When she does enter line-of-sight, she's dressed in all black with a dark tree behind her, and didn't have her headlight on.
You have obviously never ridden a bicycle in the Netherlands. Pretty much nobody on a bicycle turns on their lights during the day. You look like an idiot if you do. Also: look at the movie again. The driver has seconds to see her coming. He is just banking on her passing him on the left side, for which there technically is (just about) enough space. Also: if "she was wearing black whilst cycling in front of a dark tree" is your defense, you should have your license revoked because you are legally blind.
If she were driving a car while texting, no one would be arguing that she had right of way.
Nonsense. The car is on the wrong side of the road and can only drive there if it is safe to do so. End of story.
Without taking away from your point that texting whilst cycling can be dangerous and can lead to accidents, the driver of the car is on the wrong side of the road and the accident is his fault.
The parked car is an obstacle on his side of the road, which means that he should ensure that it is safe to pass it on the other side of the road before doing so. He clearly did not properly check that and would have created a similarly problematic situation if there would have been oncoming traffic of another kind.
I'd say that doing MDMA every two weeks is on the high side, no matter what.
Other than that, you can use 5-HTP supplements to counteract the serotonin depletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Works pretty well to improve your mood even if you never do MDMA but are just naturally low on serotonin.
Can someone please explain to me why artificial intelligence is supposedly somehow any more terrifying than natural intelligence already is when the latter is applied to nefarious ends
Mainly scalability and plasticity. Imagine the worst human villain ever. You can be quite certain that he'll still be operating on a couple kgs of wetware, very similar to your own, pulling ~20W ( https://psychology.stackexchan... ) tomorrow, next week from now or even a year from now.
AI can communicate at speeds approaching the speed of light ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), run in a highly distributed yet coherent fashion, employ GWs of power for computation and have an utterly unknowable way of processing and decision making. Today. In addition to that, given self-changing capabilities, its decision making software and infrastructure can change enormously on very short timespans.
Speaking in evolutionary terms: yeah, humans are pretty smart, but we're also naked apes to a large extent. AI doesn't have that biological legacy holding it back. It is/will be built with all the technological advancements we have made since the stone age. Just compare the communication bandwidth and speed of natural intelligence to that of even a stupid network switch. Hell, we don't even think at speeds anywhere near light speed. Propagation speed in neurons is in the order of tens of meters per second ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). Propagation speed in inorganic communication mediums is 6 orders of magnitude higher.
why it should ever be assumed that any general purpose AI would be somehow likely to have an agenda that we would actually consider to be corrupt or wrong?
Do you think twice about killing mildew? Do you think twice about killing a dog? The question is ultimately whether an extremely advanced AI would regard us as mildew or as dogs. As a nuisance or as something somehow worth keeping around. That is besides the popular 'goal optimization of military AI going haywire' Hollywoodesque scary scenario, which could indeed happen, but is much less fundamental than the above, imho.
It's so bad that this could be an article of The Onion. Half a page of 'summary' and I still haven't the foggiest idea what the hell ONAP and DPDK are.
1. Ultimately, there is no point and there can't be. 2. Most products/services humans buy are unnecessary or highly redundant for an advanced inorganic species. A lot of those things are dedicated to maintaining and dealing with the needs and drives of our current high-maintenance biological substrates.
Take a seat somewhere in your house. Look around and determine, for everything in it, whether you would have any use for it if your consciousness had an inorganic substrate ('uploaded to the cloud' or whatever).
Alright, that is a fair point. The calculation does become more favorable if you take that into account.
Broadly speaking: Using the treasury.gov graphs, the average invested amount between 2008 and 2010 is roughly 300 billion USD, and between 2010 and 2015 about 100 billion USD. That averages to roughly 170 billion invested on average over 7 years. ~15 billion USD profit on that average is still less than 1.3% yearly. If we're generous and ignore the invested money after 2010, it's still only a 2.5% yearly profit. Although the latter is admittedly not all that bad a number, being at least roughly equal to or above normal inflation, I believe my claim still stands.
Technically the students didn't really write or design an algorithm that works well in the benchmark. That very fact is what sets 'AI' apart from algorithms. You could argue that the students designed an algorithm that produces an algorithm that works very well in this case, but it is then still the resulting algorithm that works well for the task at hand, not the system they designed that 'came up' with the algorithm.
