... anywhere Obama didn't want to (and vice versa). If Obama was for it then Trump (or perhaps more precisely his supporters) are against it. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, they have PRE-judged the situation. Why? Because, and I'll be frank, they're racists or to use a softer word, bigots and PREjudice is what you'll get from them.
That "and vice versa" part became an anti-Trump rant pretty quick. My impression is that the way US politics works neither side can concede that the other side was right. Either an issue is born bi-parisan or it becomes a Democrat/Republican thing that the other side must reject and treat with disdain. At best they might fumble the ball like when Trump tried to abolish Obamacare but under no circumstances could the Republicans admit that that they'd rather it stays. It still has to be some kind of terrible solution that only lives because we couldn't agree on how to throw it out. You don't see Democrats saying "that was a great Republican idea, let's keep working on that" very often either.
No cancer patient gets just one drug. A typical regime is surgery, radiation, plus a cocktail of multiple drugs.
Aggressive treatment with intent to cure, maybe. But someone in my family has myelomatosis (bone marrow cancer), no surgery, no radiation, not sure about the cocktail right after the initial discovery but at least the last three years it's a single drug (against the cancer anyway) and it's palliative. He's over 80 now so basically they're going to suppress that as long as they can, if it mutates or spreads to somewhere else they'll treat that but it's "good enough" relative to his remaining life expectancy which would be 7-8 years for his age/sex.
It's very different if you got it young, then you'd get a bone marrow transplant and whatnot because the treatment he's on wouldn't last you 20 years or 50 years. And not only because of the life expectancy which plays into the years rescued vs. money spent but they're in much better condition for extreme treatments and also I think the relative unfairness and social trauma of losing a child's parents or worse yet losing children. Senior citizens, well death is always sad and we work to put that off for as long as possible too but you can hardly be totally surprised when one of the them pass.
Not getting 8 hours sleep a night has nothing to do with work. (...) because I get up at 4:00am, do physical training for a competitive sport, then go to work by 8:30am.
If you work out for like four hours every day I hope there's an Olympic gold medal in your future. Because that's just not normal levels of training even for competitive sports, that's trying to become the world's best. And I know there's some track-and-field events and various other obscure sports where sponsors are hard to come by and people do that as a side gig on top of a day job, but no wonder it takes some sacrifices.
Money buys happiness, to an extent. I think someone quantified it around $75,000 or so - beyond that it buys a lot less happiness.
It's a lot more obvious to say that lack of money causes unhappiness. We typically have a standard of living that we're okay with and beyond that we don't *need* to spend the money. There's always a house or car that costs twice as much, but it's no big deal. When you're poor you're often stuck with things that you're not okay with but you don't have a choice. And when you've cut down on the easy expenses it's sometimes very hard to cut down further. Even if you're not really poor things get dreary when you feel all your money goes to regular expenses. It's quite different if you can afford a few grand a year of "me" money to use on a hobby or interest or on your significant other or a family trip or whatever.
Think about it, if you're a gamer it helps if you can afford a gaming PC. Does it help if you're a billionaire? Not really, you could get some crazy overclocked system but it doesn't get meaningfully better if you spend $20k instead of $2k. You just need "enough" and that's how a lot of hobbies work. Actually a lot of things are like that, if I want a refrigerator or washing machine there's of course a low end and a high end but it's a relatively narrow gap compared to the differences in wealth. It's not like Bill Gates' soda is better in his refrigerator than in mine. But if you're a poor man in Africa who can't afford a refrigerator it's a huge difference.
Doesn't solve the problem though. You still have high-value information linked to the TID, which ultimately is the root of the problem.
Truth is that most places would also need other information like name, address, phone number etc. that's pretty good for linking up information. The issue is thinking that a SSN or any other ID number is a good secret when you constantly need to share it with people. It's the 21st century, you're issued an electronic ID and make digital signatures. That's what Estonia does through e-identity, it's what we do here in Norway through BankID. I can show you my driver's license, but having my national ID number (DOB in ddmmyy format + 5 digits for sequence number + century/sex/control digit) doesn't really count as proof for much of anything.
Close enough at 63 degrees north, daylight is from 4.5 hours to 20.5 hours so not really getting much help there. Particularly in the winter when I work in the office from before sunrise to after sunset it's basically just Saturday and Sunday and in the middle of summer it doesn't get darker than twilight, the last 3.5 hours it's just slightly below the horizon. But even in the spring and autumn where we have "sane" daylight hours it doesn't really seem to make much of a difference.
