...is someone who hasn't been paying attention for the last 20+ years and sorry but that would suggest they're so inattentive to important things that they probably deserve to be paid and treated like disposables.
Sorry, but the truth can be painful. Nobody's entitled to make a living wage "following their dream". That's not how the world works.
Entitled, staggeringly wealthy hereditary royal scion decides he doesn't see the need for something, his reasonable suggestion is to ban it entirely.
Old autocratic habits die hard.
Tell you what, Harry old chum, when you have the same entertainment opportunities that the rest of us have and have to measure COST as part of the value calculus, then we'll listen to what you have to say, what-ho?
Say what you will about Musk, that he's a narcissist, that he's irresponsible, that he's erratic, a cad....I don't give the faintest fuck.
He's NOT EVEN ON THE LIST of the 20 richest people in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_people_in_the_world) but he's DOING SHIT with his money that is trying to do cool stuff other than just make him even richer. In some cases he's spending it on kooky-ass ideas, sure, but at least he's risking it on stuff that may payoff big one day. The man has almost single-handedly advanced electric cars and self-driving cars from ludicrous fringe research to stuff we're actually talking about. He's building rocket ships to make space flight reasonable, instead of NASA's six-sigma risk-avoidance budget-protection strategy. He's trying to think laterally to solve traffic problems in a way nobody's considered before. I'll admit, I will NEVER travel in a Boring Co tunnel (nope!) nor on a Hyperloop (nope!) nor will I likely benefit from his rockets in my lifetime.
But by god, at least those ridiculous piles of money are being spent on SOMETHING.
To shame them: Rank Name Citizenship Net worth (USD) Age Main source of wealth Ref(s) 1 Jeff Bezos United States $136.1 billion 2 Bill Gates United States $95.7 billion 3 Warren Buffett United States $82.7 billion 4 Bernard Arnault France $68.1 billion 5 Carlos Slim Mexico $64.1 billion 6 Amancio Ortega Spain $61.5 billion 7 Larry Ellison United States $59.6 billion 8 Mark Zuckerberg United States $54.3 billion 9 Larry Page United States $49.8 billion 10 Mukesh Ambani India $48.8 billion 11 Sergey Brin United States $48.6 billion 12 Charles Koch United States $48.5 billion 13 David Koch United States $48.5 billion 14 Michael Bloomberg United States $47.1 billion 15 Jim Walton United States $46.1 billion 16 Alice Walton United States $45.9 billion 17 S. Robson Walton United States $45.8 billion 18 FranÃoise Bettencourt Meyers France $44.9 billion 19 Steve Ballmer United States $41.6 billion
^ and this is exactly the point. Window dressing that changes actually nothing.
If I could mod the op up +100 I would.
When was the last time you ACTUALLY clicked "no" to that ubiquitous (now) popup? Never? So what the FUCK is it actually good for. Congratulations, we all now are reminded you're tracking us...only a moron wouldn't know that in the FIRST place.
First, every semi-automatic gun = machine gun. Then every r/c aircraft = drone. Then everyone claims AI systems when in fact they're just bog-standard (albeit-complex) if-then trees.
Regarding the OP: just crunching data is NOT "machine learning". (RTFA and even they shorthand 'machine learning' into AI which it truly, truly isn't. Not even CLOSE.) This article fails to explain in any way how this experiment actually uses 'machine learning'. As far as I can tell, it's merely a broadly automated testing system where targeted variables are increased according to a pretty linear relationship of results. Essentially, it's just plain old Gregor Mendel's work, automated. THAT'S NOT MACHINE LEARNING, and it's absolutely nothing to do with AI. (I've tweeted to Will Knight asking him about both of these questions, and will reply here with whatever he responds.)
By 2019, the Humans of Earth had almost entirely deformed the meaning of the word 'justice', wielding it like a weapon against anyone that disagreed with them, generally intending some measure of revenge (and often to insist on financial compensation). Often, this wasn't even personal revenge but revenge-by-proxy, insisting that others' suffering needed amelioration.
I just wanted to say thanks for the comment. As a man who's been with the same woman since I was 17 and she 16, and never had another partner, I'll admit, honestly - the value of such a pill to men didn't even OCCUR to me.
Maybe they'll only accept graduates stupid enough to NOT game the system in these ways?