I'd say that calling these things 'emergent algorithms' would be more appropriate or even better: 'machine learning systems'
Let's see how that looks: "Students from Fast.ai, a small organization that runs free machine-learning courses online, just created a machine learning system that outperforms code from Google's researchers, per an important benchmark."
The Goldman investment represented a 1.4 billion return on 10 billion invested, or 14% , in well under two years.
Sure, and some of my portfolio does well, some of it does not. You shouldn't cherrypick like that if you want to make sound financial decisions. The overall numbers won't change and you are intentionally missing the point. Good day.
Although informative, you haven't touched upon the core of the argument. Even if profitable to some degree, in its entirety (again, when disregarding the massive ensuing issues if no financial backing had been provided) it was by far not as profitable as investing the money elsewhere would have been.
If you only look at the 'Bank' category in your first source, 12.7% profit over a period of ~7 years is still pretty shitty. The '1.4 billion USD on Goldman Sachs alone' is just 0.57% of your own quoted figure of what was invested in banks. In absolutes it sounds like a lot, but relatively speaking, it isn't even the bare minimum any financial investor should be making in a year. A savings account does better than that.
Again, I'm not saying the government should have not provided the financial backing (AKA 'bailouts') and invested their money elsewhere. Let's just not pretend that the endeavor turned out to be some great money maker.
I can't say I have looked into the specifics, but 3.5% profit over a period of ~7 years (as per the numbers in the CNN-article) isn't great. If you take inflation into account, it's even a net loss.
Getting a much, much better (direct) ROI on that money (just repaying debt would do the trick) would be easy. Don't get me wrong, though: I'm not saying the bailouts weren't necessary, but they definitely weren't great investments regardless of the financial crisis. They were great investments only because of it.
The thing is, with PHP it's the blind leading the blind. Nobody has a clue, and starts with Rasmus (by his own admission). No skilled programmer would put up with PHP for any significant amount of time, life is too short for that aggravation.
That is absolute nonsense. Take a look at the Symfony framework. This is a well thought out, well structured, well documented, properly supported, actively developed, stable framework aimed at longevity and used with success in many, many commercial products. There are also tons of well structured PHP SDKs which are great to use.
With regard to the language, it has made significant progress as compared to for instance Python. Developing in PHP 7.0 or higher in an OOP fashion, creating nice clean, testable and robust code is easy and painless. Doing that in Python is dreadful with the Python2 / Python3 split, combined with an opaque code inclusion scheme and Frankenstein OOP implementation.
PHP used to be dreadful as well and a framework such as Wordpress reflects that. It is an abomination, from a clean, modular OOP coding perspective. Drupal has made changes to be more properly OOP, but still doesn't come close to Symfony.
The question for a developer faced with PHP is thus: what environment am I going to be working in? Archaic spaghetti code or a modern well structured OOP project? Yes, there are tons of very shitty PHP environments out there, but also tons of great ones as well. In addition to that, if time is available to refactor that archaic spaghetti code, it is as easy as in any language to change it into usable maintainable modular OOP code.
I can't help but think there is a a simple interaction (and possibly partly technical) solution to this: Just indicate whether write buffers are definitely empty for a certain drive and ejection can be done safely if no other writes are started (an orange indicator next to the ejectable, for instance). It is silly that putting in a USB drive and yanking it out almost immediately is regarded as unsafe ejection or bad practice.
I understand that theoretically another process can initiate a write as you are yanking it out, but in the vast majority of cases that doesn't happen and the user is very aware of what they're doing to the USB drive. Generally, people plug in a USB drive, actively read some stuff off it and write some stuff to it and are then done with I/O with the device. No background processes writing to the USB drive should be involved in those cases.
Sure, provide the option to unmount (and turn the indicator green) for the peeps who want to be absolutely sure, but otherwise the 'orange' state more than suffices.
Proper research helps in convincing policy makers. They don't tend to believe kids. Although, having said that, a lot of them don't give a fuck about actual science either.
I'm going to guess that calling them 'military secrets' or 'sensitive military documents' is simply wrong. These are probably really old, outdated or just not that interesting.
You said: "The bailouts were the problem." That is putting blame on government intervention, even though (we apparently agree that) not bailing out the banks at that point would have been much, much worse. Calling the very necessary bailouts 'the problem' is misleading at best.
