace my door lock with an electronic one, but it'd use its own chips. My car has its own key fob. Work has its own access card. My gym has its own access card. If I could get one ring that I could "load up" with all my various identifications, that'd be great. Ideally with some sort of PIN for when just the ring's presence is not enough.
Science by definition is amoral. Most of programming is too since you are just implementing a Mathematical (*) function. There is no ethics involved.
I work in a healthcare, you should tell the ethics board that because they seem to think using patient data and experimenting on people has moral implications. I'm sure Dr. Mengele will appreciate having his name cleared too. The distinction you're trying to make is between the generic and the specific. The engineer who designed the gas valve that was used in Auschwitz probably just made a valve, but other engineers designed the whole camp and knew what it was for. Same with making a sort function, some other programmer will write "foreach <Prisoner p> in <Camp> sort by strength descending, if workcamp.size() < 100 then p.toWorkcamp() else p.toGasChamber()". I think very many of us work enough with business objects or know the overall objectives of the project/company that we can't really claim ignorance about what it's for. If not, well ignorance is bliss.
I shouldn't have to use icloud as my online storage
Is there anything forcing you to? As far as I know you can set up ownCloud and use that instead of iCloud if you want, at least for documents, photos and videos. Granted, I don't think they support contact info and such but still...
These guys did a study and even dropped from 5.5 meters reaching a terminal velocity of 10 m/s (22 mph) a DJI Phantom could cause AIS 3+ (severe) neck injury if it fell on someone's head. My buddy has one of those and the biggest scare he had was in mid flight when the controller reported a battery problem. He was at 120m (~400 ft) which is the max unrestricted height, fortunately it was only a loose cable and was able to land safely but... had that been a total power loss it'd be 1.2 kg falling out of the sky from 400 ft, which is roughly worst case. At that point it'd be near terminal velocity which would be around 35 m/s (78 mph) (go to 15:00) for a drone of that size and a lethal weapon with enough power to crack an adult skull open.
Drones are, compared to say cars actually quite rare. They only have flight times measured in minutes, so run time is even less. And most are operated by sensible guys trying to avoid flying directly over people. Even when they're operated by idiots like above, they're quite reliable. But the Phantom is rated for 200g payload. Even if you just want to deliver a pizza you're going to need a much bigger drone with a lot more impact force and heavier drones drop more like a rock too. For a commercial operation in a hub-and-spoke model over populated areas... it's the "flying cars" idea in miniature. My bet is it'll last until Uber kills someone. And this time it won't be someone jaywalking in the dark, it'll just be whoever it happens to come crashing down on. Drones are cool. Drones and people are a really bad mix.
If Waymo get their self-driving car going I imagine we'll find many better alternatives to the "driveway problem", to the degree there actually is one. Maybe it could drop of micro-delivery bots that take stuff from the curb to your door or to a delivery box, if it's more like Amazon than pizza. I mean it's not like a drone leaving something on your lawn is optimal either. I mean if you'll have a drone dropping it from the sky it means it can't have no cover if it's raining, for example. Personally I think most problems would be most easily solved by a coat and slip-on shoes to go out, grab the delivery and be back inside in a minute. It's rarely that horrible outside...
I think Netflix dropped the ball. They were the effective monopoly in terms of digital distribution. They should have allowed others such as HBO, etc. to sell premium packages on top of Netflix. They take a cut, and become the distribution platform, plus they compete with their own shows. They could have pulled it off, building a reliable streaming platform is not easy/cheap.
Neither is herding a bunch of cats who'd want their own pricing models, promotions, branding, recommendation and search algorithms etc. into one solution. That is, if they were at all willing to become a Netflix package even if they offered it. And who'd really like to be just "Netflix basic"? I bet they'd almost all hide behind some premium wall. I don't think you should underestimate how important the "if you got it you got it" business model has been for customer adoption. If it was a portal to be constantly nickel and dimed it might never have reached the popularity as it has.
