"But it doesn't, and instead it goes for a "It's free (libre & gratis) until you use it" model... which just plain isn't going to work for any other company in the free software and open source communities"
Maybe their implementation isn't the answer but there does need to be one. Cloud vendors are using and modifying the software and don't contribute their modifications upstream.
No, it is a great example. Nobody said developers couldn't be paid, he said the project doesn't need monetized. Companies paying developers to scratch their itches and fill their needs is a perfect example of one way a project can be developed and funded without being monetized.
Exactly, you don't have to monetize the project to fund it. If there is significant value in using the software those who need it will fund development on it.
I'm not disagreeing with regard to timescales just adding additional assumptions purely for the sake of decreasing probability. If our species dies out tomorrow voyager is then nothing more than space junk that may ultimately end up on a fly-by of a populated planet.
It is more than a little misleading to use weight or mass to calculate the number of objects unless we figure out how to build craft that dwarf stars. Don't you think? You can't simply cross off planets, moons, and stars, you have to cross off everything that doesn't naturally exhibit this acceleration pattern. In other words, we are left with comets and artificial objects even to be counted by your weight metric.
Granted, comets takes the lead but by nowhere near the margin you are asserting. Also artificial origin carries a much higher probability the trajectory isn't accidental even if the civilization that send it is extinct. Granted, at some point playing "what if" is counter-productive but acting with some sort of intent isn't that far out there.
"As to mundane, yes aliens aren't super natural, but I don't think indisputable proof intelligent aliens are here now would be buried on page 27 of the newspaper on a Tuesday then forgotten... its best to rule out the far more likely causes before jumping to ET."
If the most credible observer in the world saw such a thing it would destroy their credibility and not give credibility to the account. If a group witnessed such a thing it would be deemed mass hysteria. Look at your own statement. You are clearly trying to keep an open mind but using the term "ET" which is synonymous with disparaging remarks against crackpots slipped into your statement.
"The best case for it not being artificial is still the incredibly vast distances in space between star systems."
That isn't a case for it not being artificial though it might be a case for it not being intentional. You are making a lot of assumptions here, not the least of which is that a civilization producing this thing is still around. This could well be interstellar space junk, after all, we've launched something that may well fall into that category in tens of thousands to millions of years.
"Not impossible, but so improbable as to make one want to rule every mundane explanation"
It is a mundane explanation. There is nothing extraordinary about the idea of other intelligent lifeforms existing outside our own emotional sentiment. Statistically it is highly probable not improbable, especially given the lack of need for them to be at a similar stage of development at the same time as us.
For every position, even well established ones, there should be skepticism.
Aliens would be a natural phenomenon and no number of nutballs being attracted to the topic makes them less likely than any other possibility. In fact, the thing to be careful of is avoiding a natural tendency to taint the credibility of the possibility with the credibility of the nuttballs is the thing to watch for here. In some cases an intelligent lifeform popping out from under a desk at NASA mission control and shaking everyone's hand wouldn't be accepted. That goes beyond healthy skepticism.
In this case an artificial origin better fits the data than a comet. It really is that simple. Is it a fact? No. Is it well supported? No. But the data makes it a more likely possibility than a comet. We also have more evidence that life exists than comets by a fair margin though both are obviously well established.
"The opposite of science is believe. You can believe all you want, but to know something objectively you need science."
This "science" is speculation. The evidence wasn't there to support the hypothesis that it was a natural comet. They worked from the assumption it wasn't artificial and it being a comet despite the lack of a required tail or coma is what they determined was the default. That isn't based on observation or evidence and therefore is not science no matter who says it.
There is absolutely no evidence of it being a comet, nothing new revealed there. They determined that it had to be propelled by gas and therefore declared it a comet but there was no evidence uncovered, they simply assumed this was the case despite lacking any tail or coma.
This is more a case of how they want to label it than any sort of explanation or debunking.
It is a well known pop culture reference which pertains the the concept underlying his statement. It was correctly quoted and it is certainly relevant. If he links an article containing a spelling error are you going to correct hat as well? It was the correction which wasn't relevant, his argument wasn't based on that detail.
"I know it's not popular to say this with the "Cool Crowd" but almost everything Marvel has put out has been fantastic"
Geeks of 1950-2006 called and they want their counter-culture back. I don't know where you've been but the Dr. Who, Serenity, Marvel/DC, Wars/Trek, Anime, Battlestar, Magic The Gathering, Witchy, Pokemon loving, tattooed and pierced, multi-color haired crowd IS the "Cool Crowd" now. Any of the flavors and combinations of the above is what it means to be a poser follower sheep now. Also anyone who thinks of Steve Jobs as a "visionary" or "tech giant" falls in here too. That is just what mainstream is now.
