What happened in Java that these things are not simply intuitive and awesome?
My guess why he's annoyed is that "var" makes you way more dependent on IDE support. Now this is just plain redundant:
Dictionary<string, int> d = new Dictionary<string, int>
but this is not:
var d = SomeClass.foo();
What's d now? Something defined somewhere else far, far away. If you have a competent IDE you'll know almost instantly what type it is, if you still swear to random text editor you're screwed.
Lambdas are neat in that you don't need to clutter everything with a zillion helper functions. I very much prefer lambda LINQ queries for example. But if you're a maintainer and is trying to figure out a call stack well anonymous is anonymous, if you're used to finding a semi-logical function name with lambdas you're stuck looking at the implementation to know WTF it's doing. If code is written by the kid who thinks that everything should be a lambda, I have no doubt you can get frustrated.
Are they non-serious gamers or are they non-serious about that particular game?
Or they're semi-serious players with obligations. I'd say the presence of a 144 Hz gaming monitor and a graphics card to match probably says a lot about your interest and competitiveness in FPS games. It's like trying to measure how a sports car makes you drive while ignoring who buys a sports car in the first place.
But social media is unlike anything humans have ever experienced before. If you designed an operant conditioning experiment with the aim of producing group think on an unprecedentedly vast, society-wide scale, social media is exactly what you'd end up with.
Except that's not really what's happening, that's more what you had with old mass media where millions of people would get brainwashed by the same propaganda. Social media is different, it's people hooking up with the 1% to 0.01% who think like they do and creating lots of tiny echo chambers. All you need is a few hundred people who think like you and you can have a social media feed to fill your day making it seem like everyone agrees with you. It warps people's conceptions of what is normal and what society at large thinks to the point that they often think neutral sources and public polls are lying because they can't reconcile the impression they have in the echo chamber with the outside world. Before you actually got exposed to what a random mix of the population thought, whether you wanted it or not. That wasn't all good and society could be very narrow minded, but at least you had your bearings right.
Personally no. Of course she didn't get any direct say in the qualifications for getting a driver's license, what cars are road worthy, penalties for bad driving, medical requirements to keep you license or anything else either. Was there a legal process enacted by a democratically elected institution? Yes. Should there be? Good question, but it's not like they need individual approval.
Did the previous XBox include a phonograph, cassette or 8-track device? Otherwise, wasn't it already "all-digital" with the CD/DVD/Blu-ray (whatever) device?
The world moved on from analog vs digital many years ago, it's now digital vs physical delivery and this one is "all-digital". Besides to invoke counter-pedantry the games on my C64 cassettes were also digital, there's just no such thing as analog software. How would that even work with a digital computer?
All my systems can go from 0000-01-01 to 9999-12-31.
I think you will find plenty systems choke on year "zero" which is actually year 1 BC. There's technically no reason why since anything before 1753 is wonky anyway and ISO 8601 allows it, but you'll have a lot less headaches with 0001-01-01 as your min-value.
TFA calls these people "hoarders," but I'd liken them to modern day librarians/historians.
Like in the real world, I think most are actually just hoarders dragging in any old junk without any time or interest to sort it out and certainly not put it on display or give it out again. Yes, some people are genuinely collectors trying to preserve a piece of history but most are just trying to dump the Internet to disk. I was there a while and I think I still have old CD/DVD folders with MP3s and DVD rips laying around somewhere, none of it worthy of preservation. It used to grow in leaps and bounds from MB to GB to TB but now I just take a spring cleaning on the biggest items every once in a while. Those directory visualization tools are really great to let you know what's 20MB and what's 200GB, so I don't sit all day clearing up 1% of my drive.
The absolute last thing any politician or ruler would do is ban Spybook or Google. The permanent profiles they build on individuals are quite literally Stalin's dream.
But foreign companies means a lot of corporate resistance, public outcry, possible exposure and potential for other governments to snoop. China wants the Chinese on WeChat and Baidu, not Facebook and Google. Same with Russia and VKontakte. If they can use some legitimate-ish excuse to drive people away from American services, they will.
Well, when I went to study in Germany we managed to push a very packed, under powered Volvo station wagon (4 guys + luggage) up to 200 km/h (125 mph) on the 20 km (10+ miles) of straight Autobahn past Frankfurt, just to see what was possible. I'm very glad we didn't have to find out how long it'd take to stop. Since then I've gone 135 mph in a BMW and 150 mph in a Mustang, but both those cars felt like they were actually made to drive at that speed at least on an almost empty, straight, dry three-lane road in daylight anyway. The other 99% of the time I'd be doing less than 112 mph...