If your boss told you to learn Go, here's the rule book and you became a master player are you or your boss the smart one? Because that's what they did with AlphaGo Zero, it never saw a human play. The people who programmed it didn't know how to play before and they still didn't know afterwards, apart from setting the ultimate goal of winning the game they didn't give any input on what's a good or bad move or position. In the beginning it's stupid, it doesn't know what to do. It learns by playing itself, without further guidance from the programmer. I guess you could say that's ultimately the programmer's learning algorithm, but it's a bit like claiming your kid's brilliant brain came from your DNA so you deserve the credit. We're not just using AI to mimic human skills like driving a car, we're actually teaching it new skills that go beyond our own. If what we're creating is smarter than us, we're no longer teachers we're more like parents whose children have surpassed us.
The thing is it solves everyone's problem in the short run, on the false premise that during this time with extra resources you'll become more efficient so by the end of the contract they'll be redundant. The manager gets staff to fix the immediate problem. Manager+1...n didn't sign off on a permanent expansion. Kick the can down the road and hopefully it's not your problem next time.
But you seem to be starting out on the assumption that Netflix pays as much as they can for the first season. What really happens is that there's a lot of aspiring actors, directors, writers etc. so they'll start low and go *shrug* there's a hundred more in line behind you if you don't want the offer. And they will threaten to write you out of the script if you demand too much for the next season, they'll figure that out before the series is renewed. They'll keep renewing the shows that are profitable, not necessarily because they're popular if the costs get out of hand. And the last bit is a bit duh, if making "more or better" Netflix doesn't give any value it's just waste. If "more or better" gives value, then naturally you can charge more for that value. From a for-profit company's point of view, if you're not willing to pay for it it's not valuable.
Or maybe they'll just keep bumping up the capabilities of iOS on the iPad and eventually you'll actually want to use an iPad Pro for serious work, with the 8 core processor or whatever it will have.
There's not enough TDP headroom to make use of it, comparing the A10/A10X used in the current tablets it's just 50% more cores (2+2 -> 3+3) and there's probably no point in scaling up small cores further, the A12X might go from 2+4 to 4+4 but that would practically be a crippled quad-core for performance oriented tasks. Plus the iPad Pro 12.9" display is 5.5MP while a desktop/laptop today should at least support Apple's 5K displays of 15MP, so I imagine the GPU will need a big boost too so I think dedicated chips are in order. But it's absolutely possible that they'd run iOS and not macOS though, with all the lock down that'd involve. Of course/. would rage about that, but I think consumers would buy it. They're certainly buying iPhones and boot locked Android...
They're not comparable, no. But Intel had healthy 14nm production in 2014, now they're saying late 2019 at the earliest for 10nm so five years with nothing more than enhancements. And TSMC is shipping 7nm in the iPhone Xs right now and has just announced they expect 20% of their 2019 revenue to be from their 7nm process, which is fairly equivalent to Intel's 10nm. Samsung says their 7nm is ready for production too. Basically they've lost their entire lead and is already trailing a bit, they'll be fully competitive if they can launch their 10nm but they no longer get the holy trifecta of a better manufacturing process: Lower cost, better performance and higher power efficiency.
I think the greatest danger to Intel is that Apple finds it's able to produce comparable light desktop/laptop performance on ARM, if Intel can't provide superior chips there's very little reason for Apple to stay. They've done arch changes before from Motorola -> PowerPC -> x86, they know what it's like and with the iPhone/iPad CPU/GPU design in-house you know they'll be lusting for the Mac business. If they do I expect a full volley with new MacBook, MacBook Air, iMac and Mac mini ARM models but to leave MacBook Pro / iMac Pro / Mac Pro on x86 initially. If the rumors are true there'll be a new iPad Pro out soon with a A12X processor, that'll be a good clue as to how far it's off.
The point is not to become old. The point is to be healthy when you have become old. It is when you have realised that you will never be able to do the things that you want to do that you wish you'd rather be dead.