You can still deliver a poor service even if it's "free", like if the deal was to give me accurate, balanced news and I watch your ads. True it won't hit their wallet until the advertisers pay less, but I think that causality is obvious enough. The question is if that's what people really wanted or if Google/Facebook is a product of giving people exactly what they want. I mean most people look for exciting, spectacular news or to collaborate what they already believe, not to challenge their beliefs with facts and balanced opinions.
Most people are in one camp or the other because of ideology anyway, not statistics. As in the right of a man to defend himself as opposed to wait and pray that somebody else will. Whether it's a good defense or not given that the attacker has preparation, position and surprise on their side is actually not that relevant, it's the difference between being in the driver's seat and being strapped in the passenger seat. No matter what the driver's credentials are you're not in control of your own destiny. Or at least the illusion of control, whether you're packing or not would have made very little difference in this case.
My clock is definitively not set for 24 hours, and I don't mean off by a little. If I try to follow a rhythm of staying up until I'm tired and sleep until I wake by myself without caring about the outside world I'm closer to a 36 hour cycle, awake for 24 and sleep for 12. Obviously that's impractical so with a combination of alarms and feeling undernourished on sleep I mostly manage to keep regular hours, but if I turn off the alarm I not only oversleep for hours but the following night I got no chance to fall asleep at all. If they start to understand the working of the internal clock, maybe they can fix it on a more fundamental level than sleeping aids.
Civil forfeiture without any trial violates the bill of rights. Not just Kim Dotcom, either, the government should't be able to take stuff from anybody without due process, merely by asserting that they think maybe that person had committed a crime.
Well, the Kim Dotcom case is at least closer to the original use of civil forfeiture which was to seize pirate ships, smugglers and privateers where the owner is out of jurisdiction and can't be brought to trial. In that respect, he might be one of the few people who ought to be victim of civil forfeiture, the crazy thing is when it is intentionally used as a substitute for a criminal trial. Once you have a defendant that says that money is mine, I've done nothing wrong and if you want to try charging me with a crime I'm right here then the 4th amendment should have applied. But if it's anything the SCOTUS doesn't like to do it's to reverse positions, they accepted the argument initially then expanded on it during prohibition and then really drank the kool-aid under the war on drugs and now they're neck deep in precedent.
Isn't one of those quantum mechanic rules that you can't know time and position at once? Seems convenient. In any case, wouldn't you reduce the simulation to the granularity it's being observed? Like you can observe some atoms in a weird quantum state, but even if the difficulty is exponential they only have to do it "properly" for those in this experiment. For relatively small values exponential growth can be okay...
The real problem is that most problems are really hard to fully specify. As soon as you start to code it, you begin to realize how hard.
The problem is not that the problem is hard, it's that the user doesn't understand why their specification is woefully incomplete. Like if you asked them how to walk they'd probably say "Well put one foot in front of the other, duuuh" but tell a robot to do that it'll fall with a big thud. Then they'll say "Well you got to keep your balance, duuuh". And you'd tell the robot to do that and it won't get anywhere because it started to lift one foot, realized it was out of balance and put it back down again. And then they'll says "Well you have to be out of balance long enough to take a step just don't keel over, duuuh" and so on.
You get expensive and powerful computers, but software got the intelligence of a 99 cent calculator. If it crashes, it doesn't recover. If it gets stuck in an infinite loop, it doesn't break out. This is particularly true of edge cases that no human would bother creating logic for, like if you try to edit a record at the same time someone else deleted it. Could you imagine that with a real filing cabinet, you take a piece of paper out of a folder, write something on it and when you want to put it back the folder is not there anymore. You'd handle it somehow, improve on the fly. If you're a piece of software, you can get an "illegal reference of null pointer *folder, segfault".
Of course, that's when people actually manage to describe the normal case. I've been in meetings where it turns out they want it to do the "right thing" or solve it for them, even though they themselves can't formulate exactly what the process or scoring should be. And they go like you're the expert, it's your job to figure out what the code needs to be. I'd love to say I tell them to sod off and come back when they got an implementable spec, but in practice it often goes like "Okay I've heard so roughly describe it, I'll try to code up something like it so we can do some simulations on what the result would be like". And most of the time it'll be really bad, but then at least they can say "that's not what we meant" and we can iterate. Usually they've exhausted their own ability to think abstractly before they go see the coders...
You got that far? My bullshit meter overflowed when he started ranting about binary instead of assembler which they've had from the very beginning as simple text substitution...
