It's fucking stupid. It's rarely needed function that is rarely used. IT'S STILL NEEDED.
I use "close tabs to right" all the time[1], myself, so I hope this doesn't go away. That said, I disagree with your idea that if something is rarely used it should be kept. Your other example (clearing cookies) is a bad one because there is no other way to do that, but in this case tabs can be -- and generally are -- closed one at a time, and in fact Chrome is careful to move the tabs around so that the close button for the next tab is under your cursor when you close one. This means that "close to the right" can also be done by moving your mouse to the "x" on the first tab to remove, then tapping the mouse button rapidly until all of them are gone. Unless you have more than the 20-30 tabs that I typically have open, that's really not so terrible. Plus, as others in this thread have pointed out, you can multi-select tabs then batch close them that way. There are other reasonably-good ways to achieve the goal, so if this is one is rarely used, there's no way to argue that it's actually necessary.
As for why to remove it... features cost. Every feature you keep in a product is a feature that has to be maintained and tested. Development and testing resources are not infinite -- not even at Google -- and the accumulated burden of lots of old and rarely-used features gradually slows progress on new features, security fixes, etc. It makes a great deal of sense to remove features that aren't used much and which have more often-used alternatives.
[1] My normal browsing style is to open every link in a new tab, and to use Ctrl-W to go "back". So my tab bar ends up being a breadcrumb trail of my path through a web site, and when I'm done with something I close the "site" with "close tabs to right". I also keep a couple of pinned tabs (email and calendar, in that order), so when I want to close "everything" I've been doing, I "close tabs to right" on the calendar tab.
The objection in question ignores Bostrom's basic argument.
Irrelevant. The objection is orthogonal to Bostrom's argument, but could absolutely refute it, if valid (which I don't believe, more below).
Bostrom argues that if simulation is possible, it must eventually be done which means there probably are a large number of simulated universes and only one non-simulated one (I'm simplifying here, but that's the core of it). If a counterargument demonstrates that there is some reason our observed physics is incompatible with any possible simulated physics then Bostrom's argument becomes irrelevant, because we have proof that our universe is not simulated, regardless of whether simulation is possible or whether it has been done. Or, if the weaker counterargument that our observed physics is incompatible with any reasonable simulated physics, then Bostrom's argument becomes weaker, though it's not refuted because one could postulate that the creator of the simulation chose to create an unreasonable simulated physics in order to fool any intelligences that arose within the simulation and looked (note that this latter argument also works against any proofs of the non-existence of any form of god who has some reason to demand faith -- you can always say "Yeah, but god made it that way so that we'd have to take his existence on faith.")
However, I think Hossenfelder's argument is flawed because she's making a crucial and unjustifiable assumption: that any simulation must necessarily simulate every detail of the simulated universe, i.e that the simulation in question must be a finite element model. Not only is there no reason to make this assumption, there's every reason to assume its opposite, because it's clearly more efficient to simulate at a higher level of abstraction. In that view, the weirdness of Quantum Mechanics actually supports the simulation theory, because we can surmise that the simulation does not in fact model elementary particles but only their aggregate behavior and what we're actually seeing when we try to look very closely is a predictable result of this incompletely-detailed simulation.
Note that I'm not saying I think we live in a simulated universe. I think it's probably impossible to know, but to the extent that we think we might be able to search for artifacts of the simulation, QM's very weirdness is probably the best artifact we have to support the notion, not a refutation.
NO, I have a problem with corporations and arseholes that don't pay their fair share
Corporations never pay taxes. Never have, never will. Only people pay taxes. Corporate taxation is just a way for government to collect taxes from the taxpayers without the taxpayers knowing it's been done. Taxpayers/voters are typically quite happy to vote for corporate taxes because it seems like a "free" way to fund government services, and anyway everyone hates those nasty corporations. In fact, any expense you impose across all of the companies in an industry just gets built into the cost structure of the industry, which means it ultimately comes from consumers (in the form of higher prices) or employees (in the form of lower wages).
In the short term, investors may take part of the hit, but only part, and only in the short term. Ultimately, either the expenses will be built into the cost structure, enabling capital to obtain the expected rate of return, or capital will move elsewhere, either to different industries or offshore. This is why if you want to tax capital, you need to tax the individuals who own capital, not the corporations which are the vehicle of that capital.