Being in good shape for an 80yo is not the same as being 50yo or 20yo. And not all ailments of age like bad sight or bad hearing have anything to do with exercise. In professional sports you usually retire in your 30s, if I wanted to win an Olympic gold at anything it's probably already too late. We all have to come to terms with aging, I'm not saying you should quit taking care of your body but if you are living super healthy and dull now thinking you'll be living it up later maybe you should invest less in your body and more into experiences and memories to reminisce about. Not that fun has to be unhealthy but sometimes a party with burgers and beer beats a workout with salad and water...
I fail to see the problem with any of this. Small talk is time wasting bullshit to try to keep up pleasantries. Instead of asking pointless questions you already know the answer to, why not just find someone you can have a worthwhile conversation with instead of having both people engage in an activity that neither find particularly enjoyable or stimulating?
Good small talk is supposed to find the leads to those interesting conversations. Bad small talk is just filler to avoid the awkward silence. Through life you're going to end up in many social situations where you're simply in the same class or group or club or have mutual friends but don't know each other. How are you going to discover you have something to talk about, telepathy? The better you know the person, the less small talk is necessary because you already know topics to talk about.
Small talk is just generic topics to fill the void, I've gotten better with experience but as a teen I really could have used some small talk coaching. I'd kill off conversations without really meaning to because I was acting almost like I was being quizzed, I'd answer questions but I was terrible at expanding on answers and taking opportunities to respond in kind or lead the conversation to a new topic when it's running dry. I mean right down to the simple things like if somebody asks you how your vacation has been, ask them how theirs was.
I mean it's probably not because you really care about where they went on vacation. But that's not the point, the point is just to create the space for them to tell a bit about themselves like some kind of hobby or interest or some other reason for going. Like whether they went to see an art gallery or a wild beach party. But when I was younger I didn't really see that far, if I didn't have an immediate interest in the answer I wouldn't bother asking the questions. Small talk is a fishing expedition, you might end up empty handed but if you don't throw out a line you're definitely not catching anything.
Most of the effort goes into the driving experience, like how the car handles, the interface to operate it, driver assistance and so on. None of that will be relevant anymore, as long as the AI can get you from A to B. What's the magic in creating a passenger seat? If you take a cab, do you care what brand it is? At scale there's no reason for Waymo to tie themselves to any particular brand, they could have a million from each manufacturer. Heck, they could probably just hire a few car designers and create a generic car like they did with the "Firefly" prototype. Sure somebody will continue actually making the cars, but it'll be just some faceless assembly company like Foxconn. Though I expect they'll have plenty time to go through the transition...
Slashdot Mirror
They'll compute the odds of an accident for all options and select the one with the lowest odds.
I don't think it's as simple as that, slamming the brakes is the benchmark. I would not want to be the person who says we'll make 20% of accidents worse in order to make 80% less severe by swerving around the problem. Over-performing does not buy you "credits" when your fancy maneuver fails spectacularly making everything worse. That's why I think the car will be optimized for best legal performance, not best statistical performance.
By that I mean he subscribes to an ethical stance that basically asserts that certain things are moral or immoral, regardless of circumstance.
Yes, RMS wants the world to be perfect and perfect is the enemy of good. If the world is using 100% "immoral" software and I had an idea to use 95% open source and 5% closed source he'd tell me that my idea was still immoral and that it should be 100% or I should walk away. It doesn't matter if it's better than what was before. It doesn't matter if 95% puts food on the table and going 100% would make me homeless. It's the same on the user side, you never have any other obligations or priorities that would make getting shit done more important than using morally sound software. And you can't waste a few minutes playing Angry Birds without the source code, it's not enough until you join him in the ivory tower of 100% purity.
It's like watching one of those eco-hippies with the carbon footprint of a mouse, I mean they're not bad people. But when being environmentally friendly becomes your one moral imperative that the rest of your life revolves around it's just too much for 99.9% of us. Like if you can't get to work without a car the answer is to move or quit your job. Whether you like steaks or not, being a vegetarian is more eco-friendly so quit eating meat. Stop going places because airplanes are carbon monsters, go camping in the woods. I mean most of us don't want to be polluting, wasteful eco-swines we usually look to be a bit greener but when you go over the top you end up pretty much alone in your lifestyle. I don't think the 0.1% save the world through their moral purity.
