Take these "self driving" efforts for what they are: a PR exercise to swindle clueless investors. It is true that 90% of the problem of autonomous driving is solved. It's also true that the remaining 10% are exponentially hard and won't be solved in the next 20 years. By 10% I mean such trivial (to a human) things like driving in bad weather, or on dirty pavement, or figuring out if the object on the road is a plastic bag or a dog. These things are hard for a machine to do, exponentially so. There's a reason why fully autonomous cars are only tested in CA or on closed tracks at this point: they're fucked if it e.g. rains or snows, if there's dirt on the pavement, or even if someone repainted the road markings (the cars use the pre-recorded view of the pavement to determine the position of the vehicle within the lane).
So e.g. Google does it so that it can pretend it's about "moonshots" rather than just selling your privacy to the highest bidder -- that helps with hiring. Hotz is doing this because there's free money and fame to be had, and to be fair, it's a pretty cool garage project. Uber is doing it to pretend it's "just as good as Google", because luring engineers solely with money tends to attract the wrong kind of people.
Rather than "self driving" cars, I'd love to see a human-driven car with advanced safety features that's darn near impossible to crash or run someone over with. I'd be willing to pay $10K just for that, over and above the price of the actual car.
That's one way to boost the sales of the previous generation MBPs.:-) I, personally, won't buy a computer which doesn't have an Esc key. I find that key useful.
You need to look broader than parties: it's the establishment vs everybody else game. GOP doesn't want Trump either, especially now that he vowed to upset their gravy train by imposing term limits and banning ex-congressmen and senators from lobbying for 5 years after they get kicked out (due to term limits) or leave. That's literally tens of billions of dollars that will not go directly into the pockets of interested parties.
So aside from Breitbart, everyone is just serving their corporate masters who are scared shitless of the fact they don't own Trump. Breitbart doesn't really have a corporate master, and it benefits from controversy, so it'll publish whatever the fuck it wants.
The very worst thing you can do for women is ironically what the companies have been doing: hire them as "diversity" hires and promote them because they're female. That automatically and implicitly labels any woman, irrespective of the actual merit, as a "diversity" employee who is hired and promoted not because of merit, but because they don't have a penis. This, counterintuitively to some, makes it much harder for them to earn the respect of their male peers.
So if affirmative action is your idea of how to improve the situation, I suggest you reconsider, and instead turn to the only thing that works in high tech: strict, unyielding meritocracy, and high hiring bar irrespective of gender, race, or sexual orientation.
To see that, all you have to do is try to find any dirt on Hillary Clinton in any of their "news" articles. It's up to about HuffPo's level of partisan propaganda there lately.
>> He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US.
Will you stop spreading this tired bit of propaganda? He merely wants to stop the flow of people from Muslim countries _with may of which we're de-facto at war_, and then only until appropriate vetting procedures are established. This never was about a blanket "Muslim" ban.
Can you guys and galls get it through your thick skulls that letting in military-age men of an uncertain background from the countries where radical Islam is a dominant ideology is an absolutely idiotic thing to do? What's so bad about figuring out how to make sure you're not letting in an ISIS or Al Quaeda operative?
Oh, if I kill somebody and tell everyone I didn't mean to and "don't recall the details", I won't be charged in spite of overwhelming evidence (the most damning of which FBI will destroy at my request)? That's great to know.
They gave it a bare minimum of coverage. As an example: most people don't know about wikileaks revelations, about immunity deals, about lying to the FBI, about destruction of evidence. Why is it that some dude gets prison time for merely taking a picture in the vicinity of something classified, yet HRC deliberately mishandles top secret info and gets off scot free?
Nobody else has the balls to publish anything negative about Clinton, no matter how damning or well-sourced. Desperate times, desperate measures. Read between the lines, like Soviet citizens did with Pravda.
Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler", and the same people who previously supported that person have a full body orgasm when they're taken down.
As a side note, STL does not bounds check your array accesses (at least in optimized build) unless you use ->at() method. Square brackets operator is fully equivalent to that on a plain array and has the same speed. So fuzz your systems and use Address Sanitizer.
I bet half the people who said "C" actually meant C++. There's really no reason to use C except in projects that are already in C, since C++ is an almost exact superset of C. So you can write everything in a procedural style, but still use STL and strings, and other minimal conveniences.
China has eclipsed the US in gaming the citation metrics. Most of the seminal papers in AI are either US or Canadian. Nearly all of the new exciting ones are from the US, Canada or the UK (DeepMind in particular is on fire right now). You can publish a ton and not make a difference. Like it or not, only maybe 2-3 dozen papers really matter each year.