Anyone looking over a programmer's shoulder as they pored over line after line like "100001010011" and "000010011110"
I'd say action speaks louder than words, even if the "manifesto" only existed in the guy's mind he certainly seemed to have some sort of plan or meaning behind it, it wasn't a fit of rage, psychosis, for any personal gain or to take revenge on any particular individual(s). It doesn't have to be a direct relation to the concert, like when terrorist groups in Africa attack tourist destinations it's not really about the tourists but to cripple the economy and threaten the government. It's possible he was too far gone for anyone else to understand what kind of "message" he was sending, but none the less I'm willing to call anyone opening up fire on random concert goers for acts of terrorism. Maybe it can't be legally proven, but you can also have a murder without a convicted murderer. Same way I'd say these people were killed in a terror attack, even if nobody is convicted of terrorism.
People who buy Apple's [most] serious desktop machines are doing content creation stuff and they need bandwidth and memory. How much memory bandwidth has that iPhone got, even if you could cram 16+ GB in there so that you could actually work with large files?
Workstations obviously don't fit the phone form factor, I was thinking more your average business desktop that has run MS Office well since forever. They'd still have "real" desktop version above the "X" version for tablets, probably with quad-channel RAM... 25GB/s bandwidth for phone, 50GB/s bandwidth for tablet, 100GB/s bandwidth for workstations.
This prattle is not new, and is bandied about every time someone notes whatever the current level of PC sales are. But here's the thing: Yes, the consumer has no need for anything other than their phone. But things are not (strictly speaking) created on the phone.
Not yet, but I think mainly because nobody has dared to push the phone as the centerpiece. Take the iPhone X, it has four high performance cores at ~2.5GHz which drives a bigger-than-FullHD 2436x1125 screen, has 3GB of RAM, a very fast NVME SSD and so on. Is anyone in doubt it could be a quite solid desktop if they let it? But Apple has iMac / Mac Pros, Google has Chromebooks so it doesn't seem like they'll seriously try.
Maybe if Apple does away with Intel and goes ARM on the Mac line too, not many people saw Apple dropping Imagination Technologies as their GPU supplier but if they plan to make all-Apple hardware then the CPU is the obvious next big target. If they fire a broadside with ARM laptops, ARM all-in-ones and an ARM dock so everyone with an iPhone effectively gets a Mac then Windows could sink like a stone. The downside is that I don't think they would without imposing the store-only restrictions on the new Macs too.
Ugg the caveman: I have discovered how to make fire. fluffernutter: Fire dangerous, you maybe burn down village. Me ban making fire.
Defective cars (and other products) have killed people before, that's standard liability law and it's not going to change and all the traffic laws still apply too. The regulation they're exempted from sets requirements to divide responsibility between the car and the driver, which doesn't really make much sense when they're one and the same. Everybody in the car are passengers, doesn't matter if it's defective brakes or defective AI so it didn't hit the brakes. No matter what it's the car's fault, so you can just use liability law like on any other consumer product. True, they could in theory take out or disable safety systems but I think they'd have a very hard time explaining that both in their evaluations and in court after the crash. If there's new flaws they're likely to be in the AI, which wouldn't have been part of the existing regulation anyway.
Maybe I'm missing some sort of killer feature; but it looks like their power budget forced them to axe a pretty substantial percentage of the 'smart';
Yeah, pretty much any kind of active communication, interface or sensor will use orders of magnitude more power than running a clock. They say 1 hour/day at >10k lux, well that means an hour of daylight. On an overcast day it's >10 hours. Normal indoor lighting would barely register. I guess this watch is made for people that live in California...
The existing power structures (big government, big business, big anything really) lead to people in power and institutions and systems who protect their own power. The most delusional political activists think that if only we wiped the slate clean we could rebuild a new world order where nobody takes advantage of anyone else and it'll be so great people will join voluntarily. Which I suppose is a step up from communism where everybody will be forced to work for the greater good. The problem is that power structures appear out of nowhere almost instantly, even in kindergarten you can observe leaders, followers and outsiders as well as the power of social influence and social sanctions. Having a valuable resource to use or trade that others don't is a power structure, obviously private property is power. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner is obviously a power structure, creating the rules for a shared resource is power. The only way to avoid power is if we all became totally self-sufficient hermits, the War Games solution - the only way to win is not to play.
Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding is those who confuse perfect competition with laissez-faire capitalism, that regulation hampers competition and deregulation will lead to more and better competition. Let me try to put it bluntly: Perfect competition presumes that vendors will engage in an intense, cut-throat competition to destroy their own profits and livelihood without any structural costs, barriers to competition, transaction costs, lack of transparency and without creating or protecting any unique brand or features. It's an entirely fictional concept to begin describing basic elements of capitalism which is why a lot of people have heard of it but understood so little. Basically almost every class following it is about how that's actually not true due to reality like economics of scale or network effects, how actual customers are relatively uninformed creatures of habit that don't all instantly jump ship because the competition is $0.01 cheaper, how to create your own unique brand that people prefer like Coke vs Pepsi, how to protect unique features through intellectual property rights (IPR) and so on.
Particularly people fail to see how the prisoner's dilemma works when it's repeated, like if you lower prices and steal my customers I'll have to lower prices and steal your customers, we'll both lose money so let's not be idiots. Or when they all switch to terms that are unfavorable for the customers like forced arbitration. This kind of tacit collusion is why we need checks and balances, not just inside the branches of government but between the government and citizens, manufacturers and consumers, employers and workers and so on. If all the choices are bad you don't really have any choice, of course unless you have a gun to your head you in theory always have the War Games solution but practically it can be almost impossible. For example I doubt many people can avoid signing up for some kind of phone service, you can pick your poison but it's hard to not play the game. Unless you want to be a hermit in a cave again, something has to curb their ability to dictate terms, create lock-ins and shut out the competition. If they don't play nice now, they certainly won't play nice when the gloves come off.
Reliability, portability, and length of time the data can be stored, possibly speed. LTO-4 and lower is definitely going to be slower. LTO-5+ might be faster for writing depending on the RAID setup.
If it's any kind of high performance system you usually do mirroring to a "hot" backup then do backup to tape from there so speed is not that relevant. You can do pretty well on reliability and portability by simply making many redundant copies. I don't think I'd plan to use it as ordinary backup, not even occasionally. To me tape belongs in the disaster recovery plan, like what if hackers root our servers or a rouge sysadmin goes berserk. The "put it on a tape, stick in a vault and pray you'll never need it but if you do you'll be really happy to have it" kind of backup.
This is particularly true if it's for legal compliance or you're the one maintaining the master data, imagine if you're say the DMV and lose the database of what driver licenses or license plates you've issued. Even in most epic of epic fuck-ups that wouldn't be acceptable. But I'm thinking it's the kind of service you contract out to a third party, maybe even with your own encryption because it doesn't really pay off until you've got huge amounts of data and a perspective of years and decades. Or well you can use tape for that, but then it's the kind of "non-disaster" backup I'd use HDDs for.
If the project is feasible, good developers will get it done regardless of or even despite the plan. The vast majoity of plans have problems because they want a man-year's worth of code from three months of work, which means it was never a good plan. But poor project management can turn a bad plan into a disaster by refusing to acknowledge the delay. I've been in meeting that pretty much involved badgering the developers until our estimates said we'd deliver. Oddly enough those "revised" estimates never came true...
Looking at one company is useless, if their success puts two employees out of work at competitors for every new hire the total will be less. You can't just look at Amazon and Wal-Mart without considering the companies they put out of business.
Subtract the number of accidents and violent incidents in the pursuit of sex as well as the STDs, unwanted pregnencies etc. and my guess is sexbots will decrease the number of jobs in the medical profession.
Well if we don't need horses, don't breed horses and send those you have to the slaughterhouse. But unless you're going to impose a global one-child policy or the soylent green solution humans are for the most part a sunk cost, they exist and society will be paying their sustenance somehow. It's possible they can't get a job on commercial terms but I doubt we'll run out of nice-to-have work for "free" labor on an unemployment program to do. While most of us accept that those with severe medical conditions don't work, I doubt we'll see plain stupidity rewarded with a permanent vacation. Even though the UBI "pay" would suck, the freedom to be a beach bum while you slave away at the office will be too much. So my guess is it would be a community service program instead of UBI, you do "work" and you get to have a living "wage". Like UBI only it sucks more in order to suck more.
I doubt the absolute number of people matter much, if you have half the people you need half the food, clothes, houses, cars, TVs etc. and if you have double you need double. Maybe on the margin you have niche items/services that only exist because we're 8 billion or resource constraints where there's not enough Beluga caviar for everyone or you have scaling effects where building 200m iPhones takes less than 2x 100m but I think they're small when you look at the whole economy. For the most part supply and demand rise together.