And he's like, 'I just want to spend my 20 bucks to get my Fortnite skins.'
In the real world we call this "fashion", where people - particularly girls/women but not only - spend lots of money on clothes, shoes, makeup, hair, accessories etc. that serve no functional purpose. If a boy wants to spend $20 on Fortnite skins it's useless, worthless virtual trinkets. Go figure. I'm a gamer and I'm perfectly aware that gaming is a "waste" of time and money but so are most hobbies and interests and if they have a useful aspect that's not what decides whether it's fun or not. I'm against the theory that young people should not get to do stupid things with their money. When you're 13 and have an allowance that's exactly the time to go broke because it's not really a big deal. For example I remember back in my youth we had these lottery machines, you could put in ~$0.25 and win ~$2.50. It was a totally fine way to learn that gambling away your money isn't very smart.
Today you have to be 18+ to gamble, wasting a few quarters is as serious as drinking beer, smoking and driving a car. While we do have a lot of sensible young adults we also have some that seem to have been extremely shielded and now have the full freedom to take up loans and go really, really broke. Give them a loan. Make them pay it back. Give them chores to get extra money. If they want to work their way to $20 for Fortnite skins, let them. My theory is that a lot of things you should let them learn through experience, parents can lecture all they want but chances are pretty big that you run out of time without the kids maturing and they go "Free at last, now I can finally do what I want with my money" when they turn 18.
Have a backup plan. Like a *real* backup plan.(...) We've had this sort of thing in Germany on and off for a few decades, ever since the 80ies.
Funny how you should bring up Germany, since we have a lot of Nazis from the 40s trying to go into hiding. A whole lot of them failed, with 2018 technology the rest would have probably failed too. This is not the cattle thieves of the wild wild west, today it's extremely hard to escape a past identity. Unless you got a country protecting yourself like Assange and Snowden you probably can't win.
Somebody's got to be on the left end of the emotional intelligence bell curve.
As a distribution sure but the real spacing is that you have "normal" stupid people and the genuinely retarded. Same on the EQ scale, you have the "normal" insensitive people and genuine psychopaths/sociopaths. You got serial killers and whatnot that's even further on the left end than this guy. Bottom 5% and bottom 1% can be very, very different things.
Yeah, who cares if their kids are waiting for the bus in pitch black? You idiot virgin.
Yes, it's a wonder people in Canada, northern Europe etc. survive when all our kids get eaten by a grue.
Judging by the current Macbook Pro, I don't think Apple understands what "a machine made for professional use" is. Apparently in a non-portable machine it's "any computer that requires a separate monitor".
I think Apple starts the other way and defines what consumers need. If you want a portable machine it's a MacBook, if it's a stationary machine it's an iMac. And not a million configurations, low/medium/high and small/medium/big is sufficient. If you have needs that aren't covered by those you're some kind of prosumer/professional who wants a niche functionality. Remember Jobs was the guy who wanted to use custom screws so the plebs couldn't even open the case, soldering everything in place and integrating the display is just the realization of that concept.
Apple doesn't want to be everything for everybody, you either fit their vision of who this machine is for or they don't care. For example there's a reason 96% of Steam users are on Windows, Apple never cared about gaming. It doesn't mean they're ignoring the consumer market, but they are ignoring the gaming subset of the consumer market. Same with many subsets of the professional market, they don't have a product for it. I think professional color-calibrated reference monitors are the reason Apple still offers Macs with no display. That consumers use it is just a halo product.
Bottom line: Apple is doing just fine for people who can't calculate or judge hardware by it's specs. Which is 99% of all people.
Or don't measure their computer's value in twitch game FPS or seconds to compile the Linux kernel. Let's compare the latest i9-9900k to the i7-2600k released in January 2011 thanks to Anandtech bench 1 and bench 2 using the i7-6700k as common reference.
