It _can_ be part of massive companies, but there's plenty of companies people actually like working for.
But that is equally true of companies that make video games - some can be great to work for.
It's kind of absurd to claim video game jobs are bad, when what we are all rather obviously saying is "working under EA is bad". Why not just say that rather than trying to mislead someone who may want to develop games for a living?
But, probably not if you are doing so for a huge company. That's the same with almost any work that can be pleasurable, until you mix in a giant organization you have to please with a million bosses above you who all have a say.
The thing is, there has never been a better time to be a game developer and make games in a very small (sometimes just yourself) company.
There are so many others out there guilty of the same beyond just games.
Netflix has no control over region availability of content that is not theirs, so you'd have to ask why they do not go after studios...
Netflix itself is awesome, because all content produced by Netflix is available in all regions. As the Netflix library expands, more and more content is world-wide, a major plus to going with Netflix instead of some dinosaur of media that insists on keeping some things to specific regions of the Earth.
Yet another large group folds just because some tiny mob of people are angry.
People should really start taking up the examples of Virginian Democrats and stand fast - if Democrats can hold onto power after raping women and wearing a Klan hood, then it sure seems like Google should be able to have a panel with whoever the hell they like and ignore the haters.
Somehow 5 years later he is an "industry leader in machine learning"?
That seems very doable to me, given how recent a lot of the modern approaches to machine learning are... that is in fact about the right time that if you went into applying machine learning around five years ago, you could easily be a leading expert at this point.
My thought is, the proof is in the hire. Lots of people here spouting a lot of trash but two high level companies agree he's an expert. That sounds a lot more informative than AC trash-talk to me...
That actual experience contradicts the theoretical findings of this study, so right off the bat you should be suspicious of the conclusions they are leading you to.
I'm not saying it's Fake News per se, but the contradiction does need explanation.
When the product that the psychologist designed is available... on expensive hardware that is required to play and easily monitored/controlled by parents...
vs. a product that requires only $5 and a sketchy friend with a lot of ziplock bags.
I know which choice I'm putting MY money on...
Fortnite brought in $2.4 billion
Aww, what a cute little revere stream you have built up! How cute!!
Compared that is to the $400 BILLION dollars in global drug trade. That figure is from 1998. Do you think that number to be higher, or lower now?
I have trouble believing Fortnite is more addictive than drugs or alcohol, both which actually make you feel good for a while before making you feel like garbage.
I was thinking about this as well. As you say for a technical profession, changing every 2-3 years seems fine as both sides get benefit.
There are other professions where maybe the reasonable period is longer, or seasonal workers who naturally would change every year. You'd hope they would account for that in this system, but who knows...
One end effect of this would you'd want to be lots more careful changing jobs, because once you started something you'd really be pressured by the system not to leave no matter how much you ended up disliking it.
Also kind of wonder, if they penalize or reward people for trying to change careers...
the scariest thing about a social credit system isn't codifying the rules, it's that they are not public.
That is a great point, and if the rules becomes complex enough even the supposed rulers may not understand what the choices being made!!
It's actually too easy to change the rules
This is also a great point - either the rules can be easily shifted without the public reality knowing, or (very probably) selectively applied to some specific individuals (for worse or better, like bribing someone to alter your own score).
It will be really interesting to see how society responds to this strange invisible pressure...
An interesting aspect of this social credit thing is that each step mirrors things that already exist today... it's well understood that changing jobs too often looks bad on a resume. Or at least, it did before lots of people started doing that, don't even know if it's that bad these days...
That's the bad thing about a system like social credit codifying rules, is that the rules that affect your score probably change a lot more slowly than socially accepted behavior. I wonder what happens when you try to trap the unwritten morals of a society in amber at one point in time, never to change again (or to change so slowly it's essentially the case). Will that bottle up repression in the people? Or create a kind of mindless utopia that lasts forever? So far, nothing has lasted forever... or even close.
While I too agree that CO2 will likely be absorbed back into the system, even the sharpest drops in CO2 concentration in NOAA ice core data have a drop of ~100 PPM over 10,000-20,000 years,
But that's when changes were more gradual, as you said the more rapid introduction of greater CO2 is unlike previous changes. Rather than plants evolveing to assume a higher level of CO2 is present, we can also assume that modern plants will consume it more greedy than they would if the increase happened over a long period of time. Basically, we just do not know the system-wide response to more rapid CO2 increases either way, and I don't think it's safe to make any assumptions about where the eventual steady state lies from the natural world alone...
Furthermore, there is always the option for humans to engineer CO2 absorbing systems, which we do today on a small scale but can easily do on a much larger scale if within 50-100 years it appears the steady state is larger than is comfortable (and by then we'd understand a lot better the role CO2 truly plays in global temperature).