Corporate taxes are stupid at best, and arguably evil since they serve to obscure the taxes from the voters. Taxes are essential, but the voters need to see what they're paying and what they're getting for their money.
Either it's patented (and thus disclosed) or it's a trade secret. You cannot have it both ways.
To expand on this a bit, because it's really sad (and bad!) that so many people don't understand the theory behind patents: Encouraging disclosure, and hence reuse, is the point of having a patent system. The word "patent" is latin for "lying open". Patents were created to allow inventors to open their inventions to the world without fear of losing the opportunity to profit from them. Without patents inventors have to keep their ideas secret to profit from them, which impedes progress and adds huge overhead to the process of using the ideas to build things that benefit society.
The fact that InvalidsYnc fails to understand that the notion of an NDA for a patent is utterly nonsensical is sad, but what makes it a big problem is that this lack of understanding isn't actually unreasonable, given how deeply broken our patent system is. It has been subverted and does not accomplish its primary goals of enabling open sharing of ideas.
To understand just how bad it is, note that the way to test whether a patent system is enabling the spread and reuse of good ideas is to examine the way the patent database is used. If the system is functioning well, we should see inventors regularly scouring the patent database in search of ideas they can license in order to solve their problems. If your widget needs to frobnizz cleanly in order to wozzle, but the frobnizzing operation is unreliable and unstable, you should be able to do a patent search for a frobnizz stabilization system which you can license for less that what it would cost you to research your own, which will enable you to bring your wozzling device to market sooner and cheaper.
But in actual practice, at least in the software field and I haven't heard anyone from other fields saying it's different in theirs, attorneys tell working engineers specifically *not* to look at the patent database. This is because it's chock full of obvious ideas which they might independently reinvent, but if the patent holder can prove that the engineer probably saw the patent then it's not just simple infringement due to independent invention, but willful infringement subject to treble damages. In addition, the way in which patents are written means that the database would be extremely hard to use even if engineers did try to mine it. So engineers avoid using the patent database for its intended purpose.
This doesn't mean the patent system is completely failing to do its job, because it undoubtedly still does remove the need for a lot of secrecy, which removes a lot of overhead. But it does mean that it's not working nearly as well as it should. It may be removing some overhead, but it is not actively enabling the reuse of good ideas.
Ditto. I miss the old days of computing that didn't have so many issues, security vulnerabilities, bloatness, better usabilities, user experiences, coolness, designs, simpleness, reliabilities, etc.:(
Actually, what you miss is the days when computers weren't connected to the Internet. They've always had security vulnerabilities -- in fact consumer systems were far worse than they are now -- but it didn't used to matter so much. The always-on net provides an always-available attack vector, and also means that once your device is pwned, it's an always-on threat to the rest of the network.
As for the rest (bloat, usability, etc.)... that's in the eye of the beholder. If you want to run DOS, you can still run DOS. Personally I find modern systems and apps to be much more usable. I suppose there are exceptions, but I can't think of any at the moment.
By definition they have committed more crimes than the average population by entering the country illegally.
It's not a crime to enter the country illegally, unless you have been previously deported. This, BTW, is why lawyers and other people who are picky about accuracy when it comes to legal issues call them "undocumented immigrants", rather than "illegal immigrants". That's not just a kinder or more politically correct phrasing... it's the most accurate description.
1. I never said that driving slower is safer. Nor did I ever imply it in any way.
2. I never said that self-driving cars must drive slowly. I said that Google cars drive very cautiously, which is a bit slower, but the whole point of the post which your hard-to-follow response followed is that there's no reason to expect that to be an inherent "problem" with self-driving cars in general, or Google's cars in particular.
3. You're dead wrong when you say that people wouldn't be willing to exchange a slower trip for one where they don't have to drive. Let me read, work, sleep, etc., and it's still a net win in terms of time if the drive takes twice as long. If you try to say you wouldn't accept, say, a 10% increase in trip time in order to get there safer and be able to do whatever you like on the way, you're lying, perhaps to yourself.
