Capitalism aims to get profit by paying labor less than it is worth.
My father has two sayings which are true and speak to this situation:
1. When you work for somebody else, they never pay you what you are worth, or they'd not make any money. (i.e. work for yourself son..)
This isn't necessarily true. It would always be true if your employer were directly selling the output of your labor, without combining it in any non-zero-sum way with the output of other employees or partners, or with other knowledge or resources, but this is generally not so. It's often not the case that your labor will generate as much value when you're working for yourself as it does when you're working for your employer. Many people would make less money if self-employed than they do as an employee.
Always running out of battery, headphones jacks are good backup.
I use bluetooth headphones as a backup to my bluetooth headphones. Two pairs; one charging (often charging from my phone) while the other is in use. I have these; they're pretty cheap ($8), work fine in the shower, last eight hours on a charge and have a pretty decent microphone which I sometimes use for phone calls. I have two pairs that I bought about three years ago -- though they cost twice as much then as they do now -- and they're still going strong. In three years I'd have ruined at least a dozen pairs of wired headphones by catching the wires on things, so they've saved me money.
This makes absolute sense if you don't assume that the leaders of large corporations care about things like consistency and good-faith.
Right conclusion, wrong rationale.
The thing that, bizarrely, very few people seem to be able to figure out is that: Corporations are large collections of people. It's reasonable to expect an individual person to maintain a consistent viewpoint on a question (though they can also legitimately change their minds), but large corporations are made up of tens or hundreds of thousands of people, divided into lots of subsidiary organizations with goals that don't always perfectly align even at a single moment in time, much less over time. Yes, corporate leaders do attempt to prevent the worst cases of elements of their organizations working at cross purposes, but they often fail, especially over time. And that's true even when the leadership doesn't change, which it often does.
In cases like this, the "mocking" almost certainly comes from the marketing department who is focused on selling the current product. The product development department is likely not even consulted to see whether their future plans include products which can be mocked for the same reason. And note that I'm almost certainly dramatically oversimplifying to refer two only two organizations here.
That's an optimistic assessment of Waymo's technology. All reports are they still aren't able to send cars out without human drivers, unfortunately. It's good in most cases, but getting the last few percent is harder than the first 90 percent.
No, many people have ridden in Waymo cars with no one behind the wheel. Waymo is being conservative and the now-operational commercial service is still using safety drivers, but that won't last long, at least in the current area of operations.
And it isn't necessary to get the last few percent to offer a useful service. Imagine, for example, that the cars can safely pull over when they need to, until a remote driver can address whatever situation the car is unable to handle unassisted.
Google is an ad company too. That's where they make their money.
More than Google, actually, because Google (er, Alphabet) has been diversifying. As a percentage of revenue, Alphabet's ad income has been falling steadily for years. It's on track to fall below 80% in the next year or so. Ad revenues are still rising, mind you, but the revenue from other areas is rising faster. Waymo, in particular, is poised to start generating many billions annually in the next few years. It wouldn't surprise me if ad revenue falls below 50% by 2023.
Facebook gets more than 98% of its revenue from ads and isn't really attempting to diversify.
True, but learning doesn't generally create structural changes so large that they're physically observable in an MRI. A little conservatism is warranted here.
On the contrary that's exactly what learning does, and we've known that it does this for at least the last seven years.
Cool link, thanks. However, the fact that we've observed one other case hardly makes this common. If differences in education commonly created gross structural changes in the brain, this study wouldn't be news.
We don’t know if it’s a bad thing. It won’t be until we follow them over time that we will see if there are outcomes that are associated with the differences that we’re seeing in this single snapshot.
They're not claiming to know one way or the other.
Everything "changes the structure of our brains", or learning would not work.
True, but learning doesn't generally create structural changes so large that they're physically observable in an MRI. A little conservatism is warranted here.
I think they are learning how better to handle a larger flow of information.
Could be. Or it could be that they're learning to accept information by filtering and processing it less, in fact that would be a more obvious interpretation of a thinned cortex. But the real bottom line is that it's such a large difference that it results in gross structural changes, and we don't know what the effect is. That's worrisome.