The biggest standardization effort was actually not on the hardware side. While USB has some nice features like hot-plugging and auto-negotiation it's basically readPacket() and writePacket(). The huge difference was that they started defining device classes like keyboards, mice, game pads, memory sticks, headphones/speakers etc. so you didn't need special drivers for each device. Some things took longer than other, like for example webcams took a while. You could watch the raw USB packets but the protocol had to reverse engineered. Today you just comply with the webcam device class (I think it's called video/audio device or something) and it just works.
ABS was a technology many thought was lacking- and initially, it probably was. But today- I'm pretty sure the most experienced driver can not beat the most recent ABS, considering the ability to monitor/control the speed of each wheel separately.
When I was getting my driver's license I had the chance to try out both on our mandatory snow and ice testing, because my instructor's car didn't have it and the other car we used did. Early ABS was pretty stupid, it was just unblocking the wheels on a timer whether you wanted steering or not and regardless of traction so if all you wanted was a straight line stop ABS came with a penalty. In deep snow or on gravel you'd still get better results locking up the wheels today. But the moment you needed steering like trying to pump-brake in a light curve matching the ABS performance was hell, either you locked up and skidded out or it took way longer to stop. You could do it with practice but if you're surprised by something behind a curve I'd take ABS every day. And that's usually when shit happens, yes there could be someone running a red light or jaywalkers or animals crossing on a straight road but the difference was rather marginal compared to the downsides in every other situation.
Well in this case we're talking about people who come with a court-approved warrant. As long as we're in a single jurisdiction it's only a question whether the police officers will knock on you company's door or the company next door running your servers, unless you work for the mafia or something you're just going to hand it over. And keeping it in-house doesn't actually solve the problem. It doesn't even have to involve client data.
There's two issues here: 1) Jurisdiction shopping, that despite operating in one jurisdiction you send your data to another country with more favorable laws and courts. 2) Jurisdiction leakage, that your data is unwittingly and unwillingly brought under the jurisdiction of other legal systems.
Now it's not exactly news that countries have different laws, that's one of many reasons you have legal subsidiaries. Say you're McDonald's, if you want to operate a restaurant here in Norway you have to comply with local taxes and regulations and permits and whatnot so you create McDonald's Norway, in the US you create McDonald's US and so on for each country with a simple holding company on top. So far, so good.
But now imagine if they fear some kind of price fixing investigation and say hey Norway got better privacy laws than us, let's just move the company email servers and all other non-essential data there to be operated by our Norwegian subsidiary. US courts come with a warrant, you shrug and like we have no data try the Norwegian courts. This is bad. But then you try to fix it by saying subsidiaries are puppets to a parent company, if you can instruct them then you must. That solves one problem but creates a new one.
Let's say that to reduce long term sick leave we have a program to help people get back to work, lots of gory detail on what condition you have, how it limits your working ability, what the company has done to try to accommodate you and we say this isn't just company data we're going to give it special protection and access restrictions. But then the marching orders come from the top, hand over all your data. Do you comply? If US companies can instruct their subsidiaries to comply with US law, well then Chinese companies can instruct their subsidiaries to comply with Chinese law.
The US, as usual, wants the rules to only apply in one direction. They want US courts to be able to go in and grab data from other jurisdictions, while they'll get very angry if China uses their companies as hired thugs in the same way. And they justify their hypocrisy by saying we're the good guys, it's okay when we do it. It's not okay, start respecting that these businesses operate in other countries and that here our laws take precedence and stop trying to act like world police.
Well... while I can't fault your logic, I think your summary understates just how much previously private information we're now exposing. For example take newspapers, my dad still gets one in the dead tree format. Nobody knows what articles he reads or how long he's read it in total and outside the paperboy nobody knows if he's picked it up at all. With online newspapers they know exactly when and what you've read and with JavaScript probably how long it took, how often you scrolled the page and overall created way more data on whoever read the semi-critical article on the Party. Same goes for video games, TV series and whatnot... it used to happen on your computer, now there's a log in the cloud.
Well so far the only business SpaceX's Dragon has had is to ferry people to the very much so government built and operated ISS. I mean it's great that we've replaced an expensive cost-plus provider with a fixed price service but they're still the whole reason the market is there. Yes, I know SpaceX got a private moon fly-by in the plans but that's still years away and the casual space tourist market will soon be taken by a $200k suborbital joyride from Blue Origin that isn't useful for anything else. What would drive a commercial expansion of space flight?