4. There's every reason to expect that once we remove the human-driven cars from the roads, self-driving cars will drive much faster. With their much better situational awareness, much faster reaction times and ability to communicate in real time with other self-driving vehicles on the road, we should be able to significantly increase highway speeds (while improving efficiency and safety) and virtually eliminate the need for stop signs, stop lights, etc., in town. That's obviously going to take some decades.
If that is a better solution then they should just half the speed limit right now everywhere and be done with it.
I've read that sentence three times now and I can't figure out what you're trying to say. The referent for "solution" seems to be my comment about making cars drive more like humans, but I see no connection with the speed of light.
What leaks? I'm not aware of any leaks of user data from Google. Ever. Do you know of some?
Actually, as soon as I hit "submit", I thought of one: Snowden revealed that the NSA was tapping fiber between Google data centers. That is the only one that I'm aware of, though, and I don't really think of it as a "leak" because none of the data made it to the public. And, of course, that particular hole has been sealed (though it's certainly not impossible that the NSA or similarly-capable organizations have inserted other sorts of covert access into Google data systems).
It isn't a big brother narrative, its just data and detective work.
What data and detective work?
The data exists. People want the data. The detective work shohuld be obvious.
I'm still not sure what you're talking about. You seem to be implying that some data and/or detective work tells you that Google mines Google docs & sheets. But based on my inside knowledge of how the systems work I have an extremely high level of confidence that it's not true, so I'm wondering what data and detective work you're talking about.
Yeah, it's secure. I gues all of those leaks are just shit someone made up. And the internet is inherentlly 100 percent secure by it's very design.
What leaks? I'm not aware of any leaks of user data from Google. Ever. Do you know of some?
But I get it, wink wink. You have convinced me totally, I was wrong, and stand corrected. Once Google has it, wink, wink, it is 100 percent never to be leaked - perfect security has been achieved.
From your lips to God's ear.
Nothing is foolproof, and only a fool would claim it could be. But Google has a remarkably good track record, and after seeing the technical details, I can see why.
Or he means his employer happens to use Google Sheets to store employee data. Which is hardly a far-fetched concept.
I suppose, though that's hardly "giving the date to Google". Google not only doesn't mine docs or sheets
How cute! Now all you have to do is get people to believe that. I know, I know, "Trust us - we can't tell you why you can trust us, but yeah - we're really trustworthy!"
Yeah. I think if Google were to publish the technical details of how the data is protected, at least many engineers would be convinced (and, actually, impressed). But there's really no way to convince those who find the "big brother" narrative more compelling.
The fact that the ability to hold more of a charge is something merely unlocked via a costly software update means Tesla sold you a 75kWh capable battery all along but gimped it artificially.
This is something that IBM did for many decades in the mainframe space -- and maybe still does, dunno. You buy a mainframe with X CPUs, but it may actually have 2X or 4X in the box. The "extras" are turned off, and you can turn them on by paying an upgrade fee. For many years turning them on required a service visit, but by the 90s they could do it by sending a cryptographically-signed authorization.
I never understood the model in that space, either, but apparently it made sense to someone.
Or he means his employer happens to use Google Sheets to store employee data. Which is hardly a far-fetched concept.
I suppose, though that's hardly "giving the date to Google". Google not only doesn't mine docs or sheets, great care is taken to ensure that that data cannot be mined or accessed by anyone in Google, except with a specific customer need and with customer authorization -- and all such exceptional accesses are logged and audited. Google has some unique and rather cool infrastructure that ensures that this happens. I wish I could go into detail.
Driving would not be workable if every car drove like your grandmother.
Sure it would. In fact it would be a lot safer, if a bit slower. But it might confuse the human drivers the road, which is why they have since updated the algorithms to drive more "normally". My ride was about three years ago, and as I understand it that's mostly what they've been doing since then, tweaking the behavior to make the vehicles to drive like humans, including being more aggressive when the situation demands it.
How about 10^20? 10^20 Planck lengths is the diameter of a proton. The atoms are interacting chemically and/or bouncing off one another long before you're even that close.
Do you think Google (or anyone) is close to getting level5 autonomous cars? Level 5 means you can basically sleep while driving.