We're seeing a growing "digital divide" between poor kids whose parents are too busy to supervise them all the time and choose to let screens raise them and rich kids whose parents increasingly keep them away from screens as much as possible. I can tell you that I'm pushing for my grandkids to be the latter group. Maybe this is a bad choice, maybe these rich kids will grow up disadvantaged compared to their screen-drenched peers. We don't know. But based mostly on how addictive screens are to kids, and on the outcomes of most addictive behaviors, I'm betting on lots of screen time being bad for development, until proved otherwise.
They have to leave limited interconnectivity. Most infotainment systems behave differently depending on whether the vehicle is in drive. And they usually need to know is the engine is running or if you're draining the battery.
That can be done while still ensuring isolation of control signals. You can have a one-way data feed, or even bidirectional communication that is limited to exchanging specific data elements through a sort of mailbox. My guess is that it isn't done that way, though. We already know that the systems from other automakers are not isolated.
I certainly hope they engineered the car to isolate it's entertainment console from the controls (and computer control systems) because if they didn't then there is a big security issue with that alone.
They most certainly isolate the infotainment system.
While it's fairly stable, I've had episodes of unresponsiveness with the infotainment system.
I've rebooted it (white driving!) by holding down the two scroll wheels on the steering wheel at the same time for ~5 seconds. The system takes about 15-20 seconds to reboot and it does not effect driving performance at all.
The fact that you can reboot the infotainment system while driving (I've done it, too), means that the driving systems are not dependent on the infotainment system for normal operation, it doesn't mean they're isolated from the infotainment system. I hope they are, but the one thing doesn't imply the other.
Not defensive, just trying to be accurate. Jokes are often a way of implying something that isn't true, while retaining plausible deniability. If someone calls you on your error or exaggeration you can claim that you were only joking.
If anyone doubts this then consider that they have a legal responsibility to make sure that button works in the EU. Otherwise it's a GDPR violation and potential fine of 2% of global turnover, currently about $2.5 billion.
While this is true, the Google PWG's existence and influence pre-dates GDPR considerably.
May I point out that tou are _allowed_ to do things for them? You are also _allowed_ to hire them as employees and provide other benefits.
The point is that if you choose to do certain things for them then the law will decide that you have chosen to hire them as employees. If you don't want to hire them as employees then you must not do certain things for them.
Not naivete at all. I've filed similar bugs and seen the response. This would be taken as a very serious bug in Google. If the responsible team didn't prioritize it, all I'd have to do is CC someone on the privacy working group (PWG) and it would immediately get top priority. You know how people jump in your company when the legal department demands something? PWG has about as much pull as legal in Google.
Any time I try to toggle off data collection in that "My Account" area, the settings miraculously revert as soon as I leave.
Can you please double-check this, and if you confirm it, contact me? I'll file a bug and it will get fixed. This is definitely not something that should be happening.
You've put your finger on the biggest reason that it's so important to avoid hiring bad candidates: because it's hard to get rid of them.
It's not just a matter of social acceptability, either. There's also significant legal risk. Large corporations have lengthy and expensive firing processes, and often also give hefty separation payments, because they have to make sure there's no way the employee can sue them for wrongful termination.
The downsides you discussed is precisely the point. It may be good at excluding people who can't do the job, but it also excludes people who can. And you haven't followed up with enough of your rejects to know that all the people excluded were rightly rejected.
I completely agree that rejecting a lot of good people is terrible. It's just that it's less terrible than the alternative, which is to hire some people that drag everyone else down.
Slashdot Mirror
Capitalism aims to get profit by paying labor less than it is worth.
My father has two sayings which are true and speak to this situation:
1. When you work for somebody else, they never pay you what you are worth, or they'd not make any money. (i.e. work for yourself son..)
This isn't necessarily true. It would always be true if your employer were directly selling the output of your labor, without combining it in any non-zero-sum way with the output of other employees or partners, or with other knowledge or resources, but this is generally not so. It's often not the case that your labor will generate as much value when you're working for yourself as it does when you're working for your employer. Many people would make less money if self-employed than they do as an employee.
Always running out of battery, headphones jacks are good backup.