If you were born before 1983 it is very confusing, there are more people you can superficially get along with, but your real people are hard to find.
That won't become true until the comic book stories it is based on are played out. It isn't like the idea of being a superhero or there being super heroes itself ever gets played out. In the case of game of thrones that book content has been chewed through very rapidly but comic books have decades worth of material and were written in a format that translates better to the screen in the first place. It'll probably take quite awhile for the video content to catch up, especially given that it takes a lot longer to make movies than write new comic books.
What really needs to happen is for TV to catch up to current theater levels of sound and effects because TV segments and comic lines are an even better fit.
Sorry but a huge portion of the population disagrees with you, the storylines are comicbooks storylines and they are well developed and intentionally created to go with a lot of graphic image. That is why they translate to the screen and can take full advantage of the audio/visual capabilities that only now exist.
Things that don't require this level of CGI and audio capability are mostly played out. The best was played out in text, the peak of film content that didn't require high end effects came in variations of content produced in the late 80's thru earlier 20teens. There will be a few here and there but at some point there just isn't much new under the sun. Modern times are less romantic, modern mediums require less imagination and therefore are less engaging and fascinating. As our ability to render the wonderous into reality becomes more absolute our ability to perceive something as wonderous diminishes.
All that remains is apparently a bunch of overly dramatic crap, boring PC and historical content meant to manipulate public opinion, and artistic drivel of the sort we have very intentionally been ignoring from the Cannes film festival for as long as I can remember all replayed over and over again with no real change. For those of us who don't want to see our classic stories reenvisioned with some new pc theme or history rewritten to portray some minority female Einstein knew as THE REAL brains behind his work etc, the only place to find something worthwhile and new in film is that which as been undervalued. The geek/fantasy and sci-fi culture has the largest palette depth because it has been filled by a counter-culture with extremely high intelligence levels and open minds who largely ignored the popular culture and society that couldn't understand them and the limitations that preconceived standards and notions that culture has imposed. Their palette includes entire worlds and alternate realities. Because it has been an unpopular counter-culture and filled with such imaginative and far fetched material it is also a largely untapped for the screen.
This is great to some extent as wonderful geek culture works are produced. It is also sad because geek culture going mainstream means mainstream people infiltrating geek culture.
"Employees have one power in salary negotiations, the power to quit. If you aren't willing to exercise that power, why should your employer pay more? And if you are willing to exercise it (or your employer thinks you are), why shouldn't your employer just get rid of you and find someone who won't?"
That is the only power employers have as well. They just have the many to one ratio. And depending on job role you might not be so easy to replace.
"It's why leaving for a new job is the only way to ensure higher pay, as that is the only time you can safely exercise that power. "
This is true. It is the best time to negotiate. The way most corporate structures work there is no human being who really has any ability to negotiate with you they don't have the authority to do something different even if they want to and the rest know this so they'll pretend it is the case. At hire time they do have the ability to negotiate.
"That's because AMD doesn't have a cost advantage in manufacturing CPUs for PCs. AMD is reliant on other companies to actually make their chips. They have to pay these companies for the chips and importantly a profit margin."
AMD has the higher performing chips and they are selling them for a lower price. I'm sure they could have a better margin but the fab they are buying from is actually their own which they sold.
"Enterprise computing is FAR more complicated than who has the best multi-core performance on the latest gen chips. What matters in the enterprise space is cost for performance."
I work in the enterprise space. That is one factor but also performance density. In practice it usually comes down to napkin math when going to order, you are counting physical cores and cycles weighed against watts and space. ARM will seem to win here in many cases. But sooner or later that low performance is going to shine through, when your vm's that needed 4 cores now need 8 or more to get the same performance if at all that begins to get noticed. Granted it'll be tough because you'll be charging per core/cycle or based a system "profile" which scales up to more cores, so the bean counters will love it and manager heavy shops will embrace that the actual tech staff will recognize this is a recipe for failure in the long run since you'll have a reputation for low performance.
"And in spite of recent problems, Intel remains hard to beat for price/performance for PC CPUs."
You are so far off base here it is hard to even have a discussion. Intel hasn't offered the best price to performance ratio in decades. Having a superior price to performance ratio vs Intel is what has kept AMD from dying altogether. Intel is the Apple or Sony of the chip space, the last thing they do is offer good value. When intel stopped playing the mhz war is when they got dangerous, their performance density vs energy requirements left AMD in the dust but never their value (at least not for more than 3-6mo window).