I've ridden in a Google car. Yes, Google is very close, if not already there. In the hour I was in the car, the human driver never had to take over, and the vehicle dealt with busy city streets, including pedestrians and cyclists, many different sorts of intersections, road construction... other than driving like my grandmother (*extremely* cautious), it was flawless.
But instead, let's act like a spoiled-entitled-child with the immature "If I can't have it, no one can".
I don't think that's what happened at all here.
These are videos that are made by Berkeley, for Berkeley's own purposes. Someone got the idea to upload them to YouTube and make them available to the world for free, because the cost to doing that is very close to zero. Very likely one university employee came up with the idea and spends a few minutes per day uploading whatever new lectures are in the library... or maybe even automated it so that no human spends any time on it.
What you're talking about, even if it is possible to get some crowdfunding, will require orders of magnitude more effort and expenditure by the university, isn't really in their mission, and definitely isn't in their budget. And it's entirely possible that they're even looking into what they could do... but until they have a system in place, *and* have verified that whatever approach they take satisfies the requirements of the law and won't leave them with more legal bills, the only thing they reasonably can do is take them all down.
There's no reason to assume that they're acting out of spite here.
It would be if each additional half-distance traveled required more work and more time than was expended to travel the first half.
Then how do you travel half of the Plank length?
You don't. When you're within a Planck length, your atoms are already interacting with the atoms of the target, i.e. you're already touching. Any further movement isn't movement toward the target, it's into it.
No, I haven't tried USB-C yet. I know it will be a lot better than microusb, but still can't compete with just slapping it on my pad and walking away:) I really don't want to lose that feature and don't care how long it takes to charge.
Well, on balance I find I think less about charging now than when I had wireless charging. YMMV... but I doubt it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's fucking stupid. It's rarely needed function that is rarely used. IT'S STILL NEEDED.
I use "close tabs to right" all the time[1], myself, so I hope this doesn't go away. That said, I disagree with your idea that if something is rarely used it should be kept. Your other example (clearing cookies) is a bad one because there is no other way to do that, but in this case tabs can be -- and generally are -- closed one at a time, and in fact Chrome is careful to move the tabs around so that the close button for the next tab is under your cursor when you close one. This means that "close to the right" can also be done by moving your mouse to the "x" on the first tab to remove, then tapping the mouse button rapidly until all of them are gone. Unless you have more than the 20-30 tabs that I typically have open, that's really not so terrible. Plus, as others in this thread have pointed out, you can multi-select tabs then batch close them that way. There are other reasonably-good ways to achieve the goal, so if this is one is rarely used, there's no way to argue that it's actually necessary.
As for why to remove it... features cost. Every feature you keep in a product is a feature that has to be maintained and tested. Development and testing resources are not infinite -- not even at Google -- and the accumulated burden of lots of old and rarely-used features gradually slows progress on new features, security fixes, etc. It makes a great deal of sense to remove features that aren't used much and which have more often-used alternatives.
[1] My normal browsing style is to open every link in a new tab, and to use Ctrl-W to go "back". So my tab bar ends up being a breadcrumb trail of my path through a web site, and when I'm done with something I close the "site" with "close tabs to right". I also keep a couple of pinned tabs (email and calendar, in that order), so when I want to close "everything" I've been doing, I "close tabs to right" on the calendar tab.
The word "patent" is Latin for "lying open".
That's exactly what we're using it for: "openly lying" about inventing things!
Sadly true in all too many cases.
The objection in question ignores Bostrom's basic argument.
Irrelevant. The objection is orthogonal to Bostrom's argument, but could absolutely refute it, if valid (which I don't believe, more below).
Bostrom argues that if simulation is possible, it must eventually be done which means there probably are a large number of simulated universes and only one non-simulated one (I'm simplifying here, but that's the core of it). If a counterargument demonstrates that there is some reason our observed physics is incompatible with any possible simulated physics then Bostrom's argument becomes irrelevant, because we have proof that our universe is not simulated, regardless of whether simulation is possible or whether it has been done. Or, if the weaker counterargument that our observed physics is incompatible with any reasonable simulated physics, then Bostrom's argument becomes weaker, though it's not refuted because one could postulate that the creator of the simulation chose to create an unreasonable simulated physics in order to fool any intelligences that arose within the simulation and looked (note that this latter argument also works against any proofs of the non-existence of any form of god who has some reason to demand faith -- you can always say "Yeah, but god made it that way so that we'd have to take his existence on faith.")