If you had said 'The fact that bailouts were necessary was the problem', I could have agreed with you.
There are millions of talented musicians who can't make a living playing music
So making good music just isn't that rare a skill, which delegates it to the level of hobby or at the most 'sport few people care about'. It's that simple.
We need to figure out a way for talented artists to make a living while making music they love
The only way to do this is Universal Basic Income.
You're giving the New Deal, an extreme set of measures in an extreme financial crisis, as an example of 'cartel members ask for government regulation to control the price of their collective product' and implying that this is the normal order of business? Really?
Also, don't forget that the whole bit was: Cartels form -> one cartel member breaks rank -> cartel breaks down -> cartel members ask for government regulation to control prices. The latter is not the same as 'company in some industry lobbies for price controls'.
Slashdot Mirror
When she does enter line-of-sight, she's dressed in all black with a dark tree behind her, and didn't have her headlight on.
You have obviously never ridden a bicycle in the Netherlands. Pretty much nobody on a bicycle turns on their lights during the day. You look like an idiot if you do.
Also: look at the movie again. The driver has seconds to see her coming. He is just banking on her passing him on the left side, for which there technically is (just about) enough space.
Also: if "she was wearing black whilst cycling in front of a dark tree" is your defense, you should have your license revoked because you are legally blind.
If she were driving a car while texting, no one would be arguing that she had right of way.
Nonsense. The car is on the wrong side of the road and can only drive there if it is safe to do so. End of story.
Things like this are a common occurrence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Without taking away from your point that texting whilst cycling can be dangerous and can lead to accidents, the driver of the car is on the wrong side of the road and the accident is his fault.
The parked car is an obstacle on his side of the road, which means that he should ensure that it is safe to pass it on the other side of the road before doing so. He clearly did not properly check that and would have created a similarly problematic situation if there would have been oncoming traffic of another kind.
I'd say that doing MDMA every two weeks is on the high side, no matter what.
Other than that, you can use 5-HTP supplements to counteract the serotonin depletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Works pretty well to improve your mood even if you never do MDMA but are just naturally low on serotonin.
Somebody please vote down this collection of unfounded flamebait.
Can someone please explain to me why artificial intelligence is supposedly somehow any more terrifying than natural intelligence already is when the latter is applied to nefarious ends
Mainly scalability and plasticity.
Imagine the worst human villain ever. You can be quite certain that he'll still be operating on a couple kgs of wetware, very similar to your own, pulling ~20W ( https://psychology.stackexchan... ) tomorrow, next week from now or even a year from now.
AI can communicate at speeds approaching the speed of light ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), run in a highly distributed yet coherent fashion, employ GWs of power for computation and have an utterly unknowable way of processing and decision making. Today. In addition to that, given self-changing capabilities, its decision making software and infrastructure can change enormously on very short timespans.
Speaking in evolutionary terms: yeah, humans are pretty smart, but we're also naked apes to a large extent. AI doesn't have that biological legacy holding it back. It is/will be built with all the technological advancements we have made since the stone age. Just compare the communication bandwidth and speed of natural intelligence to that of even a stupid network switch. Hell, we don't even think at speeds anywhere near light speed. Propagation speed in neurons is in the order of tens of meters per second ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). Propagation speed in inorganic communication mediums is 6 orders of magnitude higher.
why it should ever be assumed that any general purpose AI would be somehow likely to have an agenda that we would actually consider to be corrupt or wrong?
Do you think twice about killing mildew? Do you think twice about killing a dog? The question is ultimately whether an extremely advanced AI would regard us as mildew or as dogs. As a nuisance or as something somehow worth keeping around.
That is besides the popular 'goal optimization of military AI going haywire' Hollywoodesque scary scenario, which could indeed happen, but is much less fundamental than the above, imho.
It's so bad that this could be an article of The Onion.
Half a page of 'summary' and I still haven't the foggiest idea what the hell ONAP and DPDK are.
1. Ultimately, there is no point and there can't be.
2. Most products/services humans buy are unnecessary or highly redundant for an advanced inorganic species. A lot of those things are dedicated to maintaining and dealing with the needs and drives of our current high-maintenance biological substrates.
Take a seat somewhere in your house. Look around and determine, for everything in it, whether you would have any use for it if your consciousness had an inorganic substrate ('uploaded to the cloud' or whatever).