I entirely agree with you that this will be maneuvered around...cynically, I can see companies making this deal "we pay you little until the term is up then you get a balloon to your salary"...until just before the bell goes off, then you get let go BEFORE you get paid a decent $. Sorry.
Don't think so? Companies already sort of do this to H1's..."we're getting you your visa, so we're going to pay you for shit during that span. You can live in an apt with 8 other dudes in squalor, and you're not going to complain or we might lose your application entirely." (then later, as the final approval is close" "Whups, sorry, you're just not working out,. I guess we cancel the H1 and send you back home."
All the effort in the world isn't going to change the fact that women bear the physiological brunt of pregnancy, so they simply cannot "trust" that men have taken such a pill.
ALL of these were pushed through by judicial activism over the votes of the people. Minds may have changed in the meanwhile, but those are simply facts.
The Constitution CAN still change, exactly as they laid out. I'm sorry for you (I guess?) that they didn't set the bar so low that "your side" can't just amend at will.
"Why the fuck is one party holding the country hostage when the people have clearly voted against it?"
Because the Founding Fathers recognized early on that mob rule was a despicable thing. You disagree only because a) today you agree with the mob, and b) in your blind righteous fury you haven't thought through the actual consequences of what you're asking for.
Do you really want majority rule? Gay marriage: gone. Affirmative action: gone. Desegregation: gone. Abortion: in many states, gone. Legal pot: gone.
...I'd ban ANY sort of nationalist/separatist posts that rise to the level of hate speech or inciting violence, REGARDLESS of the skin color they're promoting.
1) it is, in fact, much of the reason he was elected. So while you dismiss it as petty, he's doing what his voters largely wanted.
2) let's not forget that Mr Obama spent pretty much his whole second term in a fiat presidency where he simply issued Executive (branch) rulings and clarifications that tried to effectively enact legislation without having to do all that messy 'compromising' and such*. Erasing that crap like the Federal land grab, is practically Trump's constitutional duty and if congress were self-aware of the balance of federal branches, they'd welcome it.
*and just to save you spitting electrons, "he couldn't get anything passed because the congressional republicans had refused to approve anything". 2 points to that, too: i) as congress is directly elected and the president isn't, one could say that they are even more the voice of the people...and they were largely elected on resisting Obama. (Like the Dems today and Trump.) ii) I simply don't believe that he couldn't have carved out some defectors from Republicans IF HE HAD BEEN WILLING TO ACTUALLY COMPROMISE. Everyone - especially in Congress! - has a price. This is an extreme example, but if he'd promised to 'ban all abortions' swathes of far-right extremist congresspeople would have traded anything. But he wasn't even willing to seek to find what those key vote-movers were. Far easier (with lower expectations) to say "whup, I guess they won't compromise so I don't have to try"...
Are they going to advise "ethics" to their Chinese state customers, or just maunder on about how guilty white men in tech should feel about not having a vagina?
I know, let's discuss the ethics of hiring H1Bs from overseas instead of local people?
Let me see if I understand this correctly: - shrinking glacier: inarguable proof that the globe is warming - growing glacier: not proof that the globe is cooling because we believe it'll probably change in the future, sometime, anyway.
Well, I guess I'd suggest that you read a little more carefully?
I didn't say you don't get a do over, I said you don't get a do over BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION THE FIRST TIME. (In the context of this reply, perhaps that's almost ironic?)
Has 'substantial new evidence' come to light? I rather expect a judge wouldn't order a re-trial just because the defendant wasn't paying attention, would they?
...lawyers, journalists, and the guardians of minors should understand that there's not some magical sacred boundary protecting them from what EVERYONE ELSE is vulnerable to.
I mean, they never SHOULD have considered themselves in any way inviolate, but knowing both some lawyers and journalists, they're both professions that think rather highly of their own importance, so perhaps the reminder is useful?
What's next, telling politicians that they're not special?
Slashdot Mirror
...when it could be highlighting that US Jobless claims have hit a low not seen since 1969
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/0...
I guess it depends which side of the political fence you are, which "truth" you believe is representative?
...is someone who hasn't been paying attention for the last 20+ years and sorry but that would suggest they're so inattentive to important things that they probably deserve to be paid and treated like disposables.
Sorry, but the truth can be painful.
Nobody's entitled to make a living wage "following their dream". That's not how the world works.
Entitled, staggeringly wealthy hereditary royal scion decides he doesn't see the need for something, his reasonable suggestion is to ban it entirely.