However, I think Hossenfelder's argument is flawed because she's making a crucial and unjustifiable assumption: that any simulation must necessarily simulate every detail of the simulated universe, i.e that the simulation in question must be a finite element model. Not only is there no reason to make this assumption, there's every reason to assume its opposite, because it's clearly more efficient to simulate at a higher level of abstraction. In that view, the weirdness of Quantum Mechanics actually supports the simulation theory, because we can surmise that the simulation does not in fact model elementary particles but only their aggregate behavior and what we're actually seeing when we try to look very closely is a predictable result of this incompletely-detailed simulation.
Note that I'm not saying I think we live in a simulated universe. I think it's probably impossible to know, but to the extent that we think we might be able to search for artifacts of the simulation, QM's very weirdness is probably the best artifact we have to support the notion, not a refutation.
>it undoubtedly still does remove the need for a lot of secrecy Scoff
If you have a point, make it.
Note that I didn't say the patent system eliminated the need for all trade secrecy. Obviously.
NO, I have a problem with corporations and arseholes that don't pay their fair share
Corporations never pay taxes. Never have, never will. Only people pay taxes. Corporate taxation is just a way for government to collect taxes from the taxpayers without the taxpayers knowing it's been done. Taxpayers/voters are typically quite happy to vote for corporate taxes because it seems like a "free" way to fund government services, and anyway everyone hates those nasty corporations. In fact, any expense you impose across all of the companies in an industry just gets built into the cost structure of the industry, which means it ultimately comes from consumers (in the form of higher prices) or employees (in the form of lower wages).
In the short term, investors may take part of the hit, but only part, and only in the short term. Ultimately, either the expenses will be built into the cost structure, enabling capital to obtain the expected rate of return, or capital will move elsewhere, either to different industries or offshore. This is why if you want to tax capital, you need to tax the individuals who own capital, not the corporations which are the vehicle of that capital.
Corporate taxes are stupid at best, and arguably evil since they serve to obscure the taxes from the voters. Taxes are essential, but the voters need to see what they're paying and what they're getting for their money.
Either it's patented (and thus disclosed) or it's a trade secret. You cannot have it both ways.
To expand on this a bit, because it's really sad (and bad!) that so many people don't understand the theory behind patents: Encouraging disclosure, and hence reuse, is the point of having a patent system. The word "patent" is latin for "lying open". Patents were created to allow inventors to open their inventions to the world without fear of losing the opportunity to profit from them. Without patents inventors have to keep their ideas secret to profit from them, which impedes progress and adds huge overhead to the process of using the ideas to build things that benefit society.
The fact that InvalidsYnc fails to understand that the notion of an NDA for a patent is utterly nonsensical is sad, but what makes it a big problem is that this lack of understanding isn't actually unreasonable, given how deeply broken our patent system is. It has been subverted and does not accomplish its primary goals of enabling open sharing of ideas.
To understand just how bad it is, note that the way to test whether a patent system is enabling the spread and reuse of good ideas is to examine the way the patent database is used. If the system is functioning well, we should see inventors regularly scouring the patent database in search of ideas they can license in order to solve their problems. If your widget needs to frobnizz cleanly in order to wozzle, but the frobnizzing operation is unreliable and unstable, you should be able to do a patent search for a frobnizz stabilization system which you can license for less that what it would cost you to research your own, which will enable you to bring your wozzling device to market sooner and cheaper.
But in actual practice, at least in the software field and I haven't heard anyone from other fields saying it's different in theirs, attorneys tell working engineers specifically *not* to look at the patent database. This is because it's chock full of obvious ideas which they might independently reinvent, but if the patent holder can prove that the engineer probably saw the patent then it's not just simple infringement due to independent invention, but willful infringement subject to treble damages. In addition, the way in which patents are written means that the database would be extremely hard to use even if engineers did try to mine it. So engineers avoid using the patent database for its intended purpose.