Cinebench R15 Single Threaded: 216 vs 133
Cinebench R15 Multi-Threaded: 2032 vs 617
So 7.5 years later single threaded performance is still 62% and multi threaded 30% of what today must be considered ancient hardware. Give it enough RAM and an SSD and for most practical purposes I don't think most people would notice the difference unless it was side-by-side with a stop clock. People use a Mac because of macOS and iApps, not because it runs 20% slower or faster. And maybe because Win10 has jumped off the deep end.
If launch costs fall by half, the number of launches will more than double. If launch costs fall to 10% (wasn't that a SpaceX goal?), launches will increase by far more than 10x, probably 100x. We've seen that with just about every technology. Entire new industries are enabled when costs get low enough.
Depends on the market and how large the launch costs are compared to the total cost of ownership. Like going from paper books to eBooks lowers distribution costs massively but doesn't necessarily lead to an explosion of books being written. SpaceX is quite disruptive in the launch business, but we're not going to build another ISS or JWST or GPS system because of it. Of course it's always hard to predict what new business will come but I haven't heard any major player say they're just waiting for lower launch costs to make major expansions, SpaceX is mainly pointing to Starlink and themselves as the future growth potential. And somewhere SpaceX must also make the money to invest in that and the BFR...
I think it's important to distinguish between emotion as a source of goals and a source of behavioral logic. Computers don't have goals of their own, while for us they're a source of irrational goals. But when it comes to behavior purely associative relationships are "emotional" and honestly it's what humans use most the time and neural networks all the time. Like if you were in a very traumatizing experience then a simple sight or sound or smell could make you panic even though you know that rationally it was just a coincidence. Or you have your lucky socks or that song you fell in love to or that smell that reminds you of home. If you gave an AI a pair of dice and Spotify it would create a whole lot of superstitious beliefs that the song that's playing is related to your dice rolls, it wouldn't be able to meta-analyze the situation and say that's nonsense. It's why some say it's not really thinking, it's just blindly following a pattern that has had some prior success.
Imagine you were trying to teach a computer to drive a drag race. The current AI method is simply to push every button, turn every dial, pull every lever until you find the ignition switch, gear handle and gas pedal. That can work if it's a virtual car and you can do this a zillion times. The alternative is to work yourself backwards, for the car to move forwards the wheels must turn. For the wheels to turn, the gearbox must be in gear. For the gearbox to be in gear you must move the gear handle. For the engine to deliver power, the engine must run. For the engine to to start, the starter must run. To run the starter, flip the ignition switch. And to actually deliver power, the gas pedal must be pushed. We can basically analyze ourselves back the whole way and get it right on the first try. Many classic optimization algorithms are written this way, just loop the combinations and find the most optimal project plan or whatever.
The problem are those in the middle, where doing the purely associative thing is looking for a needle in a haystack because you have a million degrees of freedom and yet there's no simple analytical solution where we can work our way back from the goal. We have a complex heuristic where we try to break it down into meaningful sub-goals and rational branches of exploration combined with experimentation and improvisation, where we typically strive to find a solution that's "good enough" with no real expectation of finding a perfect or optimal solution. This is essentially where humans are when we play chess, we haven't worked out a mate and we're not randomly moving pieces around. We have a heuristic of material and position that's sometimes flawed but lets us navigate a situation far too complex to try everything. And there will be situations too complex for computers to try everything too.
The real challenge for SpaceX is to launch often enough that they can realize the savings of being able to launch the same rocket 100 times and of potentially being able to have 24 hour turnaround time. They've improved slightly, but they're still only averaging about 2 launches a month.
Not really because 24 launches/year at 1 launch/rocket = production of 24 rockets. At 2 launches/rocket = 12, at 3 launches/rocket = 8, at 4 launches/rocket = 6... they don't have to increase their launch rate to save massive amounts of money. Even with three month refurb a booster with 10 launches (which is the goal AFAIK, 100 is just for BFR pie-in-the-sky dreams) has less than a three year lifespan, they don't need faster turnaround to expend them in a timely fashion. Of course if you're making money then higher volume equals more money, but it's not necessary.