What they have done is offer the best performance density and best performance per watt. ARM chips haven't even seriously been in this game, it's actually a fairly recent development that they've had 64bit chips with virtualization features and support. The problem that shops trying ARM are encountering is that the chips don't even begin to approach performance expectations. AMD on the other hand STILL offers the best value AND now has efficiency and density that is on par or exceeds Intel. Unlike ARM chips they will dominate your in enterprise workloads. The only thing Intel has is a marginal edge on single thread performance which is useless outside of desktop gaming and not exactly a feature you are overly concerned about looking toward the future.
I wouldn't exactly call that comparable. Those were armed forces who were part of a nationwide network preparing for a rebellion. Granted, only an idiot believes the government on that one but those weren't peaceful protesters or monks who insist on digging a handful at a time to avoid killing an insect.
Still not cool, since that rebellion was about protecting the people from a corrupt system but at least it was part of a hostile armed force. The Chinese don't have that going for them. Better examples are probably citizens tortured by allies on our behalf, Gitmo, and pretty much all the shenanigans of the NSA and friends.
Right now their biggest advantage is inertia. Having the best product isn't instantly turning into wins across the board for AMD in the enterprise space. The same is true for AMD vs the likes of ARM. The ARM chips have huge power savings but no matter what their clockspeeds they just don't come close to outperforming intel or AMD chips. AMD chips on the other hand wipe ARM and crush Intel in multiprocessing which is what it is all about in the enterprise space.
It isn't marketing that is keeping them there. Not everyone is upgrading right this moment and aside from that intel has been dominant for such a long stretch there is skepticism and hesitation to switch. People have been tempted by the opterons at some point in the past who are in architect roles and they've been burned. Now AMD really is the answer and it it remains so long enough to be proven out by people they know those people will move as well.
"By your logic, if you are unable to defend yourself against a murderer, you deserved to die."
Not by my logic but rather by natural law. Your death and his survival means a next generation which is more likely to survive whatever struggles and adversity a cold and uncaring natural world throws at them thus helping to ensure the survival of our species. Preventing that from happening at best allows you to continue as a burden and at worst allows you to propagate your weakness both in interaction with others (nurture) and genetically (nature) causing it to spread and grow like a disease.
That said, while everyone gets this concept most reject it to one degree or another because they can't reconcile it very well. Usually that is because people oversimplify it, they exclude propagation of weakness via nurture, they limit it to physical death and not death of philosophies and ideas, and they limit the concept only to individuals on the simplest terms which ignores the strengths of group dynamics. A strong system of group dynamics which enables you to get others to prevent your murder is a form of fitness as well. In terms there are times to protect others. As long as we protect others for the overall survival of the fittest that is to the good, if we do it just for the sake of doing it that is where aforementioned disease creeps in.
"When Apple and Google ditched their headphone jacks, it limited the pool of audio peripherals to Bluetooth, or the very young USB-C category."
You skipped USB 2.0 and earlier here which offer more than enough speed for headphones and have been the interface for all quality headphones for quite awhile..
"If every tiny neural network showed genius level intellect it would strongly suggest that they were very different from real brains."
These days nobody is really trying to make something that works like a real brain. Something could be the functional equivalent of a real brain without being anything like one as well but nobody is building that either.
What NN are as implemented are basically self-organizing algorithms. I should use the word self loosely, instead of writing code you use statistics to train them and nudge a little bit close to being the correct answer over time.
Of course, you can fuzz them and try to find bugs to exploit the same as regular code but you can't debug them the same way you do regular code.
It is generally left in the contract for the rare instances where they actually want to try to enforce it. It's one thing to go work for some other snow cone company, it is quite another to steal every aspect of a snow cone franchise and start a competitor on the same boardwalk with the same flavors. It is one thing to take the skills you developed in one tech company's support infrastructure and work for another, it is quite another to take exactly how the first company operated its support infrastructure and replicate it at their competitor.
Also it gives some leverage when you are a high touch service provider to prevent employees from defecting to the companies they are supporting so they can drop your employer.
Besides, the general idea is that poor negotiators and rule followers in other words passive people, get and deserve less in life. Merit.
Slashdot Mirror
"But it doesn't, and instead it goes for a "It's free (libre & gratis) until you use it" model... which just plain isn't going to work for any other company in the free software and open source communities"
Maybe their implementation isn't the answer but there does need to be one. Cloud vendors are using and modifying the software and don't contribute their modifications upstream.
