> Why are we trying to teach machines the ability to debate? > The ONLY arena I see Debate as useful is in the Political arena, where you can cherry pick your statistics and studies to try to prove your side.
You are basically saying that future AI is impossible, that computers can only do computation, statistics and algorithms (like chess, go, or image recognition), and that humans contain some magical power that may not be replicated by a non-human machine.
You assume that the Turing test will never be passed.
I think you are correct in one way though. Intelligence cannot be taught, at least by humans giving algorithms and "intelligent" logic. It can only be obtained by an adaptive learning system.
a neural network is intelligent the way that a calculator is intelligent or a sorting algorithm is intelligent.
When AI comes, our perception of products is not relevant, as they will make stuff for themselves.
Hopefully the AI will be our friends.
The current mis-use of the AI to mean something other than passing the Turing test just assumes that AI will never come, and we will just have neural networks coming up with efficient solutions forever.
AI can only come from an self adaptive system, not the neural network in box special purpose systems we have now. A milion monkeys typing on keyboards, even if they know how to create neural network software, will not create "AI".
Clinton did not win "the popular vote", because there was no popular vote.
There was only an electoral vote. And people may or may not vote differently based on the type of vote.
Some people lived in a very "red" or "blue" state, so perhaps they stayed home, because it did not make a difference. Or perhaps they voted for Johnson because they knew it did not make a difference in said red or blue state. Or perhaps they lived in a "swing state" and were unsure, so they voted one way to "help the cause", where in a popular vote they may have voted differently.
The only way to know who would have one a popular vote is to have a popular vote, which we did not have.
>> So the red sticker pulls a hundred thousand EV's off the road,
> What? How does it do that?
Oops, meant out of the car pool. White stickers expire 2019.
>> What exactly is the red sticker trying to encourage. Just new sales?
> Of less polluting vehicles specifically.
Not necessarily. If I replace my EV(white sticker) car with a Volt, Prius Prime, or Ford Fusion (red sticker), then I am adding pollution. Not just emissions, but in the overall environmental cost of manufacturing a new vehicle.
The Red Sticker for the car pool lane went backwards.
Yellow sticker = hybrid (now not valid) Green sticker = plugin hybrid and pure electric (not valid 2019) White sticker = pure electric (not valid 2019) Red sticker = new plugin hybrid and pure electric
So the red sticker pulls a hundred thousand EV's off the road, and replaces them with a mix of hybrids and new electric vehicles. What exactly is the red sticker trying to encourage. Just new sales?
The iPad was made 4x3, because the original iPhone was 4x3, so it could run the same applications, scaled.
Now, the iPad stands alone, rockin' 4x3, like it's 1999.
Especially, with a keyboard attached. It looks like an obsolete laptop that you can watch videos with those glorious black bars, reminding you the long gone CRT's.
> Being Agnostic is an evidence-based world view. You cannot prove a negative and therefore cannot prove that god does not exist.
Agnostic just means you don't know. It is an intellectually dishonest viewpoint. Of course we cannot know anything, but that does not help our understanding of the universe.
Are you agnostic about gravity? Are you agnostic about evolution? Are you agnostic about aliens? Are you agnostic about Big Foot? Are you agnostic about Atlantis? Are you agnostic about King Arthur? Are you agnostic about the tooth fairy?
> Do you believe gods may exist but don't believe in one?
Is this the supposed evidence based viewpoint? Where is is the evidence for "gods may exist"?
> I can't prove that the world didn't start existing the moment I posted this. But believing that it is possible would be of no use - so I simply say I don't believe in it.
This seemingly contradicts your previous statements.
How about: "I can't prove that a god like creature exists. But believing that it is possible would be of no use - so I simply say I don't believe in it."
That would be an atheist...
If you prefer a different word on the religion question, just say 'None of the above'
Why would Facebook and Twitter admit that their business is a threat to democracy. If true, shouldn't we shut these non-essential websites down until they can operate safely? Should the US block them until they can operate a safe business?
Are there special Mint packages that you cannot just apt-get on Ubuntu.
And the the obvious next question. Why use Ubuntu over the parent Debian? The Debian-Ubuntu delta is smaller than ever now that Ubuntu uses GNOME3 and wayland. I assume the answers here is more obvious than with Mint: - a more user friendly installer - GNOME3 with unity-like extensions - larger user base (more well tested versions)
> Why should the manufacturers be responsible for preventing people from being jackasses and throwing their garbage wherever they please?
Ultimately the producer of the product is the producer of the resulting waste.
Having a direct connection between the producer and the overall impact of the resulting waste would naturally cause the producer to manufacture in a way that lead to less waste.
Consider soda companies and the glass bottle to plastic bottle transition long ago. And consider the impact of waste generation from that transition.
Who was responsible for the increase in waste generation. Of course the company and perhaps you may argue that it is the individual is responsible But, with no burden on the producer, they have no incentive to create products that result in less waste. The burden to clean up the mess falls on the government and ultimately the taxpayer. States like CA pay the consumer to recycle the bottle, because otherwise they have to pay to clean it up. It would make sense for a government to place at least some of that burden on the producer.