Alright, that is a fair point. The calculation does become more favorable if you take that into account.
Broadly speaking:
Using the treasury.gov graphs, the average invested amount between 2008 and 2010 is roughly 300 billion USD, and between 2010 and 2015 about 100 billion USD. That averages to roughly 170 billion invested on average over 7 years. ~15 billion USD profit on that average is still less than 1.3% yearly. If we're generous and ignore the invested money after 2010, it's still only a 2.5% yearly profit.
Although the latter is admittedly not all that bad a number, being at least roughly equal to or above normal inflation, I believe my claim still stands.
Technically the students didn't really write or design an algorithm that works well in the benchmark. That very fact is what sets 'AI' apart from algorithms. You could argue that the students designed an algorithm that produces an algorithm that works very well in this case, but it is then still the resulting algorithm that works well for the task at hand, not the system they designed that 'came up' with the algorithm.
I'd say that calling these things 'emergent algorithms' would be more appropriate or even better: 'machine learning systems'
Let's see how that looks: "Students from Fast.ai, a small organization that runs free machine-learning courses online, just created a machine learning system that outperforms code from Google's researchers, per an important benchmark."
Much better.
The Goldman investment represented a 1.4 billion return on 10 billion invested, or 14% , in well under two years.
Sure, and some of my portfolio does well, some of it does not. You shouldn't cherrypick like that if you want to make sound financial decisions.
The overall numbers won't change and you are intentionally missing the point. Good day.
Although informative, you haven't touched upon the core of the argument. Even if profitable to some degree, in its entirety (again, when disregarding the massive ensuing issues if no financial backing had been provided) it was by far not as profitable as investing the money elsewhere would have been.
If you only look at the 'Bank' category in your first source, 12.7% profit over a period of ~7 years is still pretty shitty.
The '1.4 billion USD on Goldman Sachs alone' is just 0.57% of your own quoted figure of what was invested in banks. In absolutes it sounds like a lot, but relatively speaking, it isn't even the bare minimum any financial investor should be making in a year. A savings account does better than that.
Again, I'm not saying the government should have not provided the financial backing (AKA 'bailouts') and invested their money elsewhere. Let's just not pretend that the endeavor turned out to be some great money maker.
I can't say I have looked into the specifics, but 3.5% profit over a period of ~7 years (as per the numbers in the CNN-article) isn't great. If you take inflation into account, it's even a net loss.
Getting a much, much better (direct) ROI on that money (just repaying debt would do the trick) would be easy. Don't get me wrong, though: I'm not saying the bailouts weren't necessary, but they definitely weren't great investments regardless of the financial crisis. They were great investments only because of it.
See also here: https://www.nationalreview.com...
(not my favorite source of news, but it's about the points made)
Alternative for if you are comfortable with CSS (install a browser extension like Stylish):
/**********/
ytd-watch[theater] #top #player.ytd-watch {
position: relative;
}
ytd-watch[theater] #top #info-contents.style-scope.ytd-watch {
margin-top: 0;
}
ytd-watch[theater] #top #playlist.style-scope.ytd-watch {
top: 0;
}
ytd-watch[theater] #top #related.style-scope.ytd-watch {
top: 0;
}
@media (min-width: 1200px) { /**********/
ytd-watch #player.ytd-watch {
position: fixed;
z-index: 3;
}
ytd-watch #info-contents.style-scope.ytd-watch {
margin-top: 960px;
}
ytd-watch #items.style-scope.ytd-watch-next-secondary-results-renderer {
margin-top: 480px;
}
}
@media (min-width: 1000px) and (max-width: 1200px) { /**********/
ytd-watch #player.ytd-watch {
position: fixed;
z-index: 3;
}
ytd-watch #info-contents.style-scope.ytd-watch {
margin-top: 720px;
}
ytd-watch #items.style-scope.ytd-watch-next-secondary-results-renderer {
margin-top: 360px;
}
}
@media (min-height: 630px) and (min-width: 1294px) { /**********/
ytd-watch #player.ytd-watch {
position: fixed;
z-index: 3;
}
ytd-watch #info-contents.style-scope.ytd-watch {
margin-top: 960px;
}
ytd-watch #items.style-scope.ytd-watch-next-secondary-results-renderer {
margin-top: 720px;
}
}
@media (min-height: 980px) and (min-width: 1720px) {
ytd-watch #player.ytd-watch {
position: fixed;
z-index: 3;
}
ytd-watch #info-contents.style-scope.ytd-watch {
margin-top: 1440px;
}
ytd-watch #top #related.style-scope.ytd-watch {
top: 0;
}
ytd-watch #top #playlist.style-scope.ytd-watch {
top: 720px;
}
}
Disclaimer: it's not perfect.