Slashdot Mirror
... anywhere Obama didn't want to (and vice versa). If Obama was for it then Trump (or perhaps more precisely his supporters) are against it. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, they have PRE-judged the situation. Why? Because, and I'll be frank, they're racists or to use a softer word, bigots and PREjudice is what you'll get from them.
That "and vice versa" part became an anti-Trump rant pretty quick. My impression is that the way US politics works neither side can concede that the other side was right. Either an issue is born bi-parisan or it becomes a Democrat/Republican thing that the other side must reject and treat with disdain. At best they might fumble the ball like when Trump tried to abolish Obamacare but under no circumstances could the Republicans admit that that they'd rather it stays. It still has to be some kind of terrible solution that only lives because we couldn't agree on how to throw it out. You don't see Democrats saying "that was a great Republican idea, let's keep working on that" very often either.
No cancer patient gets just one drug. A typical regime is surgery, radiation, plus a cocktail of multiple drugs.
Aggressive treatment with intent to cure, maybe. But someone in my family has myelomatosis (bone marrow cancer), no surgery, no radiation, not sure about the cocktail right after the initial discovery but at least the last three years it's a single drug (against the cancer anyway) and it's palliative. He's over 80 now so basically they're going to suppress that as long as they can, if it mutates or spreads to somewhere else they'll treat that but it's "good enough" relative to his remaining life expectancy which would be 7-8 years for his age/sex.
It's very different if you got it young, then you'd get a bone marrow transplant and whatnot because the treatment he's on wouldn't last you 20 years or 50 years. And not only because of the life expectancy which plays into the years rescued vs. money spent but they're in much better condition for extreme treatments and also I think the relative unfairness and social trauma of losing a child's parents or worse yet losing children. Senior citizens, well death is always sad and we work to put that off for as long as possible too but you can hardly be totally surprised when one of the them pass.
Not getting 8 hours sleep a night has nothing to do with work. (...) because I get up at 4:00am, do physical training for a competitive sport, then go to work by 8:30am.
If you work out for like four hours every day I hope there's an Olympic gold medal in your future. Because that's just not normal levels of training even for competitive sports, that's trying to become the world's best. And I know there's some track-and-field events and various other obscure sports where sponsors are hard to come by and people do that as a side gig on top of a day job, but no wonder it takes some sacrifices.
Money buys happiness, to an extent. I think someone quantified it around $75,000 or so - beyond that it buys a lot less happiness.
It's a lot more obvious to say that lack of money causes unhappiness. We typically have a standard of living that we're okay with and beyond that we don't *need* to spend the money. There's always a house or car that costs twice as much, but it's no big deal. When you're poor you're often stuck with things that you're not okay with but you don't have a choice. And when you've cut down on the easy expenses it's sometimes very hard to cut down further. Even if you're not really poor things get dreary when you feel all your money goes to regular expenses. It's quite different if you can afford a few grand a year of "me" money to use on a hobby or interest or on your significant other or a family trip or whatever.
Think about it, if you're a gamer it helps if you can afford a gaming PC. Does it help if you're a billionaire? Not really, you could get some crazy overclocked system but it doesn't get meaningfully better if you spend $20k instead of $2k. You just need "enough" and that's how a lot of hobbies work. Actually a lot of things are like that, if I want a refrigerator or washing machine there's of course a low end and a high end but it's a relatively narrow gap compared to the differences in wealth. It's not like Bill Gates' soda is better in his refrigerator than in mine. But if you're a poor man in Africa who can't afford a refrigerator it's a huge difference.
Doesn't solve the problem though. You still have high-value information linked to the TID, which ultimately is the root of the problem.
Truth is that most places would also need other information like name, address, phone number etc. that's pretty good for linking up information. The issue is thinking that a SSN or any other ID number is a good secret when you constantly need to share it with people. It's the 21st century, you're issued an electronic ID and make digital signatures. That's what Estonia does through e-identity, it's what we do here in Norway through BankID. I can show you my driver's license, but having my national ID number (DOB in ddmmyy format + 5 digits for sequence number + century/sex/control digit) doesn't really count as proof for much of anything.
Close enough at 63 degrees north, daylight is from 4.5 hours to 20.5 hours so not really getting much help there. Particularly in the winter when I work in the office from before sunrise to after sunset it's basically just Saturday and Sunday and in the middle of summer it doesn't get darker than twilight, the last 3.5 hours it's just slightly below the horizon. But even in the spring and autumn where we have "sane" daylight hours it doesn't really seem to make much of a difference.
We're not their customers. We're their PRODUCT.