I use bluetooth headphones as a backup to my bluetooth headphones. Two pairs; one charging (often charging from my phone) while the other is in use. I have these; they're pretty cheap ($8), work fine in the shower, last eight hours on a charge and have a pretty decent microphone which I sometimes use for phone calls. I have two pairs that I bought about three years ago -- though they cost twice as much then as they do now -- and they're still going strong. In three years I'd have ruined at least a dozen pairs of wired headphones by catching the wires on things, so they've saved me money.
This makes absolute sense if you don't assume that the leaders of large corporations care about things like consistency and good-faith.
Right conclusion, wrong rationale.
The thing that, bizarrely, very few people seem to be able to figure out is that: Corporations are large collections of people. It's reasonable to expect an individual person to maintain a consistent viewpoint on a question (though they can also legitimately change their minds), but large corporations are made up of tens or hundreds of thousands of people, divided into lots of subsidiary organizations with goals that don't always perfectly align even at a single moment in time, much less over time. Yes, corporate leaders do attempt to prevent the worst cases of elements of their organizations working at cross purposes, but they often fail, especially over time. And that's true even when the leadership doesn't change, which it often does.
In cases like this, the "mocking" almost certainly comes from the marketing department who is focused on selling the current product. The product development department is likely not even consulted to see whether their future plans include products which can be mocked for the same reason. And note that I'm almost certainly dramatically oversimplifying to refer two only two organizations here.
Feelin' the love, man, thanks!
That's an optimistic assessment of Waymo's technology. All reports are they still aren't able to send cars out without human drivers, unfortunately. It's good in most cases, but getting the last few percent is harder than the first 90 percent.
No, many people have ridden in Waymo cars with no one behind the wheel. Waymo is being conservative and the now-operational commercial service is still using safety drivers, but that won't last long, at least in the current area of operations.
And it isn't necessary to get the last few percent to offer a useful service. Imagine, for example, that the cars can safely pull over when they need to, until a remote driver can address whatever situation the car is unable to handle unassisted.
Google is an ad company too. That's where they make their money.
More than Google, actually, because Google (er, Alphabet) has been diversifying. As a percentage of revenue, Alphabet's ad income has been falling steadily for years. It's on track to fall below 80% in the next year or so. Ad revenues are still rising, mind you, but the revenue from other areas is rising faster. Waymo, in particular, is poised to start generating many billions annually in the next few years. It wouldn't surprise me if ad revenue falls below 50% by 2023.
Facebook gets more than 98% of its revenue from ads and isn't really attempting to diversify.
Open source is a hobby, not a profession.
To a first approximation, no widely-used open source software is written by hobbyists. OpenJDK certainly is not.
Hey APK, it's been a long time since you stalked me. It's like you just don't care anymore. That hurts, man.
True, but learning doesn't generally create structural changes so large that they're physically observable in an MRI. A little conservatism is warranted here.
On the contrary that's exactly what learning does, and we've known that it does this for at least the last seven years.
Cool link, thanks. However, the fact that we've observed one other case hardly makes this common. If differences in education commonly created gross structural changes in the brain, this study wouldn't be news.
How do they know the changes are detrimental?
From the study director:
They're not claiming to know one way or the other.
Everything "changes the structure of our brains", or learning would not work.
True, but learning doesn't generally create structural changes so large that they're physically observable in an MRI. A little conservatism is warranted here.
I think they are learning how better to handle a larger flow of information.
Could be. Or it could be that they're learning to accept information by filtering and processing it less, in fact that would be a more obvious interpretation of a thinned cortex. But the real bottom line is that it's such a large difference that it results in gross structural changes, and we don't know what the effect is. That's worrisome.
We're seeing a growing "digital divide" between poor kids whose parents are too busy to supervise them all the time and choose to let screens raise them and rich kids whose parents increasingly keep them away from screens as much as possible. I can tell you that I'm pushing for my grandkids to be the latter group. Maybe this is a bad choice, maybe these rich kids will grow up disadvantaged compared to their screen-drenched peers. We don't know. But based mostly on how addictive screens are to kids, and on the outcomes of most addictive behaviors, I'm betting on lots of screen time being bad for development, until proved otherwise.
Obviously, we are moving more towards NewSpeak. It seems nobody reads the classics anymore and the same evil mistakes are getting prevalent again.