This doesn't mean the patent system is completely failing to do its job, because it undoubtedly still does remove the need for a lot of secrecy, which removes a lot of overhead. But it does mean that it's not working nearly as well as it should. It may be removing some overhead, but it is not actively enabling the reuse of good ideas.
Ditto. I miss the old days of computing that didn't have so many issues, security vulnerabilities, bloatness, better usabilities, user experiences, coolness, designs, simpleness, reliabilities, etc. :(
Actually, what you miss is the days when computers weren't connected to the Internet. They've always had security vulnerabilities -- in fact consumer systems were far worse than they are now -- but it didn't used to matter so much. The always-on net provides an always-available attack vector, and also means that once your device is pwned, it's an always-on threat to the rest of the network.
As for the rest (bloat, usability, etc.)... that's in the eye of the beholder. If you want to run DOS, you can still run DOS. Personally I find modern systems and apps to be much more usable. I suppose there are exceptions, but I can't think of any at the moment.
By definition they have committed more crimes than the average population by entering the country illegally.
It's not a crime to enter the country illegally, unless you have been previously deported. This, BTW, is why lawyers and other people who are picky about accuracy when it comes to legal issues call them "undocumented immigrants", rather than "illegal immigrants". That's not just a kinder or more politically correct phrasing... it's the most accurate description.
You were saying driving slower would be safer
1. I never said that driving slower is safer. Nor did I ever imply it in any way.
2. I never said that self-driving cars must drive slowly. I said that Google cars drive very cautiously, which is a bit slower, but the whole point of the post which your hard-to-follow response followed is that there's no reason to expect that to be an inherent "problem" with self-driving cars in general, or Google's cars in particular.
3. You're dead wrong when you say that people wouldn't be willing to exchange a slower trip for one where they don't have to drive. Let me read, work, sleep, etc., and it's still a net win in terms of time if the drive takes twice as long. If you try to say you wouldn't accept, say, a 10% increase in trip time in order to get there safer and be able to do whatever you like on the way, you're lying, perhaps to yourself.
4. There's every reason to expect that once we remove the human-driven cars from the roads, self-driving cars will drive much faster. With their much better situational awareness, much faster reaction times and ability to communicate in real time with other self-driving vehicles on the road, we should be able to significantly increase highway speeds (while improving efficiency and safety) and virtually eliminate the need for stop signs, stop lights, etc., in town. That's obviously going to take some decades.
If that is a better solution then they should just half the speed limit right now everywhere and be done with it.
I've read that sentence three times now and I can't figure out what you're trying to say. The referent for "solution" seems to be my comment about making cars drive more like humans, but I see no connection with the speed of light.
What leaks? I'm not aware of any leaks of user data from Google. Ever. Do you know of some?
Actually, as soon as I hit "submit", I thought of one: Snowden revealed that the NSA was tapping fiber between Google data centers. That is the only one that I'm aware of, though, and I don't really think of it as a "leak" because none of the data made it to the public. And, of course, that particular hole has been sealed (though it's certainly not impossible that the NSA or similarly-capable organizations have inserted other sorts of covert access into Google data systems).
It isn't a big brother narrative, its just data and detective work.
What data and detective work?
The data exists. People want the data. The detective work shohuld be obvious.
I'm still not sure what you're talking about. You seem to be implying that some data and/or detective work tells you that Google mines Google docs & sheets. But based on my inside knowledge of how the systems work I have an extremely high level of confidence that it's not true, so I'm wondering what data and detective work you're talking about.
Yeah, it's secure. I gues all of those leaks are just shit someone made up. And the internet is inherentlly 100 percent secure by it's very design.
What leaks? I'm not aware of any leaks of user data from Google. Ever. Do you know of some?
But I get it, wink wink. You have convinced me totally, I was wrong, and stand corrected. Once Google has it, wink, wink, it is 100 percent never to be leaked - perfect security has been achieved.
From your lips to God's ear.
Nothing is foolproof, and only a fool would claim it could be. But Google has a remarkably good track record, and after seeing the technical details, I can see why.
It isn't a big brother narrative, its just data and detective work.
What data and detective work?
Or he means his employer happens to use Google Sheets to store employee data. Which is hardly a far-fetched concept.