You can still deliver a poor service even if it's "free", like if the deal was to give me accurate, balanced news and I watch your ads. True it won't hit their wallet until the advertisers pay less, but I think that causality is obvious enough. The question is if that's what people really wanted or if Google/Facebook is a product of giving people exactly what they want. I mean most people look for exciting, spectacular news or to collaborate what they already believe, not to challenge their beliefs with facts and balanced opinions.
Most people are in one camp or the other because of ideology anyway, not statistics. As in the right of a man to defend himself as opposed to wait and pray that somebody else will. Whether it's a good defense or not given that the attacker has preparation, position and surprise on their side is actually not that relevant, it's the difference between being in the driver's seat and being strapped in the passenger seat. No matter what the driver's credentials are you're not in control of your own destiny. Or at least the illusion of control, whether you're packing or not would have made very little difference in this case.
My clock is definitively not set for 24 hours, and I don't mean off by a little. If I try to follow a rhythm of staying up until I'm tired and sleep until I wake by myself without caring about the outside world I'm closer to a 36 hour cycle, awake for 24 and sleep for 12. Obviously that's impractical so with a combination of alarms and feeling undernourished on sleep I mostly manage to keep regular hours, but if I turn off the alarm I not only oversleep for hours but the following night I got no chance to fall asleep at all. If they start to understand the working of the internal clock, maybe they can fix it on a more fundamental level than sleeping aids.
After all, once immigration is ended once and for all, who needs a lawyer?
Can't help but hear that in this voice.
Civil forfeiture without any trial violates the bill of rights. Not just Kim Dotcom, either, the government should't be able to take stuff from anybody without due process, merely by asserting that they think maybe that person had committed a crime.
Well, the Kim Dotcom case is at least closer to the original use of civil forfeiture which was to seize pirate ships, smugglers and privateers where the owner is out of jurisdiction and can't be brought to trial. In that respect, he might be one of the few people who ought to be victim of civil forfeiture, the crazy thing is when it is intentionally used as a substitute for a criminal trial. Once you have a defendant that says that money is mine, I've done nothing wrong and if you want to try charging me with a crime I'm right here then the 4th amendment should have applied. But if it's anything the SCOTUS doesn't like to do it's to reverse positions, they accepted the argument initially then expanded on it during prohibition and then really drank the kool-aid under the war on drugs and now they're neck deep in precedent.
If time and position are quantized
Isn't one of those quantum mechanic rules that you can't know time and position at once? Seems convenient. In any case, wouldn't you reduce the simulation to the granularity it's being observed? Like you can observe some atoms in a weird quantum state, but even if the difficulty is exponential they only have to do it "properly" for those in this experiment. For relatively small values exponential growth can be okay...
The real problem is that most problems are really hard to fully specify. As soon as you start to code it, you begin to realize how hard.
The problem is not that the problem is hard, it's that the user doesn't understand why their specification is woefully incomplete. Like if you asked them how to walk they'd probably say "Well put one foot in front of the other, duuuh" but tell a robot to do that it'll fall with a big thud. Then they'll say "Well you got to keep your balance, duuuh". And you'd tell the robot to do that and it won't get anywhere because it started to lift one foot, realized it was out of balance and put it back down again. And then they'll says "Well you have to be out of balance long enough to take a step just don't keel over, duuuh" and so on.
You get expensive and powerful computers, but software got the intelligence of a 99 cent calculator. If it crashes, it doesn't recover. If it gets stuck in an infinite loop, it doesn't break out. This is particularly true of edge cases that no human would bother creating logic for, like if you try to edit a record at the same time someone else deleted it. Could you imagine that with a real filing cabinet, you take a piece of paper out of a folder, write something on it and when you want to put it back the folder is not there anymore. You'd handle it somehow, improve on the fly. If you're a piece of software, you can get an "illegal reference of null pointer *folder, segfault".
Of course, that's when people actually manage to describe the normal case. I've been in meetings where it turns out they want it to do the "right thing" or solve it for them, even though they themselves can't formulate exactly what the process or scoring should be. And they go like you're the expert, it's your job to figure out what the code needs to be. I'd love to say I tell them to sod off and come back when they got an implementable spec, but in practice it often goes like "Okay I've heard so roughly describe it, I'll try to code up something like it so we can do some simulations on what the result would be like". And most of the time it'll be really bad, but then at least they can say "that's not what we meant" and we can iterate. Usually they've exhausted their own ability to think abstractly before they go see the coders...