They probably do need to grow the market though, of 27 US launches so far this year the Falcon has had 17. Even if SpaceX steals some Soyuz launches to the ISS through the Commercial Crew program and a few more from Atlas/Delta there's not a lot of growth potential, unless China/Russia/ESA/Japan/India want to give up their own rocket programs. But no, nothing bad happens if those plans slide another year while they do their 4th-5th-6th launch of the same rocket. It's the only way SpaceX could avoid breaking their back on Starlink which is a massive investment, bigger than creating the BFR.
Right now, the feed cuts out, and then we usually don't see the landing until a few days later. If they could instead show it in the same live broadcast with a short delay, that would be much better.
Yeah, they generally show a picture of it having landed shortly afterwards which means communication is re-established pretty quick. Since there's not really anything interesting happening after that they could have a rolling buffer and switch to that, like here's a replay on a one minute delay. I'm guessing the delay now is because they have a simple signal split between the broadcast and recording systems with no easy playback. The recording is probably transferred back to HQ as a data file. Like this:
Signal
|
Splitter -> Wanted: delay buffer -> Broadcast
|
Recorder -> File -> Data Transfer
Why not wear a chipped ring instead? That way you can change your ID if it gets compromised and no knives are involved.
One way or the other the main thing is getting everything to work on the same standard. I mean I could replace my door lock with an electronic one, but it'd use its own chips. My car has its own key fob. Work has its own access card. My gym has its own access card. If I could get one ring that I could "load up" with all my various identifications, that'd be great. Ideally with some sort of PIN for when just the ring's presence is not enough.
Science by definition is amoral. Most of programming is too since you are just implementing a Mathematical (*) function. There is no ethics involved.
I work in a healthcare, you should tell the ethics board that because they seem to think using patient data and experimenting on people has moral implications. I'm sure Dr. Mengele will appreciate having his name cleared too. The distinction you're trying to make is between the generic and the specific. The engineer who designed the gas valve that was used in Auschwitz probably just made a valve, but other engineers designed the whole camp and knew what it was for. Same with making a sort function, some other programmer will write "foreach <Prisoner p> in <Camp> sort by strength descending, if workcamp.size() < 100 then p.toWorkcamp() else p.toGasChamber()". I think very many of us work enough with business objects or know the overall objectives of the project/company that we can't really claim ignorance about what it's for. If not, well ignorance is bliss.
I shouldn't have to use icloud as my online storage
Is there anything forcing you to? As far as I know you can set up ownCloud and use that instead of iCloud if you want, at least for documents, photos and videos. Granted, I don't think they support contact info and such but still...
Just like their self-driving cars.
These guys did a study and even dropped from 5.5 meters reaching a terminal velocity of 10 m/s (22 mph) a DJI Phantom could cause AIS 3+ (severe) neck injury if it fell on someone's head. My buddy has one of those and the biggest scare he had was in mid flight when the controller reported a battery problem. He was at 120m (~400 ft) which is the max unrestricted height, fortunately it was only a loose cable and was able to land safely but... had that been a total power loss it'd be 1.2 kg falling out of the sky from 400 ft, which is roughly worst case. At that point it'd be near terminal velocity which would be around 35 m/s (78 mph) (go to 15:00) for a drone of that size and a lethal weapon with enough power to crack an adult skull open.
Drones are, compared to say cars actually quite rare. They only have flight times measured in minutes, so run time is even less. And most are operated by sensible guys trying to avoid flying directly over people. Even when they're operated by idiots like above, they're quite reliable. But the Phantom is rated for 200g payload. Even if you just want to deliver a pizza you're going to need a much bigger drone with a lot more impact force and heavier drones drop more like a rock too. For a commercial operation in a hub-and-spoke model over populated areas... it's the "flying cars" idea in miniature. My bet is it'll last until Uber kills someone. And this time it won't be someone jaywalking in the dark, it'll just be whoever it happens to come crashing down on. Drones are cool. Drones and people are a really bad mix.