Don't get me wrong, SpaceX is doing a very commendable job bringing down the cost but even if you could get Apollo for 1/100th of the cost the Moon is just a barren rock with no real income potential other than as a researcher or their support staff. Even if came down to the point where you could literally book a flight it'd probably look like "T/R Moon, Tranquility Bay: $10 million. Hotel: SpaceX Plaza, Tranquility Bay: $100k/night." with prices that make seven star hotels look cheap. The only people who can afford that are those who make millions on stocks while they sleep.
Every CEO says this fluff at regular intervals, doesn't matter if the arrows are going up, down or sideways they always speak up the future at least in public. The only difference is that Apple is clickbait-worthy enough that someone will write an article about it. Plus I mean as CEO he's the one picking the direction R&D is going, you're basically asking him to write his own performance review. But I also think the expectation that Apple is supposed to do something new and revolutionary will let them do gambles other companies might not have, I don't think stuff like "Lets do a Galaxy Watch" would happen at Samsung.
Maybe you did not read the summary (...) And you did not read TFA
Maybe you're dense but probably just trolling... the chemical elements used to be a list, before someone organized them into a table 150 years ago. The first reasonably complete list was published 230 years ago by somebody else. The list lead to the table, so that's why they say speak of it as the "story behind it" and "what you now know as the periodic table" because that's the form we present it in today.
There is no real answer to this question, but to invent one, I'd say 35mm film usually seems to be better quality than 1080p, but somewhat worse quality than low-noise 4K shot with modern digital equipment. But it depends greatly on how the 35mm was originally shot.
An important factor is also if you're talking digital equivalent or film-to-digital resolution. The latter requires approximately double to accurately represent the full detail in the analog film. The people who have tested it says:
Digital 9.8 Mpixels, monochrome: Intensity detail similar to or slightly better than 35mm film detail. Color detail still lacking film. Note the lack of green in the digital image, especially in the closest grass clump just left of center. Also the brown dry grass tip at the lower left corner shows a lack of color in the 9.8 Mpixel digital compared to the 35mm film. The 9.8 mpxel image shows many fine lines which look like grass blades. Many are real, but some are not! Compare with the higher resolution images to see what is real.
35mm film: 4000 dpi scan is 3760 x 5640 pixels = 21.2 RGB Mpixels (64 MByte tif file).
Digital 17 Mpixels, monochrome: The intensity detail is now clearly better than the 35mm film, but the color detail is just beginning to be comparable. Note the dry grass in the lower left corner still appears washed out compared to the 35mm film and the 48 Mpixel image below.
Digital 48 Mpixels, monochrome: Quality similar to small medium format film. Most of the not real grass blades are gone (but not all). Color detail is very good.
So for photography you're beyond 4K (8MP) somewhere. For video however, though I can't find it right now there was a study that said typical film stock on a typical film camera from negative to release print was like 900 lpm. So a 1080p camera fully resolving 1080 lines would be equivalent or even a little better, but you'd want a 4K scan to get all the detail. But a native 4K video will have more detail than film ever had...
Because the game has to go on forever with an endless loop chock full of microtransactions and loot boxes nothing substantial or interesting can happen in the game.
To be honest, I found the entire lack of grandiose world-turning events in RDR2 refreshing. This is not Skyrim where you're the grand savior, you don't have any great hidden powers and you're not a pawn/hero in the great battle between good and evil. You can be a good guy, bad guy, neutral hunter/trapper/fisher guy or whatever but nobody has at any point given the impression that Arthur Morgan would change the world. Sure a few guns are unlocked but you start out a gunslinger, you end a gunslinger. If that makes the game "lack direction" you're simply in the wrong game because you want to be on the rails following an epic story. Unlike most other games it also makes sense that you run off to do side-quests where in most games it's like doomsday is coming, but I'll go collect dandelions and help a guy find his lost dog. How it'll be online I don't know, but there hasn't been a micro-transaction in sight in single player, just straight up fun.
Does it have long-winded riding scenes? Yes, if you want action it does but on the other hand... if you just don't care and just want an arcade shooter it's not a very challenging game. Granted I screwed up a bit more than I should but most missions didn't take many attempts and I was never like stuck. Which goes back to the fact that you can't really grind for level/gear, if they made missions too hard they'd simply stay too hard and people would never get on with the story. But that's okay I don't feel like this is the kind of game you should master in that sense, like beating the end boss. It's over when you don't find it fun anymore and it could be after 5 hours or 50 or 500, hopefully I won't be riding around in there like that guy in Westworld though. There's only so much do to and I expect it will get old eventually, but that's cool.... I'll have had lots of fun while it lasted.