"Am I alone in feeling that open source vendor clouds feel somewhat contrary to open source? I can't express why"
I can, they can bypass the licensing and keep the source.
No, it is a great example. Nobody said developers couldn't be paid, he said the project doesn't need monetized. Companies paying developers to scratch their itches and fill their needs is a perfect example of one way a project can be developed and funded without being monetized.
Ummm... a lot of people use gcc. But when they don't... it won't really matter if it is funded.
Exactly, you don't have to monetize the project to fund it. If there is significant value in using the software those who need it will fund development on it.
I'm not disagreeing with regard to timescales just adding additional assumptions purely for the sake of decreasing probability. If our species dies out tomorrow voyager is then nothing more than space junk that may ultimately end up on a fly-by of a populated planet.
It is more than a little misleading to use weight or mass to calculate the number of objects unless we figure out how to build craft that dwarf stars. Don't you think? You can't simply cross off planets, moons, and stars, you have to cross off everything that doesn't naturally exhibit this acceleration pattern. In other words, we are left with comets and artificial objects even to be counted by your weight metric.
Granted, comets takes the lead but by nowhere near the margin you are asserting. Also artificial origin carries a much higher probability the trajectory isn't accidental even if the civilization that send it is extinct. Granted, at some point playing "what if" is counter-productive but acting with some sort of intent isn't that far out there.
"As to mundane, yes aliens aren't super natural, but I don't think indisputable proof intelligent aliens are here now would be buried on page 27 of the newspaper on a Tuesday then forgotten... its best to rule out the far more likely causes before jumping to ET."
If the most credible observer in the world saw such a thing it would destroy their credibility and not give credibility to the account. If a group witnessed such a thing it would be deemed mass hysteria. Look at your own statement. You are clearly trying to keep an open mind but using the term "ET" which is synonymous with disparaging remarks against crackpots slipped into your statement.
"The best case for it not being artificial is still the incredibly vast distances in space between star systems."
That isn't a case for it not being artificial though it might be a case for it not being intentional. You are making a lot of assumptions here, not the least of which is that a civilization producing this thing is still around. This could well be interstellar space junk, after all, we've launched something that may well fall into that category in tens of thousands to millions of years.
"Not impossible, but so improbable as to make one want to rule every mundane explanation"
It is a mundane explanation. There is nothing extraordinary about the idea of other intelligent lifeforms existing outside our own emotional sentiment. Statistically it is highly probable not improbable, especially given the lack of need for them to be at a similar stage of development at the same time as us.
For every position, even well established ones, there should be skepticism.
Aliens would be a natural phenomenon and no number of nutballs being attracted to the topic makes them less likely than any other possibility. In fact, the thing to be careful of is avoiding a natural tendency to taint the credibility of the possibility with the credibility of the nuttballs is the thing to watch for here. In some cases an intelligent lifeform popping out from under a desk at NASA mission control and shaking everyone's hand wouldn't be accepted. That goes beyond healthy skepticism.
In this case an artificial origin better fits the data than a comet. It really is that simple. Is it a fact? No. Is it well supported? No. But the data makes it a more likely possibility than a comet. We also have more evidence that life exists than comets by a fair margin though both are obviously well established.
"The opposite of science is believe. You can believe all you want, but to know something objectively you need science."
This "science" is speculation. The evidence wasn't there to support the hypothesis that it was a natural comet. They worked from the assumption it wasn't artificial and it being a comet despite the lack of a required tail or coma is what they determined was the default. That isn't based on observation or evidence and therefore is not science no matter who says it.
There is absolutely no evidence of it being a comet, nothing new revealed there. They determined that it had to be propelled by gas and therefore declared it a comet but there was no evidence uncovered, they simply assumed this was the case despite lacking any tail or coma.
This is more a case of how they want to label it than any sort of explanation or debunking.
It is a well known pop culture reference which pertains the the concept underlying his statement. It was correctly quoted and it is certainly relevant. If he links an article containing a spelling error are you going to correct hat as well? It was the correction which wasn't relevant, his argument wasn't based on that detail.
It's a quote from the movie Men in Black
"I know it's not popular to say this with the "Cool Crowd" but almost everything Marvel has put out has been fantastic"
Geeks of 1950-2006 called and they want their counter-culture back. I don't know where you've been but the Dr. Who, Serenity, Marvel/DC, Wars/Trek, Anime, Battlestar, Magic The Gathering, Witchy, Pokemon loving, tattooed and pierced, multi-color haired crowd IS the "Cool Crowd" now. Any of the flavors and combinations of the above is what it means to be a poser follower sheep now. Also anyone who thinks of Steve Jobs as a "visionary" or "tech giant" falls in here too. That is just what mainstream is now.