Old autocratic habits die hard.
Tell you what, Harry old chum, when you have the same entertainment opportunities that the rest of us have and have to measure COST as part of the value calculus, then we'll listen to what you have to say, what-ho?
Say what you will about Musk, that he's a narcissist, that he's irresponsible, that he's erratic, a cad....I don't give the faintest fuck.
He's NOT EVEN ON THE LIST of the 20 richest people in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_people_in_the_world) but he's DOING SHIT with his money that is trying to do cool stuff other than just make him even richer. In some cases he's spending it on kooky-ass ideas, sure, but at least he's risking it on stuff that may payoff big one day.
The man has almost single-handedly advanced electric cars and self-driving cars from ludicrous fringe research to stuff we're actually talking about.
He's building rocket ships to make space flight reasonable, instead of NASA's six-sigma risk-avoidance budget-protection strategy.
He's trying to think laterally to solve traffic problems in a way nobody's considered before.
I'll admit, I will NEVER travel in a Boring Co tunnel (nope!) nor on a Hyperloop (nope!) nor will I likely benefit from his rockets in my lifetime.
But by god, at least those ridiculous piles of money are being spent on SOMETHING.
To shame them:
Rank Name Citizenship Net worth (USD) Age Main source of wealth Ref(s)
1 Jeff Bezos United States $136.1 billion
2 Bill Gates United States $95.7 billion
3 Warren Buffett United States $82.7 billion
4 Bernard Arnault France $68.1 billion
5 Carlos Slim Mexico $64.1 billion
6 Amancio Ortega Spain $61.5 billion
7 Larry Ellison United States $59.6 billion
8 Mark Zuckerberg United States $54.3 billion
9 Larry Page United States $49.8 billion
10 Mukesh Ambani India $48.8 billion
11 Sergey Brin United States $48.6 billion
12 Charles Koch United States $48.5 billion
13 David Koch United States $48.5 billion
14 Michael Bloomberg United States $47.1 billion
15 Jim Walton United States $46.1 billion
16 Alice Walton United States $45.9 billion
17 S. Robson Walton United States $45.8 billion
18 FranÃoise Bettencourt Meyers France $44.9 billion
19 Steve Ballmer United States $41.6 billion
Minneapolis was the first to get SOMETHING?
^ and this is exactly the point. Window dressing that changes actually nothing.
If I could mod the op up +100 I would.
When was the last time you ACTUALLY clicked "no" to that ubiquitous (now) popup? Never? So what the FUCK is it actually good for. Congratulations, we all now are reminded you're tracking us...only a moron wouldn't know that in the FIRST place.
First, every semi-automatic gun = machine gun.
Then every r/c aircraft = drone.
Then everyone claims AI systems when in fact they're just bog-standard (albeit-complex) if-then trees.
Regarding the OP: just crunching data is NOT "machine learning".
(RTFA and even they shorthand 'machine learning' into AI which it truly, truly isn't. Not even CLOSE.) This article fails to explain in any way how this experiment actually uses 'machine learning'. As far as I can tell, it's merely a broadly automated testing system where targeted variables are increased according to a pretty linear relationship of results. Essentially, it's just plain old Gregor Mendel's work, automated. THAT'S NOT MACHINE LEARNING, and it's absolutely nothing to do with AI.
(I've tweeted to Will Knight asking him about both of these questions, and will reply here with whatever he responds.)
By 2019, the Humans of Earth had almost entirely deformed the meaning of the word 'justice', wielding it like a weapon against anyone that disagreed with them, generally intending some measure of revenge (and often to insist on financial compensation). Often, this wasn't even personal revenge but revenge-by-proxy, insisting that others' suffering needed amelioration.
Because, it was quickly realized, simply 'popping' it on could be easily gamed with a pack that was only 90% semtex and 10% battery.
I just wanted to say thanks for the comment.
As a man who's been with the same woman since I was 17 and she 16, and never had another partner, I'll admit, honestly - the value of such a pill to men didn't even OCCUR to me.
Thanks!
Maybe they'll only accept graduates stupid enough to NOT game the system in these ways?
I entirely agree with you that this will be maneuvered around...cynically, I can see companies making this deal "we pay you little until the term is up then you get a balloon to your salary"...until just before the bell goes off, then you get let go BEFORE you get paid a decent $. Sorry.