And how do you purport to know which is which? Do you think that the businesses who are investing their own money into this automation would be doing it if they didn't believe that it makes sense for them to do so? Just because you cannot see the case for doing it, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
Well, at the moment there's a ridiculous amount of buzz around AI and to me it looks like the greatest bubble since the dotcom era. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people are going to lose money on various hare-brained ideas that never go from a $50000 prototype to a $500 functional product or service people would actually buy. But much like the dotcom era got people online all that money poured into it is going to advance the state of automation. Even if you ended up paying $100 million dollars to automate a $10 million dollar problem it's going to be almost pure R&D and once it's done the marginal cost of keeping it running is probably low enough to keep going.
Which is it then? What are they going to do, forcefully hospitalize or arrest a statistical de-identified person.
De-identified data, unlike actually anonymous data just means they have a box that strips the data of identifiers and usually assigns it an alias so they can add more data later. There's two risks:
1) That you are recognizable in the data by someone who knows part of the information already. For example imagine cell phone location data compared against your Facebook/Instagram posts or simply real life comings and goings. Very soon it would narrow down to just you matching that exact pattern. In this case it could for example be that you were evicted from a house, a lot of people might know that but maybe not everything else this registry has on you.
2) That in the event of a technical or legal meltdown the de-identifying server is compromised too. As long as there's something identifying a unique person and the data set has not been closed and the mapping wiped it's still technically a potentially the the identity will be re-attached by someone above or outside the law. However very often the primary source will keep this information anyway and the de-anonymization tends to happen close to the source, so it's really just an issue if they register it for the stats then delete the information themselves.
Blockchain is only useful when you need a (very slow) public database and no one trusts anyone.
Correct and there are a non-trivial number of use cases like that.
I still don't see the use case where you'd want to trust the guy with the most CPU cycles though, with known parties you could just ask for a mass PGP confirmation or something like that. Maybe your bank doesn't trust any one other bank, but if 100+ banks around the country all sign and verify that yep, we saw that too it's going to be pretty hard to argue it didn't happen even if you can't find one neutral third party everybody trusts. I mean the blockchain is a nice trick to get a certain level of trust out of total strangers, but I don't see it having meaning where the players are known and trust is based on votes of various weight rather than what computing resources they bring.
Read and get all the details buried in a document longer than Hamlet, including all the little nuances? Not realistic.
Well I wouldn't mind quite that much if there was one version of Hamlet or even a reasonable family tree of licenses with proper revision control. Reality is though that ever company writes their own Hamlet-like book copy-pasting vast amounts of boilerplate but putting their own twist on it. And they'll randomly and without warning make some minor edit on it and ask you to re-agree to the whole agreement without any indication what has changed. Something like the CC licenses but for commercial terms or at least some predefined sections so you know this "no warranty"/"no liability" clause is exactly like all the other clauses. In the summary they could be like "COTS-NW-NL-something-something 2.0" instead of:
5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer
UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING AND TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THIS EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
6. Limitation on Liability. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Maybe that all needs to be there in law and there'd be many necessary variations, but if you could at least make it a one-liner that the license is "COTS-NW-NL-FOO-BAR-HAHA-NELSON-WAS-HERE-EAT-MY-SHORTS 2.0" you'd at least know it didn't contain any fucked up shit this one company tried to pull on you. Or if you have a legitimate need for special clauses, maybe people would actually read them.
A new rookie to the NFL can expect to make around $365,000 per year, which constantly rises by about $5,000 to $10,000 per year. The very first stat I looked up destroyed your argument so..... Well, unless you think $365K/year is almost nothing..
Well I was thinking individual athletes like the 100th fastest at 100m dash or 100th highest ranked tennis player, like you're not even qualifying for the top events. For a team sport a fair comparison would be by position, where's the 100th best quarterback? With 32 NFL teams and one substitute each he's still playing college football where they're not paid except for a $20-$30k/year athletic scholarship. League sports are probably still easier though, all teams have their fans who have you as their favorite. In most other sports you're either a gold/silver/bronze medalist winning championships and tournaments or you're nobody, it's better to the be 5th best quarterback in the NFL than be the 5th fastest man in the world.
In other words, all the involved will receive huge quarter bonuses for a few years, then once it badly backfires they will have departed with golden parachutes, while PepsiCo fills for bankruptcy, right?
Don't confuse creative industries like writing code with production industries like making beverages. They've been automating that since the industrial revolution and it's an ongoing process of more and more self-regulating, self-diagnosing and self-correcting machinery that's quite often successful. It's not like a code base where it takes a few years to turn a well-maintained product into a train wreck.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened in Java that these things are not simply intuitive and awesome?