If you were born before 1983 it is very confusing, there are more people you can superficially get along with, but your real people are hard to find.
That won't become true until the comic book stories it is based on are played out. It isn't like the idea of being a superhero or there being super heroes itself ever gets played out. In the case of game of thrones that book content has been chewed through very rapidly but comic books have decades worth of material and were written in a format that translates better to the screen in the first place. It'll probably take quite awhile for the video content to catch up, especially given that it takes a lot longer to make movies than write new comic books.
What really needs to happen is for TV to catch up to current theater levels of sound and effects because TV segments and comic lines are an even better fit.
Sorry but a huge portion of the population disagrees with you, the storylines are comicbooks storylines and they are well developed and intentionally created to go with a lot of graphic image. That is why they translate to the screen and can take full advantage of the audio/visual capabilities that only now exist.
Things that don't require this level of CGI and audio capability are mostly played out. The best was played out in text, the peak of film content that didn't require high end effects came in variations of content produced in the late 80's thru earlier 20teens. There will be a few here and there but at some point there just isn't much new under the sun. Modern times are less romantic, modern mediums require less imagination and therefore are less engaging and fascinating. As our ability to render the wonderous into reality becomes more absolute our ability to perceive something as wonderous diminishes.
All that remains is apparently a bunch of overly dramatic crap, boring PC and historical content meant to manipulate public opinion, and artistic drivel of the sort we have very intentionally been ignoring from the Cannes film festival for as long as I can remember all replayed over and over again with no real change. For those of us who don't want to see our classic stories reenvisioned with some new pc theme or history rewritten to portray some minority female Einstein knew as THE REAL brains behind his work etc, the only place to find something worthwhile and new in film is that which as been undervalued. The geek/fantasy and sci-fi culture has the largest palette depth because it has been filled by a counter-culture with extremely high intelligence levels and open minds who largely ignored the popular culture and society that couldn't understand them and the limitations that preconceived standards and notions that culture has imposed. Their palette includes entire worlds and alternate realities. Because it has been an unpopular counter-culture and filled with such imaginative and far fetched material it is also a largely untapped for the screen.
This is great to some extent as wonderful geek culture works are produced. It is also sad because geek culture going mainstream means mainstream people infiltrating geek culture.
"Employees have one power in salary negotiations, the power to quit. If you aren't willing to exercise that power, why should your employer pay more? And if you are willing to exercise it (or your employer thinks you are), why shouldn't your employer just get rid of you and find someone who won't?"
That is the only power employers have as well. They just have the many to one ratio. And depending on job role you might not be so easy to replace.
"It's why leaving for a new job is the only way to ensure higher pay, as that is the only time you can safely exercise that power. "
This is true. It is the best time to negotiate. The way most corporate structures work there is no human being who really has any ability to negotiate with you they don't have the authority to do something different even if they want to and the rest know this so they'll pretend it is the case. At hire time they do have the ability to negotiate.
"That's because AMD doesn't have a cost advantage in manufacturing CPUs for PCs. AMD is reliant on other companies to actually make their chips. They have to pay these companies for the chips and importantly a profit margin."
AMD has the higher performing chips and they are selling them for a lower price. I'm sure they could have a better margin but the fab they are buying from is actually their own which they sold.
"Enterprise computing is FAR more complicated than who has the best multi-core performance on the latest gen chips. What matters in the enterprise space is cost for performance."
I work in the enterprise space. That is one factor but also performance density. In practice it usually comes down to napkin math when going to order, you are counting physical cores and cycles weighed against watts and space. ARM will seem to win here in many cases. But sooner or later that low performance is going to shine through, when your vm's that needed 4 cores now need 8 or more to get the same performance if at all that begins to get noticed. Granted it'll be tough because you'll be charging per core/cycle or based a system "profile" which scales up to more cores, so the bean counters will love it and manager heavy shops will embrace that the actual tech staff will recognize this is a recipe for failure in the long run since you'll have a reputation for low performance.
"And in spite of recent problems, Intel remains hard to beat for price/performance for PC CPUs."