If Waymo get their self-driving car going I imagine we'll find many better alternatives to the "driveway problem", to the degree there actually is one. Maybe it could drop of micro-delivery bots that take stuff from the curb to your door or to a delivery box, if it's more like Amazon than pizza. I mean it's not like a drone leaving something on your lawn is optimal either. I mean if you'll have a drone dropping it from the sky it means it can't have no cover if it's raining, for example. Personally I think most problems would be most easily solved by a coat and slip-on shoes to go out, grab the delivery and be back inside in a minute. It's rarely that horrible outside...
I think Netflix dropped the ball. They were the effective monopoly in terms of digital distribution. They should have allowed others such as HBO, etc. to sell premium packages on top of Netflix. They take a cut, and become the distribution platform, plus they compete with their own shows. They could have pulled it off, building a reliable streaming platform is not easy/cheap.
Neither is herding a bunch of cats who'd want their own pricing models, promotions, branding, recommendation and search algorithms etc. into one solution. That is, if they were at all willing to become a Netflix package even if they offered it. And who'd really like to be just "Netflix basic"? I bet they'd almost all hide behind some premium wall. I don't think you should underestimate how important the "if you got it you got it" business model has been for customer adoption. If it was a portal to be constantly nickel and dimed it might never have reached the popularity as it has.
If your boss told you to learn Go, here's the rule book and you became a master player are you or your boss the smart one? Because that's what they did with AlphaGo Zero, it never saw a human play. The people who programmed it didn't know how to play before and they still didn't know afterwards, apart from setting the ultimate goal of winning the game they didn't give any input on what's a good or bad move or position. In the beginning it's stupid, it doesn't know what to do. It learns by playing itself, without further guidance from the programmer. I guess you could say that's ultimately the programmer's learning algorithm, but it's a bit like claiming your kid's brilliant brain came from your DNA so you deserve the credit. We're not just using AI to mimic human skills like driving a car, we're actually teaching it new skills that go beyond our own. If what we're creating is smarter than us, we're no longer teachers we're more like parents whose children have surpassed us.
The thing is it solves everyone's problem in the short run, on the false premise that during this time with extra resources you'll become more efficient so by the end of the contract they'll be redundant. The manager gets staff to fix the immediate problem. Manager+1...n didn't sign off on a permanent expansion. Kick the can down the road and hopefully it's not your problem next time.
But you seem to be starting out on the assumption that Netflix pays as much as they can for the first season. What really happens is that there's a lot of aspiring actors, directors, writers etc. so they'll start low and go *shrug* there's a hundred more in line behind you if you don't want the offer. And they will threaten to write you out of the script if you demand too much for the next season, they'll figure that out before the series is renewed. They'll keep renewing the shows that are profitable, not necessarily because they're popular if the costs get out of hand. And the last bit is a bit duh, if making "more or better" Netflix doesn't give any value it's just waste. If "more or better" gives value, then naturally you can charge more for that value. From a for-profit company's point of view, if you're not willing to pay for it it's not valuable.
Or maybe they'll just keep bumping up the capabilities of iOS on the iPad and eventually you'll actually want to use an iPad Pro for serious work, with the 8 core processor or whatever it will have.
There's not enough TDP headroom to make use of it, comparing the A10/A10X used in the current tablets it's just 50% more cores (2+2 -> 3+3) and there's probably no point in scaling up small cores further, the A12X might go from 2+4 to 4+4 but that would practically be a crippled quad-core for performance oriented tasks. Plus the iPad Pro 12.9" display is 5.5MP while a desktop/laptop today should at least support Apple's 5K displays of 15MP, so I imagine the GPU will need a big boost too so I think dedicated chips are in order. But it's absolutely possible that they'd run iOS and not macOS though, with all the lock down that'd involve. Of course /. would rage about that, but I think consumers would buy it. They're certainly buying iPhones and boot locked Android...