It's only a matter of time before that's not the case for the vast majority of diseases. Combine data (both historical and from diagnostics) and machine intelligence, then let someone collect a vast dataset of symptoms, diagnoses, treatments and outcomes and train some algorithms on it, and voila, you $300K med school degree is now mostly worthless. That'll make healthcare quite afforable, though, right up until you need something done that machines can't do yet. I don't believe human intervention is actually necessary for at least 80% of what we currently think of as "healthcare". Machines will do just fine, give it time.
"Social progress" is a code word for piping as much money as possible through the government (making it available for the taking by the ruling class) while simultaneously making most of the country dependent on government handouts (making the ruling class permanent). I've got to give it to them, it's a devious, highly cynical strategy that seems to be working so far.
Wrote to my congress critters twice. My impression is, this is the standard operating procedure. They read the first couple of sentences and fire off a canned response even if it doesn't address what you actually said, or worse, contradicts it. The whole "you can contact your representative" thing is such bullshit. These people only care when they're running for office. Once elected, they become the "ruling class" and don't give any shit whatsoever.
How can there be "prejudice" if the system _does not have cognition_? It just approximates a function. If a woman is less (or more likely) to default on a loan, it'll just say so, SJWs be damned. That's why women see ads for shoes even if they never disclosed that they are women to Google. That's also why they see fewer ads for engineering positions (women are statistically much less likely to be interested in engineering fields).
It's a function approximation problem, and this happens to be the function that the real world data seems to support. Now you want to wreck it for some kind of affirmative action, thus decreasing its accuracy and driving an agenda of what you think the world should look like, rather than what it actually is.
Where did he confess to any crime whatsoever? If he did, Hillary would be riding it day and night already. Instead we get "dude talk" brown out of proportion. That stinks of desperation to me.
No. Saying anything is not a crime. I can say I raped your mom in the ass. That doesn't make it so, since not only have I never seen your mom, I don't even know who you are. I hope that's convincing enough an example for you. You have major issues with critical thinking. Must be one a part of that "unaware and compliant citizenry" that Clinton has been cultivating (according to Wikileaks: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...).
Slashdot Mirror
Take these "self driving" efforts for what they are: a PR exercise to swindle clueless investors. It is true that 90% of the problem of autonomous driving is solved. It's also true that the remaining 10% are exponentially hard and won't be solved in the next 20 years. By 10% I mean such trivial (to a human) things like driving in bad weather, or on dirty pavement, or figuring out if the object on the road is a plastic bag or a dog. These things are hard for a machine to do, exponentially so. There's a reason why fully autonomous cars are only tested in CA or on closed tracks at this point: they're fucked if it e.g. rains or snows, if there's dirt on the pavement, or even if someone repainted the road markings (the cars use the pre-recorded view of the pavement to determine the position of the vehicle within the lane).
So e.g. Google does it so that it can pretend it's about "moonshots" rather than just selling your privacy to the highest bidder -- that helps with hiring. Hotz is doing this because there's free money and fame to be had, and to be fair, it's a pretty cool garage project. Uber is doing it to pretend it's "just as good as Google", because luring engineers solely with money tends to attract the wrong kind of people.
Rather than "self driving" cars, I'd love to see a human-driven car with advanced safety features that's darn near impossible to crash or run someone over with. I'd be willing to pay $10K just for that, over and above the price of the actual car.
That's one way to boost the sales of the previous generation MBPs. :-) I, personally, won't buy a computer which doesn't have an Esc key. I find that key useful.
You need to look broader than parties: it's the establishment vs everybody else game. GOP doesn't want Trump either, especially now that he vowed to upset their gravy train by imposing term limits and banning ex-congressmen and senators from lobbying for 5 years after they get kicked out (due to term limits) or leave. That's literally tens of billions of dollars that will not go directly into the pockets of interested parties.
So aside from Breitbart, everyone is just serving their corporate masters who are scared shitless of the fact they don't own Trump. Breitbart doesn't really have a corporate master, and it benefits from controversy, so it'll publish whatever the fuck it wants.
The very worst thing you can do for women is ironically what the companies have been doing: hire them as "diversity" hires and promote them because they're female. That automatically and implicitly labels any woman, irrespective of the actual merit, as a "diversity" employee who is hired and promoted not because of merit, but because they don't have a penis. This, counterintuitively to some, makes it much harder for them to earn the respect of their male peers.
So if affirmative action is your idea of how to improve the situation, I suggest you reconsider, and instead turn to the only thing that works in high tech: strict, unyielding meritocracy, and high hiring bar irrespective of gender, race, or sexual orientation.