My guess why he's annoyed is that "var" makes you way more dependent on IDE support. Now this is just plain redundant:
Dictionary<string, int> d = new Dictionary<string, int>
but this is not:
var d = SomeClass.foo();
What's d now? Something defined somewhere else far, far away. If you have a competent IDE you'll know almost instantly what type it is, if you still swear to random text editor you're screwed.
Lambdas are neat in that you don't need to clutter everything with a zillion helper functions. I very much prefer lambda LINQ queries for example. But if you're a maintainer and is trying to figure out a call stack well anonymous is anonymous, if you're used to finding a semi-logical function name with lambdas you're stuck looking at the implementation to know WTF it's doing. If code is written by the kid who thinks that everything should be a lambda, I have no doubt you can get frustrated.
Are they non-serious gamers or are they non-serious about that particular game?
Or they're semi-serious players with obligations. I'd say the presence of a 144 Hz gaming monitor and a graphics card to match probably says a lot about your interest and competitiveness in FPS games. It's like trying to measure how a sports car makes you drive while ignoring who buys a sports car in the first place.
But social media is unlike anything humans have ever experienced before. If you designed an operant conditioning experiment with the aim of producing group think on an unprecedentedly vast, society-wide scale, social media is exactly what you'd end up with.
Except that's not really what's happening, that's more what you had with old mass media where millions of people would get brainwashed by the same propaganda. Social media is different, it's people hooking up with the 1% to 0.01% who think like they do and creating lots of tiny echo chambers. All you need is a few hundred people who think like you and you can have a social media feed to fill your day making it seem like everyone agrees with you. It warps people's conceptions of what is normal and what society at large thinks to the point that they often think neutral sources and public polls are lying because they can't reconcile the impression they have in the echo chamber with the outside world. Before you actually got exposed to what a random mix of the population thought, whether you wanted it or not. That wasn't all good and society could be very narrow minded, but at least you had your bearings right.
Did the person killed accept that risk?
Personally no. Of course she didn't get any direct say in the qualifications for getting a driver's license, what cars are road worthy, penalties for bad driving, medical requirements to keep you license or anything else either. Was there a legal process enacted by a democratically elected institution? Yes. Should there be? Good question, but it's not like they need individual approval.
Did the previous XBox include a phonograph, cassette or 8-track device? Otherwise, wasn't it already "all-digital" with the CD/DVD/Blu-ray (whatever) device?
The world moved on from analog vs digital many years ago, it's now digital vs physical delivery and this one is "all-digital". Besides to invoke counter-pedantry the games on my C64 cassettes were also digital, there's just no such thing as analog software. How would that even work with a digital computer?
Ya know, I think you can survive with the timestamp on your CCTV feed having the wrong year.
I will, but won't somebody please think of the NSA?
All my systems can go from 0000-01-01 to 9999-12-31.
I think you will find plenty systems choke on year "zero" which is actually year 1 BC. There's technically no reason why since anything before 1753 is wonky anyway and ISO 8601 allows it, but you'll have a lot less headaches with 0001-01-01 as your min-value.
TFA calls these people "hoarders," but I'd liken them to modern day librarians/historians.
Like in the real world, I think most are actually just hoarders dragging in any old junk without any time or interest to sort it out and certainly not put it on display or give it out again. Yes, some people are genuinely collectors trying to preserve a piece of history but most are just trying to dump the Internet to disk. I was there a while and I think I still have old CD/DVD folders with MP3s and DVD rips laying around somewhere, none of it worthy of preservation. It used to grow in leaps and bounds from MB to GB to TB but now I just take a spring cleaning on the biggest items every once in a while. Those directory visualization tools are really great to let you know what's 20MB and what's 200GB, so I don't sit all day clearing up 1% of my drive.
The absolute last thing any politician or ruler would do is ban Spybook or Google. The permanent profiles they build on individuals are quite literally Stalin's dream.
But foreign companies means a lot of corporate resistance, public outcry, possible exposure and potential for other governments to snoop. China wants the Chinese on WeChat and Baidu, not Facebook and Google. Same with Russia and VKontakte. If they can use some legitimate-ish excuse to drive people away from American services, they will.
Well, when I went to study in Germany we managed to push a very packed, under powered Volvo station wagon (4 guys + luggage) up to 200 km/h (125 mph) on the 20 km (10+ miles) of straight Autobahn past Frankfurt, just to see what was possible. I'm very glad we didn't have to find out how long it'd take to stop. Since then I've gone 135 mph in a BMW and 150 mph in a Mustang, but both those cars felt like they were actually made to drive at that speed at least on an almost empty, straight, dry three-lane road in daylight anyway. The other 99% of the time I'd be doing less than 112 mph...