They're not comparable, no. But Intel had healthy 14nm production in 2014, now they're saying late 2019 at the earliest for 10nm so five years with nothing more than enhancements. And TSMC is shipping 7nm in the iPhone Xs right now and has just announced they expect 20% of their 2019 revenue to be from their 7nm process, which is fairly equivalent to Intel's 10nm. Samsung says their 7nm is ready for production too. Basically they've lost their entire lead and is already trailing a bit, they'll be fully competitive if they can launch their 10nm but they no longer get the holy trifecta of a better manufacturing process: Lower cost, better performance and higher power efficiency.
I think the greatest danger to Intel is that Apple finds it's able to produce comparable light desktop/laptop performance on ARM, if Intel can't provide superior chips there's very little reason for Apple to stay. They've done arch changes before from Motorola -> PowerPC -> x86, they know what it's like and with the iPhone/iPad CPU/GPU design in-house you know they'll be lusting for the Mac business. If they do I expect a full volley with new MacBook, MacBook Air, iMac and Mac mini ARM models but to leave MacBook Pro / iMac Pro / Mac Pro on x86 initially. If the rumors are true there'll be a new iPad Pro out soon with a A12X processor, that'll be a good clue as to how far it's off.
The point is not to become old. The point is to be healthy when you have become old. It is when you have realised that you will never be able to do the things that you want to do that you wish you'd rather be dead.
Being in good shape for an 80yo is not the same as being 50yo or 20yo. And not all ailments of age like bad sight or bad hearing have anything to do with exercise. In professional sports you usually retire in your 30s, if I wanted to win an Olympic gold at anything it's probably already too late. We all have to come to terms with aging, I'm not saying you should quit taking care of your body but if you are living super healthy and dull now thinking you'll be living it up later maybe you should invest less in your body and more into experiences and memories to reminisce about. Not that fun has to be unhealthy but sometimes a party with burgers and beer beats a workout with salad and water...
I fail to see the problem with any of this. Small talk is time wasting bullshit to try to keep up pleasantries. Instead of asking pointless questions you already know the answer to, why not just find someone you can have a worthwhile conversation with instead of having both people engage in an activity that neither find particularly enjoyable or stimulating?
Good small talk is supposed to find the leads to those interesting conversations. Bad small talk is just filler to avoid the awkward silence. Through life you're going to end up in many social situations where you're simply in the same class or group or club or have mutual friends but don't know each other. How are you going to discover you have something to talk about, telepathy? The better you know the person, the less small talk is necessary because you already know topics to talk about.
Small talk is just generic topics to fill the void, I've gotten better with experience but as a teen I really could have used some small talk coaching. I'd kill off conversations without really meaning to because I was acting almost like I was being quizzed, I'd answer questions but I was terrible at expanding on answers and taking opportunities to respond in kind or lead the conversation to a new topic when it's running dry. I mean right down to the simple things like if somebody asks you how your vacation has been, ask them how theirs was.
I mean it's probably not because you really care about where they went on vacation. But that's not the point, the point is just to create the space for them to tell a bit about themselves like some kind of hobby or interest or some other reason for going. Like whether they went to see an art gallery or a wild beach party. But when I was younger I didn't really see that far, if I didn't have an immediate interest in the answer I wouldn't bother asking the questions. Small talk is a fishing expedition, you might end up empty handed but if you don't throw out a line you're definitely not catching anything.
Most of the effort goes into the driving experience, like how the car handles, the interface to operate it, driver assistance and so on. None of that will be relevant anymore, as long as the AI can get you from A to B. What's the magic in creating a passenger seat? If you take a cab, do you care what brand it is? At scale there's no reason for Waymo to tie themselves to any particular brand, they could have a million from each manufacturer. Heck, they could probably just hire a few car designers and create a generic car like they did with the "Firefly" prototype. Sure somebody will continue actually making the cars, but it'll be just some faceless assembly company like Foxconn. Though I expect they'll have plenty time to go through the transition...