Sorry, where would this orange indicator be?
In Windows, the system tray and the devices and drives overview of explorer would be the most sensible places to put it.
I don't have any software consistently open in which such an indicator could be displayed.
Oh no, this completely invalidates my idea. Cederic has no use for it. Quick, call it all off!
The thing is, with PHP it's the blind leading the blind. Nobody has a clue, and starts with Rasmus (by his own admission). No skilled programmer would put up with PHP for any significant amount of time, life is too short for that aggravation.
That is absolute nonsense. Take a look at the Symfony framework. This is a well thought out, well structured, well documented, properly supported, actively developed, stable framework aimed at longevity and used with success in many, many commercial products.
There are also tons of well structured PHP SDKs which are great to use.
With regard to the language, it has made significant progress as compared to for instance Python. Developing in PHP 7.0 or higher in an OOP fashion, creating nice clean, testable and robust code is easy and painless. Doing that in Python is dreadful with the Python2 / Python3 split, combined with an opaque code inclusion scheme and Frankenstein OOP implementation.
PHP used to be dreadful as well and a framework such as Wordpress reflects that. It is an abomination, from a clean, modular OOP coding perspective. Drupal has made changes to be more properly OOP, but still doesn't come close to Symfony.
The question for a developer faced with PHP is thus: what environment am I going to be working in? Archaic spaghetti code or a modern well structured OOP project? Yes, there are tons of very shitty PHP environments out there, but also tons of great ones as well. In addition to that, if time is available to refactor that archaic spaghetti code, it is as easy as in any language to change it into usable maintainable modular OOP code.
I can't help but think there is a a simple interaction (and possibly partly technical) solution to this:
Just indicate whether write buffers are definitely empty for a certain drive and ejection can be done safely if no other writes are started (an orange indicator next to the ejectable, for instance). It is silly that putting in a USB drive and yanking it out almost immediately is regarded as unsafe ejection or bad practice.
I understand that theoretically another process can initiate a write as you are yanking it out, but in the vast majority of cases that doesn't happen and the user is very aware of what they're doing to the USB drive. Generally, people plug in a USB drive, actively read some stuff off it and write some stuff to it and are then done with I/O with the device. No background processes writing to the USB drive should be involved in those cases.
Sure, provide the option to unmount (and turn the indicator green) for the peeps who want to be absolutely sure, but otherwise the 'orange' state more than suffices.
You are a financial genius.
Proper research helps in convincing policy makers. They don't tend to believe kids.
Although, having said that, a lot of them don't give a fuck about actual science either.
I'm going to guess that calling them 'military secrets' or 'sensitive military documents' is simply wrong. These are probably really old, outdated or just not that interesting.
US date formatting is retarded.
So what should have been done, exactly?
Yep. Exists on Windows as well:
https://chocolatey.org/package...
(Chocolatey is a godsend, btw)
You said: "The bailouts were the problem."
That is putting blame on government intervention, even though (we apparently agree that) not bailing out the banks at that point would have been much, much worse. Calling the very necessary bailouts 'the problem' is misleading at best.
If you had said 'The fact that bailouts were necessary was the problem', I could have agreed with you.
There are millions of talented musicians who can't make a living playing music
So making good music just isn't that rare a skill, which delegates it to the level of hobby or at the most 'sport few people care about'. It's that simple.
We need to figure out a way for talented artists to make a living while making music they love
The only way to do this is Universal Basic Income.
You're giving the New Deal, an extreme set of measures in an extreme financial crisis, as an example of 'cartel members ask for government regulation to control the price of their collective product' and implying that this is the normal order of business? Really?
Also, don't forget that the whole bit was:
Cartels form -> one cartel member breaks rank -> cartel breaks down -> cartel members ask for government regulation to control prices.
The latter is not the same as 'company in some industry lobbies for price controls'.