Don't think so? Companies already sort of do this to H1's..."we're getting you your visa, so we're going to pay you for shit during that span. You can live in an apt with 8 other dudes in squalor, and you're not going to complain or we might lose your application entirely."
(then later, as the final approval is close"
"Whups, sorry, you're just not working out,. I guess we cancel the H1 and send you back home."
All the effort in the world isn't going to change the fact that women bear the physiological brunt of pregnancy, so they simply cannot "trust" that men have taken such a pill.
The Dutch in particular are taller than Americans now.
What happened from 1940 to now?
1) Europe got actual nutrition
2) Americans got junk food
Like AIDS, this "epidemic" is the result of behavioral choices that people could clearly avoid, but decide not to.
It's hard to sympathize when people do it to themselves.
ALL of these were pushed through by judicial activism over the votes of the people.
Minds may have changed in the meanwhile, but those are simply facts.
The Constitution CAN still change, exactly as they laid out. I'm sorry for you (I guess?) that they didn't set the bar so low that "your side" can't just amend at will.
....that she's at least 1/1024 farmer.
"Why the fuck is one party holding the country hostage when the people have clearly voted against it?"
Because the Founding Fathers recognized early on that mob rule was a despicable thing. You disagree only because a) today you agree with the mob, and b) in your blind righteous fury you haven't thought through the actual consequences of what you're asking for.
Do you really want majority rule?
Gay marriage: gone.
Affirmative action: gone.
Desegregation: gone.
Abortion: in many states, gone.
Legal pot: gone.
Of course, the only people SAYING that are Democrats. That might suggest something.
Hint: one person can't 'insist' that their solution is a compromise. That's pretty much the polar opposite of what compromise means.
...I'd ban ANY sort of nationalist/separatist posts that rise to the level of hate speech or inciting violence, REGARDLESS of the skin color they're promoting.
But what do I know?
1) it is, in fact, much of the reason he was elected. So while you dismiss it as petty, he's doing what his voters largely wanted.
2) let's not forget that Mr Obama spent pretty much his whole second term in a fiat presidency where he simply issued Executive (branch) rulings and clarifications that tried to effectively enact legislation without having to do all that messy 'compromising' and such*. Erasing that crap like the Federal land grab, is practically Trump's constitutional duty and if congress were self-aware of the balance of federal branches, they'd welcome it.
*and just to save you spitting electrons, "he couldn't get anything passed because the congressional republicans had refused to approve anything". 2 points to that, too: i) as congress is directly elected and the president isn't, one could say that they are even more the voice of the people...and they were largely elected on resisting Obama. (Like the Dems today and Trump.) ii) I simply don't believe that he couldn't have carved out some defectors from Republicans IF HE HAD BEEN WILLING TO ACTUALLY COMPROMISE. Everyone - especially in Congress! - has a price. This is an extreme example, but if he'd promised to 'ban all abortions' swathes of far-right extremist congresspeople would have traded anything. But he wasn't even willing to seek to find what those key vote-movers were. Far easier (with lower expectations) to say "whup, I guess they won't compromise so I don't have to try"...
Are they going to advise "ethics" to their Chinese state customers, or just maunder on about how guilty white men in tech should feel about not having a vagina?
I know, let's discuss the ethics of hiring H1Bs from overseas instead of local people?
That's cool, you were able to wipe out 4 complete strawmen with only one comment! Congrats, they didn't stand a chance!
Let me see if I understand this correctly:
- shrinking glacier: inarguable proof that the globe is warming
- growing glacier: not proof that the globe is cooling because we believe it'll probably change in the future, sometime, anyway.
Is that about how it works?
Well, I guess I'd suggest that you read a little more carefully?
I didn't say you don't get a do over, I said you don't get a do over BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION THE FIRST TIME.
(In the context of this reply, perhaps that's almost ironic?)
Has 'substantial new evidence' come to light? I rather expect a judge wouldn't order a re-trial just because the defendant wasn't paying attention, would they?
...lawyers, journalists, and the guardians of minors should understand that there's not some magical sacred boundary protecting them from what EVERYONE ELSE is vulnerable to.
I mean, they never SHOULD have considered themselves in any way inviolate, but knowing both some lawyers and journalists, they're both professions that think rather highly of their own importance, so perhaps the reminder is useful?
What's next, telling politicians that they're not special?