You are so far off base here it is hard to even have a discussion. Intel hasn't offered the best price to performance ratio in decades. Having a superior price to performance ratio vs Intel is what has kept AMD from dying altogether. Intel is the Apple or Sony of the chip space, the last thing they do is offer good value. When intel stopped playing the mhz war is when they got dangerous, their performance density vs energy requirements left AMD in the dust but never their value (at least not for more than 3-6mo window).
What they have done is offer the best performance density and best performance per watt. ARM chips haven't even seriously been in this game, it's actually a fairly recent development that they've had 64bit chips with virtualization features and support. The problem that shops trying ARM are encountering is that the chips don't even begin to approach performance expectations. AMD on the other hand STILL offers the best value AND now has efficiency and density that is on par or exceeds Intel. Unlike ARM chips they will dominate your in enterprise workloads. The only thing Intel has is a marginal edge on single thread performance which is useless outside of desktop gaming and not exactly a feature you are overly concerned about looking toward the future.
I wouldn't exactly call that comparable. Those were armed forces who were part of a nationwide network preparing for a rebellion. Granted, only an idiot believes the government on that one but those weren't peaceful protesters or monks who insist on digging a handful at a time to avoid killing an insect.
Still not cool, since that rebellion was about protecting the people from a corrupt system but at least it was part of a hostile armed force. The Chinese don't have that going for them. Better examples are probably citizens tortured by allies on our behalf, Gitmo, and pretty much all the shenanigans of the NSA and friends.
Right now their biggest advantage is inertia. Having the best product isn't instantly turning into wins across the board for AMD in the enterprise space. The same is true for AMD vs the likes of ARM. The ARM chips have huge power savings but no matter what their clockspeeds they just don't come close to outperforming intel or AMD chips. AMD chips on the other hand wipe ARM and crush Intel in multiprocessing which is what it is all about in the enterprise space.
It isn't marketing that is keeping them there. Not everyone is upgrading right this moment and aside from that intel has been dominant for such a long stretch there is skepticism and hesitation to switch. People have been tempted by the opterons at some point in the past who are in architect roles and they've been burned. Now AMD really is the answer and it it remains so long enough to be proven out by people they know those people will move as well.
"By your logic, if you are unable to defend yourself against a murderer, you deserved to die."
Not by my logic but rather by natural law. Your death and his survival means a next generation which is more likely to survive whatever struggles and adversity a cold and uncaring natural world throws at them thus helping to ensure the survival of our species. Preventing that from happening at best allows you to continue as a burden and at worst allows you to propagate your weakness both in interaction with others (nurture) and genetically (nature) causing it to spread and grow like a disease.
That said, while everyone gets this concept most reject it to one degree or another because they can't reconcile it very well. Usually that is because people oversimplify it, they exclude propagation of weakness via nurture, they limit it to physical death and not death of philosophies and ideas, and they limit the concept only to individuals on the simplest terms which ignores the strengths of group dynamics. A strong system of group dynamics which enables you to get others to prevent your murder is a form of fitness as well. In terms there are times to protect others. As long as we protect others for the overall survival of the fittest that is to the good, if we do it just for the sake of doing it that is where aforementioned disease creeps in.
DRM is exactly what this about. That headphone jack will let you copy music! The horror!
"When Apple and Google ditched their headphone jacks, it limited the pool of audio peripherals to Bluetooth, or the very young USB-C category."
You skipped USB 2.0 and earlier here which offer more than enough speed for headphones and have been the interface for all quality headphones for quite awhile..
"If every tiny neural network showed genius level intellect it would strongly suggest that they were very different from real brains."
These days nobody is really trying to make something that works like a real brain. Something could be the functional equivalent of a real brain without being anything like one as well but nobody is building that either.
What NN are as implemented are basically self-organizing algorithms. I should use the word self loosely, instead of writing code you use statistics to train them and nudge a little bit close to being the correct answer over time.
Of course, you can fuzz them and try to find bugs to exploit the same as regular code but you can't debug them the same way you do regular code.
It can learn a style like georgian, that is still impressive.
It is generally left in the contract for the rare instances where they actually want to try to enforce it. It's one thing to go work for some other snow cone company, it is quite another to steal every aspect of a snow cone franchise and start a competitor on the same boardwalk with the same flavors. It is one thing to take the skills you developed in one tech company's support infrastructure and work for another, it is quite another to take exactly how the first company operated its support infrastructure and replicate it at their competitor.
Also it gives some leverage when you are a high touch service provider to prevent employees from defecting to the companies they are supporting so they can drop your employer.
Besides, the general idea is that poor negotiators and rule followers in other words passive people, get and deserve less in life. Merit.