That is why I see no possible future in which CO2 steady state levels are at the level that would bring large scale disaster, because either naturally or unnaturally they will fall (or be kept at levels deemed acceptable), along with production. That is simply inevitable because of human nature combined with the inflation of the natural systems on earth to use excess CO2.
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. In the Republican Party.
That's exactly what Trump is. Trump is the first president (of any party) that publicly supported gay marriage before being elected to office. How is that not progressive?
The real meaning of progressive is that you are for the progress of humanity, moving forward. That is what Trump is doing - on social, and environmental issues alike.
You may be snowed from seeing it now, but over the course of the next six years it will become apparent even for those who do not want to see.
A prosperous country means more freedom to do ANYTHING you like, as long as you are not harming others. That is exactly what Trump supports.
I knew I was interested in math and computers since an early age, and I was largely self-taught until university. And everything I did was fairly self-driven. So I don't understand the problems people face when they say "what should I do?"
So the advice he's really giving here, just in a roundabout way, is "Do what you like".
That is, if some aspect of computer technology is not complying enough that you want to try and work with it for fun, move around until you find something that does so move you.
I would say there are a lot more areas to explore now than there used to be when studying CS, so it's easier for younger students to feel a bit lost and not really know what to do. Explore niches and find out what is naturally fun and interesting, even better if it cross-correlates with any other interests you have.
Linking to fellow climate alarmists does not help your case either you know... just sad to see such lack of respect for appropriate scientific terminology.
Sorry if I prefer to stick with scientific terms while you try to spread fear on behalf of your death cult.
I'll let you have the last response as I've found usually you can't really convince people of faith about matters of fact, just try to give them those facts and hope some day they wake up.
The fact that CO2 levels were as high then as they are now, yet our temperatures are much lower currently provides absolute proof that changes are gradual.
As far as I can tell, all Liberals do is talk about climate change, while either doing nothing at all that actually helps, or actually do great harm (like so-called "environmentalist" over the years have done by stopping nuclear energy projects, or by people like Al Gore flying private jets all over the world).
Really, it's a matter of historical ignorance to claim conservatives do not want to help the environment, as all of the strongest supporters of the environment to date have been conservative (like Theodore Roosevelt, and now Trump).
Furthermore, from traveling the world a great truth I have seen is that countries that have poor economies do a great deal of harm to the local environment, those that are well off do not. So the absolutely first step of a true environmentalist is to ensure a healthy economy and a prosperous people, who have the kind offer time and resources totally help where it counts.
Because with the CO2 levels we have, predicted rise is only around 2C.
The same CO2 levels that once had the atmosphere at a far greater degree of warming.
Thus there must be some other factor involved in warming climate besides CO2 alone.
The rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 in the past ~150 years is essentially an impulse to what is admittedly a complex system.
Correct.
a suggestion of what is possible once the system settles
Serious question for you - why would you assume the earth would settle at CO2 levels we have now? Since the rise is artificial, once the CO2 is absorbed back into the system, and human output decreases over time (inevitable given the uptake in alternative energy), WHY would you, or how could you assume the CO2 levels today are anywhere near a steady state? Indeed a rise of 2C of warming means lots more flourishing plant life around the globe. Guess what plants absorb from the atmosphere...
Slashdot Mirror
It _can_ be part of massive companies, but there's plenty of companies people actually like working for.
But that is equally true of companies that make video games - some can be great to work for.
It's kind of absurd to claim video game jobs are bad, when what we are all rather obviously saying is "working under EA is bad". Why not just say that rather than trying to mislead someone who may want to develop games for a living?
Bad headline.
Making video games CAN be a dream job.
But, probably not if you are doing so for a huge company. That's the same with almost any work that can be pleasurable, until you mix in a giant organization you have to please with a million bosses above you who all have a say.
The thing is, there has never been a better time to be a game developer and make games in a very small (sometimes just yourself) company.
There are so many others out there guilty of the same beyond just games.
Netflix has no control over region availability of content that is not theirs, so you'd have to ask why they do not go after studios...
Netflix itself is awesome, because all content produced by Netflix is available in all regions. As the Netflix library expands, more and more content is world-wide, a major plus to going with Netflix instead of some dinosaur of media that insists on keeping some things to specific regions of the Earth.
He admitted to being in the photo. The caption says it was him.
If you look at how he holds beer in other photos (yes really) he is the guy in the klan hood.
Or maybe I'd grant you he is in blackface and he's just friends with KKK dude. Yeah SO MUCH BETTER. Not.
Plenty of people booted from office for way less.
Yet another large group folds just because some tiny mob of people are angry.
People should really start taking up the examples of Virginian Democrats and stand fast - if Democrats can hold onto power after raping women and wearing a Klan hood, then it sure seems like Google should be able to have a panel with whoever the hell they like and ignore the haters.
Somehow 5 years later he is an "industry leader in machine learning"?