You got that far? My bullshit meter overflowed when he started ranting about binary instead of assembler which they've had from the very beginning as simple text substitution...
Anyone looking over a programmer's shoulder as they pored over line after line like "100001010011" and "000010011110"
I'd say action speaks louder than words, even if the "manifesto" only existed in the guy's mind he certainly seemed to have some sort of plan or meaning behind it, it wasn't a fit of rage, psychosis, for any personal gain or to take revenge on any particular individual(s). It doesn't have to be a direct relation to the concert, like when terrorist groups in Africa attack tourist destinations it's not really about the tourists but to cripple the economy and threaten the government. It's possible he was too far gone for anyone else to understand what kind of "message" he was sending, but none the less I'm willing to call anyone opening up fire on random concert goers for acts of terrorism. Maybe it can't be legally proven, but you can also have a murder without a convicted murderer. Same way I'd say these people were killed in a terror attack, even if nobody is convicted of terrorism.
People who buy Apple's [most] serious desktop machines are doing content creation stuff and they need bandwidth and memory. How much memory bandwidth has that iPhone got, even if you could cram 16+ GB in there so that you could actually work with large files?
Workstations obviously don't fit the phone form factor, I was thinking more your average business desktop that has run MS Office well since forever. They'd still have "real" desktop version above the "X" version for tablets, probably with quad-channel RAM... 25GB/s bandwidth for phone, 50GB/s bandwidth for tablet, 100GB/s bandwidth for workstations.
This prattle is not new, and is bandied about every time someone notes whatever the current level of PC sales are. But here's the thing: Yes, the consumer has no need for anything other than their phone. But things are not (strictly speaking) created on the phone.
Not yet, but I think mainly because nobody has dared to push the phone as the centerpiece. Take the iPhone X, it has four high performance cores at ~2.5GHz which drives a bigger-than-FullHD 2436x1125 screen, has 3GB of RAM, a very fast NVME SSD and so on. Is anyone in doubt it could be a quite solid desktop if they let it? But Apple has iMac / Mac Pros, Google has Chromebooks so it doesn't seem like they'll seriously try.
Maybe if Apple does away with Intel and goes ARM on the Mac line too, not many people saw Apple dropping Imagination Technologies as their GPU supplier but if they plan to make all-Apple hardware then the CPU is the obvious next big target. If they fire a broadside with ARM laptops, ARM all-in-ones and an ARM dock so everyone with an iPhone effectively gets a Mac then Windows could sink like a stone. The downside is that I don't think they would without imposing the store-only restrictions on the new Macs too.
Ugg the caveman: I have discovered how to make fire.
fluffernutter: Fire dangerous, you maybe burn down village. Me ban making fire.
Defective cars (and other products) have killed people before, that's standard liability law and it's not going to change and all the traffic laws still apply too. The regulation they're exempted from sets requirements to divide responsibility between the car and the driver, which doesn't really make much sense when they're one and the same. Everybody in the car are passengers, doesn't matter if it's defective brakes or defective AI so it didn't hit the brakes. No matter what it's the car's fault, so you can just use liability law like on any other consumer product. True, they could in theory take out or disable safety systems but I think they'd have a very hard time explaining that both in their evaluations and in court after the crash. If there's new flaws they're likely to be in the AI, which wouldn't have been part of the existing regulation anyway.
Maybe I'm missing some sort of killer feature; but it looks like their power budget forced them to axe a pretty substantial percentage of the 'smart';
Yeah, pretty much any kind of active communication, interface or sensor will use orders of magnitude more power than running a clock. They say 1 hour/day at >10k lux, well that means an hour of daylight. On an overcast day it's >10 hours. Normal indoor lighting would barely register. I guess this watch is made for people that live in California...
The existing power structures (big government, big business, big anything really) lead to people in power and institutions and systems who protect their own power. The most delusional political activists think that if only we wiped the slate clean we could rebuild a new world order where nobody takes advantage of anyone else and it'll be so great people will join voluntarily. Which I suppose is a step up from communism where everybody will be forced to work for the greater good. The problem is that power structures appear out of nowhere almost instantly, even in kindergarten you can observe leaders, followers and outsiders as well as the power of social influence and social sanctions. Having a valuable resource to use or trade that others don't is a power structure, obviously private property is power. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner is obviously a power structure, creating the rules for a shared resource is power. The only way to avoid power is if we all became totally self-sufficient hermits, the War Games solution - the only way to win is not to play.
Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding is those who confuse perfect competition with laissez-faire capitalism, that regulation hampers competition and deregulation will lead to more and better competition. Let me try to put it bluntly: Perfect competition presumes that vendors will engage in an intense, cut-throat competition to destroy their own profits and livelihood without any structural costs, barriers to competition, transaction costs, lack of transparency and without creating or protecting any unique brand or features. It's an entirely fictional concept to begin describing basic elements of capitalism which is why a lot of people have heard of it but understood so little. Basically almost every class following it is about how that's actually not true due to reality like economics of scale or network effects, how actual customers are relatively uninformed creatures of habit that don't all instantly jump ship because the competition is $0.01 cheaper, how to create your own unique brand that people prefer like Coke vs Pepsi, how to protect unique features through intellectual property rights (IPR) and so on.
Particularly people fail to see how the prisoner's dilemma works when it's repeated, like if you lower prices and steal my customers I'll have to lower prices and steal your customers, we'll both lose money so let's not be idiots. Or when they all switch to terms that are unfavorable for the customers like forced arbitration. This kind of tacit collusion is why we need checks and balances, not just inside the branches of government but between the government and citizens, manufacturers and consumers, employers and workers and so on. If all the choices are bad you don't really have any choice, of course unless you have a gun to your head you in theory always have the War Games solution but practically it can be almost impossible. For example I doubt many people can avoid signing up for some kind of phone service, you can pick your poison but it's hard to not play the game. Unless you want to be a hermit in a cave again, something has to curb their ability to dictate terms, create lock-ins and shut out the competition. If they don't play nice now, they certainly won't play nice when the gloves come off.
Reliability, portability, and length of time the data can be stored, possibly speed. LTO-4 and lower is definitely going to be slower. LTO-5+ might be faster for writing depending on the RAID setup.
If it's any kind of high performance system you usually do mirroring to a "hot" backup then do backup to tape from there so speed is not that relevant. You can do pretty well on reliability and portability by simply making many redundant copies. I don't think I'd plan to use it as ordinary backup, not even occasionally. To me tape belongs in the disaster recovery plan, like what if hackers root our servers or a rouge sysadmin goes berserk. The "put it on a tape, stick in a vault and pray you'll never need it but if you do you'll be really happy to have it" kind of backup.
This is particularly true if it's for legal compliance or you're the one maintaining the master data, imagine if you're say the DMV and lose the database of what driver licenses or license plates you've issued. Even in most epic of epic fuck-ups that wouldn't be acceptable. But I'm thinking it's the kind of service you contract out to a third party, maybe even with your own encryption because it doesn't really pay off until you've got huge amounts of data and a perspective of years and decades. Or well you can use tape for that, but then it's the kind of "non-disaster" backup I'd use HDDs for.
If the project is feasible, good developers will get it done regardless of or even despite the plan. The vast majoity of plans have problems because they want a man-year's worth of code from three months of work, which means it was never a good plan. But poor project management can turn a bad plan into a disaster by refusing to acknowledge the delay. I've been in meeting that pretty much involved badgering the developers until our estimates said we'd deliver. Oddly enough those "revised" estimates never came true...
Looking at one company is useless, if their success puts two employees out of work at competitors for every new hire the total will be less. You can't just look at Amazon and Wal-Mart without considering the companies they put out of business.
Subtract the number of accidents and violent incidents in the pursuit of sex as well as the STDs, unwanted pregnencies etc. and my guess is sexbots will decrease the number of jobs in the medical profession.
Well if we don't need horses, don't breed horses and send those you have to the slaughterhouse. But unless you're going to impose a global one-child policy or the soylent green solution humans are for the most part a sunk cost, they exist and society will be paying their sustenance somehow. It's possible they can't get a job on commercial terms but I doubt we'll run out of nice-to-have work for "free" labor on an unemployment program to do. While most of us accept that those with severe medical conditions don't work, I doubt we'll see plain stupidity rewarded with a permanent vacation. Even though the UBI "pay" would suck, the freedom to be a beach bum while you slave away at the office will be too much. So my guess is it would be a community service program instead of UBI, you do "work" and you get to have a living "wage". Like UBI only it sucks more in order to suck more.
I doubt the absolute number of people matter much, if you have half the people you need half the food, clothes, houses, cars, TVs etc. and if you have double you need double. Maybe on the margin you have niche items/services that only exist because we're 8 billion or resource constraints where there's not enough Beluga caviar for everyone or you have scaling effects where building 200m iPhones takes less than 2x 100m but I think they're small when you look at the whole economy. For the most part supply and demand rise together.