Otherwise, companies will only head towards the cheapest manufacturing process, and any resulting change in overall waste is simply and externality that is out of their concern.
Bringing politics into software is foolish and only introduces a new dimension to make source code incompatible.
Old problem: We can't combine this BSD code, Acode, with this mixed MIT/GPL code, Bcode, because of the incompatible distribution/duplication license.
New problem: We can't combine Gcode with Hcode because Gcode is under the LGBTTIQQ2SFatSkinnyDruggieMentalReligious social license, and Hcode is under the HugsAreOkProHealthlyRegularPeople social license.
> Software Engineers that still can't master the to fundamentals of Object Orientation after decades of practice.
Worse is junior (or senior programmer) who loves to throw "design patterns", "object oriented programming", "MVC",... at problems without having a grasp of basic Software Engineering concepts such as separation of concerns or modularity (too many think OOP implies modularity). The result is a heaping monolith of layers of unreadable, unreadable code.
Slashdot Mirror
Fire marketing.
> Why are we trying to teach machines the ability to debate?
> The ONLY arena I see Debate as useful is in the Political arena, where you can cherry pick your statistics and studies to try to prove your side.
You are basically saying that future AI is impossible, that computers can only do computation, statistics and algorithms (like chess, go, or image recognition), and that humans contain some magical power that may not be replicated by a non-human machine.
You assume that the Turing test will never be passed.
I think you are correct in one way though. Intelligence cannot be taught, at least by humans giving algorithms and "intelligent" logic. It can only be obtained by an adaptive learning system.
a neural network is intelligent the way that a calculator is intelligent or a sorting algorithm is intelligent.
When AI comes, our perception of products is not relevant, as they will make stuff for themselves.
Hopefully the AI will be our friends.
The current mis-use of the AI to mean something other than passing the Turing test
just assumes that AI will never come, and we will just have neural networks coming up with efficient solutions forever.
AI can only come from an self adaptive system, not the neural network in box special purpose systems we have now.
A milion monkeys typing on keyboards, even if they know how to create neural network software, will not create "AI".
Instead, why not give/throw/sell the alexa/google device away,
and just put Snips on a Raspberry pi?
> 1. She still won the popular vote.
Clinton did not win "the popular vote", because there was no popular vote.
There was only an electoral vote. And people may or may not vote differently based on the type of vote.
Some people lived in a very "red" or "blue" state, so perhaps they stayed home, because it did not make a difference. Or perhaps they voted for Johnson because they knew it did not make a difference in said red or blue state.
Or perhaps they lived in a "swing state" and were unsure, so they voted one way to "help the cause", where in a popular vote they may have voted differently.
The only way to know who would have one a popular vote is to have a popular vote, which we did not have.
>> So the red sticker pulls a hundred thousand EV's off the road,
> What? How does it do that?
Oops, meant out of the car pool. White stickers expire 2019.
>> What exactly is the red sticker trying to encourage. Just new sales?
> Of less polluting vehicles specifically.
Not necessarily.
If I replace my EV(white sticker) car with a Volt, Prius Prime, or Ford Fusion (red sticker),
then I am adding pollution.
Not just emissions, but in the overall environmental cost of manufacturing a new vehicle.
The Red Sticker for the car pool lane went backwards.
Yellow sticker = hybrid (now not valid)
Green sticker = plugin hybrid and pure electric (not valid 2019)
White sticker = pure electric (not valid 2019)
Red sticker = new plugin hybrid and pure electric
So the red sticker pulls a hundred thousand EV's off the road, and replaces them with a mix of hybrids and new electric vehicles.
What exactly is the red sticker trying to encourage. Just new sales?
The iPad was made 4x3, because the original iPhone was 4x3, so it could run the same applications, scaled.
Now, the iPad stands alone, rockin' 4x3, like it's 1999.
Especially, with a keyboard attached. It looks like an obsolete laptop that you can watch videos with those glorious black bars, reminding you the long gone CRT's.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbo...
Really?
"In her time here, ... ... I will miss the leadership and enthusiasm she brought ..."
In two days? What kind of time scale are they working on?
Perhaps they are working with ultra micro incremental development. Perhaps 1 hour sprints.
I cannot think of a reason to actually render the notch, even for the top.
It should just be an area that has no screen pixels and no touch.
Perhaps for development, they may want a "soft notch", so software designers may understand what it may look like, even on a non-notch device.
But for production, such notch should never be rendered, even at the top.
> Being Agnostic is an evidence-based world view. You cannot prove a negative and therefore cannot prove that god does not exist.
Agnostic just means you don't know. It is an intellectually dishonest viewpoint. Of course we cannot know anything, but that does not help our understanding of the universe.
Are you agnostic about gravity?
Are you agnostic about evolution?
Are you agnostic about aliens?