She smiled when Trump said gays are thrown off the rooftops in Muslim countries in particular. So the methodology is not without flaws to be sure. ;-)
To see that, all you have to do is try to find any dirt on Hillary Clinton in any of their "news" articles. It's up to about HuffPo's level of partisan propaganda there lately.
Trump also doesn't use email. Like, at all.
>> He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US.
Will you stop spreading this tired bit of propaganda? He merely wants to stop the flow of people from Muslim countries _with may of which we're de-facto at war_, and then only until appropriate vetting procedures are established. This never was about a blanket "Muslim" ban.
Can you guys and galls get it through your thick skulls that letting in military-age men of an uncertain background from the countries where radical Islam is a dominant ideology is an absolutely idiotic thing to do? What's so bad about figuring out how to make sure you're not letting in an ISIS or Al Quaeda operative?
Oh, if I kill somebody and tell everyone I didn't mean to and "don't recall the details", I won't be charged in spite of overwhelming evidence (the most damning of which FBI will destroy at my request)? That's great to know.
They gave it a bare minimum of coverage. As an example: most people don't know about wikileaks revelations, about immunity deals, about lying to the FBI, about destruction of evidence. Why is it that some dude gets prison time for merely taking a picture in the vicinity of something classified, yet HRC deliberately mishandles top secret info and gets off scot free?
Nobody else has the balls to publish anything negative about Clinton, no matter how damning or well-sourced. Desperate times, desperate measures. Read between the lines, like Soviet citizens did with Pravda.
Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler", and the same people who previously supported that person have a full body orgasm when they're taken down.
How does uncovering blatant corruption constitute the "undermining" of our democracy? That's what I'd like to see liberals explain.
As a side note, STL does not bounds check your array accesses (at least in optimized build) unless you use ->at() method. Square brackets operator is fully equivalent to that on a plain array and has the same speed. So fuzz your systems and use Address Sanitizer.
Sorry.
Your point is invalid.
I bet half the people who said "C" actually meant C++. There's really no reason to use C except in projects that are already in C, since C++ is an almost exact superset of C. So you can write everything in a procedural style, but still use STL and strings, and other minimal conveniences.
https://twitter.com/OnMessageF...
And remind you that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of this (other than Trump running his mouth to his buddy in private) is true.
China has eclipsed the US in gaming the citation metrics. Most of the seminal papers in AI are either US or Canadian. Nearly all of the new exciting ones are from the US, Canada or the UK (DeepMind in particular is on fire right now). You can publish a ton and not make a difference. Like it or not, only maybe 2-3 dozen papers really matter each year.
It's only a matter of time before that's not the case for the vast majority of diseases. Combine data (both historical and from diagnostics) and machine intelligence, then let someone collect a vast dataset of symptoms, diagnoses, treatments and outcomes and train some algorithms on it, and voila, you $300K med school degree is now mostly worthless. That'll make healthcare quite afforable, though, right up until you need something done that machines can't do yet. I don't believe human intervention is actually necessary for at least 80% of what we currently think of as "healthcare". Machines will do just fine, give it time.
"Social progress" is a code word for piping as much money as possible through the government (making it available for the taking by the ruling class) while simultaneously making most of the country dependent on government handouts (making the ruling class permanent). I've got to give it to them, it's a devious, highly cynical strategy that seems to be working so far.
Wrote to my congress critters twice. My impression is, this is the standard operating procedure. They read the first couple of sentences and fire off a canned response even if it doesn't address what you actually said, or worse, contradicts it. The whole "you can contact your representative" thing is such bullshit. These people only care when they're running for office. Once elected, they become the "ruling class" and don't give any shit whatsoever.
How can there be "prejudice" if the system _does not have cognition_? It just approximates a function. If a woman is less (or more likely) to default on a loan, it'll just say so, SJWs be damned. That's why women see ads for shoes even if they never disclosed that they are women to Google. That's also why they see fewer ads for engineering positions (women are statistically much less likely to be interested in engineering fields).
It's a function approximation problem, and this happens to be the function that the real world data seems to support. Now you want to wreck it for some kind of affirmative action, thus decreasing its accuracy and driving an agenda of what you think the world should look like, rather than what it actually is.
Where did he confess to any crime whatsoever? If he did, Hillary would be riding it day and night already. Instead we get "dude talk" brown out of proportion. That stinks of desperation to me.
No. Saying anything is not a crime. I can say I raped your mom in the ass. That doesn't make it so, since not only have I never seen your mom, I don't even know who you are. I hope that's convincing enough an example for you. You have major issues with critical thinking. Must be one a part of that "unaware and compliant citizenry" that Clinton has been cultivating (according to Wikileaks: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...).