The biggest standardization effort was actually not on the hardware side. While USB has some nice features like hot-plugging and auto-negotiation it's basically readPacket() and writePacket(). The huge difference was that they started defining device classes like keyboards, mice, game pads, memory sticks, headphones/speakers etc. so you didn't need special drivers for each device. Some things took longer than other, like for example webcams took a while. You could watch the raw USB packets but the protocol had to reverse engineered. Today you just comply with the webcam device class (I think it's called video/audio device or something) and it just works.
ABS was a technology many thought was lacking- and initially, it probably was. But today- I'm pretty sure the most experienced driver can not beat the most recent ABS, considering the ability to monitor/control the speed of each wheel separately.
When I was getting my driver's license I had the chance to try out both on our mandatory snow and ice testing, because my instructor's car didn't have it and the other car we used did. Early ABS was pretty stupid, it was just unblocking the wheels on a timer whether you wanted steering or not and regardless of traction so if all you wanted was a straight line stop ABS came with a penalty. In deep snow or on gravel you'd still get better results locking up the wheels today. But the moment you needed steering like trying to pump-brake in a light curve matching the ABS performance was hell, either you locked up and skidded out or it took way longer to stop. You could do it with practice but if you're surprised by something behind a curve I'd take ABS every day. And that's usually when shit happens, yes there could be someone running a red light or jaywalkers or animals crossing on a straight road but the difference was rather marginal compared to the downsides in every other situation.
Well in this case we're talking about people who come with a court-approved warrant. As long as we're in a single jurisdiction it's only a question whether the police officers will knock on you company's door or the company next door running your servers, unless you work for the mafia or something you're just going to hand it over. And keeping it in-house doesn't actually solve the problem. It doesn't even have to involve client data.
There's two issues here:
1) Jurisdiction shopping, that despite operating in one jurisdiction you send your data to another country with more favorable laws and courts.
2) Jurisdiction leakage, that your data is unwittingly and unwillingly brought under the jurisdiction of other legal systems.
Now it's not exactly news that countries have different laws, that's one of many reasons you have legal subsidiaries. Say you're McDonald's, if you want to operate a restaurant here in Norway you have to comply with local taxes and regulations and permits and whatnot so you create McDonald's Norway, in the US you create McDonald's US and so on for each country with a simple holding company on top. So far, so good.
But now imagine if they fear some kind of price fixing investigation and say hey Norway got better privacy laws than us, let's just move the company email servers and all other non-essential data there to be operated by our Norwegian subsidiary. US courts come with a warrant, you shrug and like we have no data try the Norwegian courts. This is bad. But then you try to fix it by saying subsidiaries are puppets to a parent company, if you can instruct them then you must. That solves one problem but creates a new one.
Let's say that to reduce long term sick leave we have a program to help people get back to work, lots of gory detail on what condition you have, how it limits your working ability, what the company has done to try to accommodate you and we say this isn't just company data we're going to give it special protection and access restrictions. But then the marching orders come from the top, hand over all your data. Do you comply? If US companies can instruct their subsidiaries to comply with US law, well then Chinese companies can instruct their subsidiaries to comply with Chinese law.
The US, as usual, wants the rules to only apply in one direction. They want US courts to be able to go in and grab data from other jurisdictions, while they'll get very angry if China uses their companies as hired thugs in the same way. And they justify their hypocrisy by saying we're the good guys, it's okay when we do it. It's not okay, start respecting that these businesses operate in other countries and that here our laws take precedence and stop trying to act like world police.
Well... while I can't fault your logic, I think your summary understates just how much previously private information we're now exposing. For example take newspapers, my dad still gets one in the dead tree format. Nobody knows what articles he reads or how long he's read it in total and outside the paperboy nobody knows if he's picked it up at all. With online newspapers they know exactly when and what you've read and with JavaScript probably how long it took, how often you scrolled the page and overall created way more data on whoever read the semi-critical article on the Party. Same goes for video games, TV series and whatnot... it used to happen on your computer, now there's a log in the cloud.
Well so far the only business SpaceX's Dragon has had is to ferry people to the very much so government built and operated ISS. I mean it's great that we've replaced an expensive cost-plus provider with a fixed price service but they're still the whole reason the market is there. Yes, I know SpaceX got a private moon fly-by in the plans but that's still years away and the casual space tourist market will soon be taken by a $200k suborbital joyride from Blue Origin that isn't useful for anything else. What would drive a commercial expansion of space flight?