I suppose, though that's hardly "giving the date to Google". Google not only doesn't mine docs or sheets
How cute! Now all you have to do is get people to believe that. I know, I know, "Trust us - we can't tell you why you can trust us, but yeah - we're really trustworthy!"
Yeah. I think if Google were to publish the technical details of how the data is protected, at least many engineers would be convinced (and, actually, impressed). But there's really no way to convince those who find the "big brother" narrative more compelling.
The fact that the ability to hold more of a charge is something merely unlocked via a costly software update means Tesla sold you a 75kWh capable battery all along but gimped it artificially.
This is something that IBM did for many decades in the mainframe space -- and maybe still does, dunno. You buy a mainframe with X CPUs, but it may actually have 2X or 4X in the box. The "extras" are turned off, and you can turn them on by paying an upgrade fee. For many years turning them on required a service visit, but by the 90s they could do it by sending a cryptographically-signed authorization.
I never understood the model in that space, either, but apparently it made sense to someone.
Or he means his employer happens to use Google Sheets to store employee data. Which is hardly a far-fetched concept.
I suppose, though that's hardly "giving the date to Google". Google not only doesn't mine docs or sheets, great care is taken to ensure that that data cannot be mined or accessed by anyone in Google, except with a specific customer need and with customer authorization -- and all such exceptional accesses are logged and audited. Google has some unique and rather cool infrastructure that ensures that this happens. I wish I could go into detail.
or example my employer has given my SSN, name, salary, and medical records to Google in spite of my loud objections.
WTF? Why in the world would they do that, unless you're a Google contractor or something?
Driving would not be workable if every car drove like your grandmother.
Sure it would. In fact it would be a lot safer, if a bit slower. But it might confuse the human drivers the road, which is why they have since updated the algorithms to drive more "normally". My ride was about three years ago, and as I understand it that's mostly what they've been doing since then, tweaking the behavior to make the vehicles to drive like humans, including being more aggressive when the situation demands it.
Ok what about two then?
How about 10^20? 10^20 Planck lengths is the diameter of a proton. The atoms are interacting chemically and/or bouncing off one another long before you're even that close.
Do you think Google (or anyone) is close to getting level5 autonomous cars? Level 5 means you can basically sleep while driving.
I've ridden in a Google car. Yes, Google is very close, if not already there. In the hour I was in the car, the human driver never had to take over, and the vehicle dealt with busy city streets, including pedestrians and cyclists, many different sorts of intersections, road construction... other than driving like my grandmother (*extremely* cautious), it was flawless.
No, I happen to live in Mountain View so am near the big fleet.
Where do you find rural roads in Mountain View?
But instead, let's act like a spoiled-entitled-child with the immature "If I can't have it, no one can".
I don't think that's what happened at all here.
These are videos that are made by Berkeley, for Berkeley's own purposes. Someone got the idea to upload them to YouTube and make them available to the world for free, because the cost to doing that is very close to zero. Very likely one university employee came up with the idea and spends a few minutes per day uploading whatever new lectures are in the library... or maybe even automated it so that no human spends any time on it.
What you're talking about, even if it is possible to get some crowdfunding, will require orders of magnitude more effort and expenditure by the university, isn't really in their mission, and definitely isn't in their budget. And it's entirely possible that they're even looking into what they could do... but until they have a system in place, *and* have verified that whatever approach they take satisfies the requirements of the law and won't leave them with more legal bills, the only thing they reasonably can do is take them all down.
There's no reason to assume that they're acting out of spite here.
So then in effect, if you're one Planck length unit away, then moving half of the distance means you're there.
No, if you're one Planck length away, you're already there.
It would be if each additional half-distance traveled required more work and more time than was expended to travel the first half.
Then how do you travel half of the Plank length?
You don't. When you're within a Planck length, your atoms are already interacting with the atoms of the target, i.e. you're already touching. Any further movement isn't movement toward the target, it's into it.
No, I haven't tried USB-C yet. I know it will be a lot better than microusb, but still can't compete with just slapping it on my pad and walking away :) I really don't want to lose that feature and don't care how long it takes to charge.
Well, on balance I find I think less about charging now than when I had wireless charging. YMMV... but I doubt it.