Are you agnostic about Big Foot?
Are you agnostic about Atlantis?
Are you agnostic about King Arthur?
Are you agnostic about the tooth fairy?
> Do you believe gods may exist but don't believe in one?
Is this the supposed evidence based viewpoint?
Where is is the evidence for "gods may exist"?
> I can't prove that the world didn't start existing the moment I posted this. But believing that it is possible would be of no use - so I simply say I don't believe in it.
This seemingly contradicts your previous statements.
How about:
"I can't prove that a god like creature exists. But believing that it is possible would be of no use - so I simply say I don't believe in it."
That would be an atheist...
If you prefer a different word on the religion question, just say 'None of the above'
No question about license?
Disappointing.
Vivaldi is base an open source Blink engine.
Why not open source Vivaldi also.
How can yet another proprietary browser really compete against Chrome/Chromium or Firefox?
Agreed. This is puzzling.
Why would Facebook and Twitter admit that their business is a threat to democracy.
If true, shouldn't we shut these non-essential websites down until they can operate safely?
Should the US block them until they can operate a safe business?
But society not collapsing. The sky is not falling.
And even if it was, some wealth redistribution scheme would not stop it.
Taking money from those with jobs and giving to those without jobs. Haven't we tried that?
Smart phone display size chart:
XXS: 3.5 (I-Phone 1-4)
XS: 4 (iPhone 5)
S: 4.5 (IPhone 6-8)
M: 5 (Nexus 5, Pixel 2)
L: 5.5 (iPhone 8plus, Pixel XL, Galaxy Note II)
XL: 6 (iPhone X, Pixel 2 XL)
XXL: 6.5 (Samsung S10)
Tablet: 7 (Nexus 7, Galaxy Note 7)
What did the control group drink?
My guess is soda of some kind, even if this is not measured.
Compare coffee drinkers with water drinkers (or at least drinks without sweeteners). Otherwise the test is not testing what you think it is testing.
Why use Mint over parent Ubuntu?
Are there special Mint packages that you cannot just apt-get on Ubuntu.
And the the obvious next question.
Why use Ubuntu over the parent Debian? The Debian-Ubuntu delta is smaller than ever now that Ubuntu uses GNOME3 and wayland.
I assume the answers here is more obvious than with Mint:
- a more user friendly installer
- GNOME3 with unity-like extensions
- larger user base (more well tested versions)
> Why should the manufacturers be responsible for preventing people from being jackasses and throwing their garbage wherever they please?
Ultimately the producer of the product is the producer of the resulting waste.
Having a direct connection between the producer and the overall impact of the resulting waste would naturally cause the producer to manufacture in a way that lead to less waste.
Consider soda companies and the glass bottle to plastic bottle transition long ago.
And consider the impact of waste generation from that transition.
Who was responsible for the increase in waste generation. Of course the company and perhaps you may argue that it is the individual is responsible
But, with no burden on the producer, they have no incentive to create products that result in less waste. The burden to clean up the mess falls on the government and ultimately the taxpayer.
States like CA pay the consumer to recycle the bottle, because otherwise they have to pay to clean it up. It would make sense for a government to place at least some of that burden on the producer.
Otherwise, companies will only head towards the cheapest manufacturing process, and any resulting change in overall waste is simply and externality that is out of their concern.
"really smart people—saying some of the most vacuous things."
What things. Just one example.?
This article is a joke with no punchline.
> "the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior"
by that definition, a calculator is AI.
I assumed that a modern record player would have no needed and use a laser for reading.
A better fitting needle, wow ?
McDonalds transitioned to use a two sided "clamshell" grill several decades ago, so there has been no burger flipping for some time.
Also this robot is quite slow compared to a human.
Not a useful robot.
Perhaps customers like to see the robot flipping action.
Bringing politics into software is foolish and only introduces a new dimension to make source code incompatible.
Old problem: We can't combine this BSD code, Acode, with this mixed MIT/GPL code, Bcode, because of the incompatible distribution/duplication license.
New problem:
We can't combine Gcode with Hcode because Gcode is under the LGBTTIQQ2SFatSkinnyDruggieMentalReligious social license, and Hcode is under the HugsAreOkProHealthlyRegularPeople social license.
> Software Engineers that still can't master the to fundamentals of Object Orientation after decades of practice.
Worse is junior (or senior programmer) who loves to throw "design patterns", "object oriented programming", "MVC", ... at problems without having a grasp of basic Software Engineering concepts such as separation of concerns or modularity (too many think OOP implies modularity). The result is a heaping monolith of layers of unreadable, unreadable code.
They are trying to replace the OS (Android or ChromeOS -> Fuchsia), and replace the UI Framework (Java -> Flutter/Dart).
They would be better off if they do both independently.
Perhaps this would lfirst try to replace ChromeOS.
But Dart? I wonder why they did not use Go?
Internal politics at Google for Android vs ChromeOS vs Fuchsia vs Go will make things interesting.