Don't get me wrong, SpaceX is doing a very commendable job bringing down the cost but even if you could get Apollo for 1/100th of the cost the Moon is just a barren rock with no real income potential other than as a researcher or their support staff. Even if came down to the point where you could literally book a flight it'd probably look like "T/R Moon, Tranquility Bay: $10 million. Hotel: SpaceX Plaza, Tranquility Bay: $100k/night." with prices that make seven star hotels look cheap. The only people who can afford that are those who make millions on stocks while they sleep.
Every CEO says this fluff at regular intervals, doesn't matter if the arrows are going up, down or sideways they always speak up the future at least in public. The only difference is that Apple is clickbait-worthy enough that someone will write an article about it. Plus I mean as CEO he's the one picking the direction R&D is going, you're basically asking him to write his own performance review. But I also think the expectation that Apple is supposed to do something new and revolutionary will let them do gambles other companies might not have, I don't think stuff like "Lets do a Galaxy Watch" would happen at Samsung.
Maybe you did not read the summary (...) And you did not read TFA
Maybe you're dense but probably just trolling... the chemical elements used to be a list, before someone organized them into a table 150 years ago. The first reasonably complete list was published 230 years ago by somebody else. The list lead to the table, so that's why they say speak of it as the "story behind it" and "what you now know as the periodic table" because that's the form we present it in today.
There is no real answer to this question, but to invent one, I'd say 35mm film usually seems to be better quality than 1080p, but somewhat worse quality than low-noise 4K shot with modern digital equipment. But it depends greatly on how the 35mm was originally shot.
An important factor is also if you're talking digital equivalent or film-to-digital resolution. The latter requires approximately double to accurately represent the full detail in the analog film. The people who have tested it says:
Digital 9.8 Mpixels, monochrome: Intensity detail similar to or slightly better than 35mm film detail. Color detail still lacking film. Note the lack of green in the digital image, especially in the closest grass clump just left of center. Also the brown dry grass tip at the lower left corner shows a lack of color in the 9.8 Mpixel digital compared to the 35mm film. The 9.8 mpxel image shows many fine lines which look like grass blades. Many are real, but some are not! Compare with the higher resolution images to see what is real.
35mm film: 4000 dpi scan is 3760 x 5640 pixels = 21.2 RGB Mpixels (64 MByte tif file).
Digital 17 Mpixels, monochrome: The intensity detail is now clearly better than the 35mm film, but the color detail is just beginning to be comparable. Note the dry grass in the lower left corner still appears washed out compared to the 35mm film and the 48 Mpixel image below.
Digital 48 Mpixels, monochrome: Quality similar to small medium format film. Most of the not real grass blades are gone (but not all). Color detail is very good.
So for photography you're beyond 4K (8MP) somewhere. For video however, though I can't find it right now there was a study that said typical film stock on a typical film camera from negative to release print was like 900 lpm. So a 1080p camera fully resolving 1080 lines would be equivalent or even a little better, but you'd want a 4K scan to get all the detail. But a native 4K video will have more detail than film ever had...
Because the game has to go on forever with an endless loop chock full of microtransactions and loot boxes nothing substantial or interesting can happen in the game.
To be honest, I found the entire lack of grandiose world-turning events in RDR2 refreshing. This is not Skyrim where you're the grand savior, you don't have any great hidden powers and you're not a pawn/hero in the great battle between good and evil. You can be a good guy, bad guy, neutral hunter/trapper/fisher guy or whatever but nobody has at any point given the impression that Arthur Morgan would change the world. Sure a few guns are unlocked but you start out a gunslinger, you end a gunslinger. If that makes the game "lack direction" you're simply in the wrong game because you want to be on the rails following an epic story. Unlike most other games it also makes sense that you run off to do side-quests where in most games it's like doomsday is coming, but I'll go collect dandelions and help a guy find his lost dog. How it'll be online I don't know, but there hasn't been a micro-transaction in sight in single player, just straight up fun.
Does it have long-winded riding scenes? Yes, if you want action it does but on the other hand... if you just don't care and just want an arcade shooter it's not a very challenging game. Granted I screwed up a bit more than I should but most missions didn't take many attempts and I was never like stuck. Which goes back to the fact that you can't really grind for level/gear, if they made missions too hard they'd simply stay too hard and people would never get on with the story. But that's okay I don't feel like this is the kind of game you should master in that sense, like beating the end boss. It's over when you don't find it fun anymore and it could be after 5 hours or 50 or 500, hopefully I won't be riding around in there like that guy in Westworld though. There's only so much do to and I expect it will get old eventually, but that's cool.... I'll have had lots of fun while it lasted.