Come off it, avoiding profanity in written professional communication is hardly equivalent to NewSpeak.
Sheesh, some people just like getting worked up, I guess.
I should mention that IMO this includes people who get annoyed enough about swear words in source code to find them and submit patches to remove them.
Obviously, we are moving more towards NewSpeak. It seems nobody reads the classics anymore and the same evil mistakes are getting prevalent again.
Come off it, avoiding profanity in written professional communication is hardly equivalent to NewSpeak.
Sheesh, some people just like getting worked up, I guess.
They have to leave limited interconnectivity. Most infotainment systems behave differently depending on whether the vehicle is in drive. And they usually need to know is the engine is running or if you're draining the battery.
That can be done while still ensuring isolation of control signals. You can have a one-way data feed, or even bidirectional communication that is limited to exchanging specific data elements through a sort of mailbox. My guess is that it isn't done that way, though. We already know that the systems from other automakers are not isolated.
I certainly hope they engineered the car to isolate it's entertainment console from the controls (and computer control systems) because if they didn't then there is a big security issue with that alone.
They most certainly isolate the infotainment system.
While it's fairly stable, I've had episodes of unresponsiveness with the infotainment system.
I've rebooted it (white driving!) by holding down the two scroll wheels on the steering wheel at the same time for ~5 seconds. The system takes about 15-20 seconds to reboot and it does not effect driving performance at all.
The fact that you can reboot the infotainment system while driving (I've done it, too), means that the driving systems are not dependent on the infotainment system for normal operation, it doesn't mean they're isolated from the infotainment system. I hope they are, but the one thing doesn't imply the other.
Not defensive, just trying to be accurate. Jokes are often a way of implying something that isn't true, while retaining plausible deniability. If someone calls you on your error or exaggeration you can claim that you were only joking.
If anyone doubts this then consider that they have a legal responsibility to make sure that button works in the EU. Otherwise it's a GDPR violation and potential fine of 2% of global turnover, currently about $2.5 billion.
While this is true, the Google PWG's existence and influence pre-dates GDPR considerably.
So it's kinda like when Harry tricked Lucius into giving Dobby a sock?
With the rather significant difference that TVCs aren't slaves, unlike Malfoy house elves.
I agree. I urge that we be clear that it's not that the law prevents the behavior. Avoiding consequences prevents the behavior.
But said consequences are a result of the law, so it is relevant.
May I point out that tou are _allowed_ to do things for them? You are also _allowed_ to hire them as employees and provide other benefits.
The point is that if you choose to do certain things for them then the law will decide that you have chosen to hire them as employees. If you don't want to hire them as employees then you must not do certain things for them.
I'll file a bug and it will get fixed.
Naivete is only endearing in youth.
Not naivete at all. I've filed similar bugs and seen the response. This would be taken as a very serious bug in Google. If the responsible team didn't prioritize it, all I'd have to do is CC someone on the privacy working group (PWG) and it would immediately get top priority. You know how people jump in your company when the legal department demands something? PWG has about as much pull as legal in Google.
Any time I try to toggle off data collection in that "My Account" area, the settings miraculously revert as soon as I leave.
Can you please double-check this, and if you confirm it, contact me? I'll file a bug and it will get fixed. This is definitely not something that should be happening.
You've put your finger on the biggest reason that it's so important to avoid hiring bad candidates: because it's hard to get rid of them.
It's not just a matter of social acceptability, either. There's also significant legal risk. Large corporations have lengthy and expensive firing processes, and often also give hefty separation payments, because they have to make sure there's no way the employee can sue them for wrongful termination.
The downsides you discussed is precisely the point. It may be good at excluding people who can't do the job, but it also excludes people who can. And you haven't followed up with enough of your rejects to know that all the people excluded were rightly rejected.
I completely agree that rejecting a lot of good people is terrible. It's just that it's less terrible than the alternative, which is to hire some people that drag everyone else down.
Ever notice only hipsters use standing desks?
I never knew I was a hipster!
Well now you know. You are welcome.
Is it really possible to be a 50 year-old hipster?
If you prefer to pay and not get ads, you can get that on YouTube as well. https://www.youtube.com/premiu...
The two aren't really direct competitors IMO, though. I use both, for different kinds of things.