And how do you purport to know which is which? Do you think that the businesses who are investing their own money into this automation would be doing it if they didn't believe that it makes sense for them to do so? Just because you cannot see the case for doing it, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
Well, at the moment there's a ridiculous amount of buzz around AI and to me it looks like the greatest bubble since the dotcom era. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people are going to lose money on various hare-brained ideas that never go from a $50000 prototype to a $500 functional product or service people would actually buy. But much like the dotcom era got people online all that money poured into it is going to advance the state of automation. Even if you ended up paying $100 million dollars to automate a $10 million dollar problem it's going to be almost pure R&D and once it's done the marginal cost of keeping it running is probably low enough to keep going.
Which is it then? What are they going to do, forcefully hospitalize or arrest a statistical de-identified person.
De-identified data, unlike actually anonymous data just means they have a box that strips the data of identifiers and usually assigns it an alias so they can add more data later. There's two risks:
1) That you are recognizable in the data by someone who knows part of the information already. For example imagine cell phone location data compared against your Facebook/Instagram posts or simply real life comings and goings. Very soon it would narrow down to just you matching that exact pattern. In this case it could for example be that you were evicted from a house, a lot of people might know that but maybe not everything else this registry has on you.
2) That in the event of a technical or legal meltdown the de-identifying server is compromised too. As long as there's something identifying a unique person and the data set has not been closed and the mapping wiped it's still technically a potentially the the identity will be re-attached by someone above or outside the law. However very often the primary source will keep this information anyway and the de-anonymization tends to happen close to the source, so it's really just an issue if they register it for the stats then delete the information themselves.
Blockchain is only useful when you need a (very slow) public database and no one trusts anyone.
Correct and there are a non-trivial number of use cases like that.
I still don't see the use case where you'd want to trust the guy with the most CPU cycles though, with known parties you could just ask for a mass PGP confirmation or something like that. Maybe your bank doesn't trust any one other bank, but if 100+ banks around the country all sign and verify that yep, we saw that too it's going to be pretty hard to argue it didn't happen even if you can't find one neutral third party everybody trusts. I mean the blockchain is a nice trick to get a certain level of trust out of total strangers, but I don't see it having meaning where the players are known and trust is based on votes of various weight rather than what computing resources they bring.
Read and get all the details buried in a document longer than Hamlet, including all the little nuances? Not realistic.
Well I wouldn't mind quite that much if there was one version of Hamlet or even a reasonable family tree of licenses with proper revision control. Reality is though that ever company writes their own Hamlet-like book copy-pasting vast amounts of boilerplate but putting their own twist on it. And they'll randomly and without warning make some minor edit on it and ask you to re-agree to the whole agreement without any indication what has changed. Something like the CC licenses but for commercial terms or at least some predefined sections so you know this "no warranty"/"no liability" clause is exactly like all the other clauses. In the summary they could be like "COTS-NW-NL-something-something 2.0" instead of:
5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer
UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING AND TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THIS EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
6. Limitation on Liability. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Maybe that all needs to be there in law and there'd be many necessary variations, but if you could at least make it a one-liner that the license is "COTS-NW-NL-FOO-BAR-HAHA-NELSON-WAS-HERE-EAT-MY-SHORTS 2.0" you'd at least know it didn't contain any fucked up shit this one company tried to pull on you. Or if you have a legitimate need for special clauses, maybe people would actually read them.
A new rookie to the NFL can expect to make around $365,000 per year, which constantly rises by about $5,000 to $10,000 per year. The very first stat I looked up destroyed your argument so..... Well, unless you think $365K/year is almost nothing..
Well I was thinking individual athletes like the 100th fastest at 100m dash or 100th highest ranked tennis player, like you're not even qualifying for the top events. For a team sport a fair comparison would be by position, where's the 100th best quarterback? With 32 NFL teams and one substitute each he's still playing college football where they're not paid except for a $20-$30k/year athletic scholarship. League sports are probably still easier though, all teams have their fans who have you as their favorite. In most other sports you're either a gold/silver/bronze medalist winning championships and tournaments or you're nobody, it's better to the be 5th best quarterback in the NFL than be the 5th fastest man in the world.
In other words, all the involved will receive huge quarter bonuses for a few years, then once it badly backfires they will have departed with golden parachutes, while PepsiCo fills for bankruptcy, right?
Don't confuse creative industries like writing code with production industries like making beverages. They've been automating that since the industrial revolution and it's an ongoing process of more and more self-regulating, self-diagnosing and self-correcting machinery that's quite often successful. It's not like a code base where it takes a few years to turn a well-maintained product into a train wreck.