That seems very doable to me, given how recent a lot of the modern approaches to machine learning are... that is in fact about the right time that if you went into applying machine learning around five years ago, you could easily be a leading expert at this point.
My thought is, the proof is in the hire. Lots of people here spouting a lot of trash but two high level companies agree he's an expert. That sounds a lot more informative than AC trash-talk to me...
News last year was the GBR was showing substantial signs of recovery.
That actual experience contradicts the theoretical findings of this study, so right off the bat you should be suspicious of the conclusions they are leading you to.
I'm not saying it's Fake News per se, but the contradiction does need explanation.
he build his 'unique' expertise on the work of others...
Hey you know who else did that?
If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.
-Issac Newton.
Hey you know who ELSE has done that?
Anyone who has ever used StackOverflow to find an answer.
Don't knock building expertise on what others before you have done.
When the product that the psychologist designed is available... on expensive hardware that is required to play and easily monitored/controlled by parents...
vs. a product that requires only $5 and a sketchy friend with a lot of ziplock bags.
I know which choice I'm putting MY money on...
Fortnite brought in $2.4 billion
Aww, what a cute little revere stream you have built up! How cute!!
Compared that is to the $400 BILLION dollars in global drug trade. That figure is from 1998. Do you think that number to be higher, or lower now?
Yeah, how could interactive fiction from a company that hired psychologists
You act like that means it would be MORE effective.
You get a chemist and a psychologist in a room and see who can come up with the more addictive product...
I have trouble believing Fortnite is more addictive than drugs or alcohol, both which actually make you feel good for a while before making you feel like garbage.
Depends on what your definition of "too often" is
I was thinking about this as well. As you say for a technical profession, changing every 2-3 years seems fine as both sides get benefit.
There are other professions where maybe the reasonable period is longer, or seasonal workers who naturally would change every year. You'd hope they would account for that in this system, but who knows...
One end effect of this would you'd want to be lots more careful changing jobs, because once you started something you'd really be pressured by the system not to leave no matter how much you ended up disliking it.
Also kind of wonder, if they penalize or reward people for trying to change careers...
the scariest thing about a social credit system isn't codifying the rules, it's that they are not public.
That is a great point, and if the rules becomes complex enough even the supposed rulers may not understand what the choices being made!!
It's actually too easy to change the rules
This is also a great point - either the rules can be easily shifted without the public reality knowing, or (very probably) selectively applied to some specific individuals (for worse or better, like bribing someone to alter your own score).
It will be really interesting to see how society responds to this strange invisible pressure...
An interesting aspect of this social credit thing is that each step mirrors things that already exist today... it's well understood that changing jobs too often looks bad on a resume. Or at least, it did before lots of people started doing that, don't even know if it's that bad these days...
That's the bad thing about a system like social credit codifying rules, is that the rules that affect your score probably change a lot more slowly than socially accepted behavior. I wonder what happens when you try to trap the unwritten morals of a society in amber at one point in time, never to change again (or to change so slowly it's essentially the case). Will that bottle up repression in the people? Or create a kind of mindless utopia that lasts forever? So far, nothing has lasted forever... or even close.
Each car can electronically compare purchase price with each other, most expensive car gets right of way, least expensive car gets the ditch.
To everyone who disbelieved in the Deep State, I give you a giant raspberry.
PHHHHHHBT!
If the company was really sophisticated, why would they name a product the "Matebook".
Talk about something that's never likely to be used by anyone serious...
While I too agree that CO2 will likely be absorbed back into the system, even the sharpest drops in CO2 concentration in NOAA ice core data have a drop of ~100 PPM over 10,000-20,000 years,
But that's when changes were more gradual, as you said the more rapid introduction of greater CO2 is unlike previous changes. Rather than plants evolveing to assume a higher level of CO2 is present, we can also assume that modern plants will consume it more greedy than they would if the increase happened over a long period of time. Basically, we just do not know the system-wide response to more rapid CO2 increases either way, and I don't think it's safe to make any assumptions about where the eventual steady state lies from the natural world alone...
Furthermore, there is always the option for humans to engineer CO2 absorbing systems, which we do today on a small scale but can easily do on a much larger scale if within 50-100 years it appears the steady state is larger than is comfortable (and by then we'd understand a lot better the role CO2 truly plays in global temperature).
That is why I see no possible future in which CO2 steady state levels are at the level that would bring large scale disaster, because either naturally or unnaturally they will fall (or be kept at levels deemed acceptable), along with production. That is simply inevitable because of human nature combined with the inflation of the natural systems on earth to use excess CO2.
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. In the Republican Party.
That's exactly what Trump is. Trump is the first president (of any party) that publicly supported gay marriage before being elected to office. How is that not progressive?
The real meaning of progressive is that you are for the progress of humanity, moving forward. That is what Trump is doing - on social, and environmental issues alike.
You may be snowed from seeing it now, but over the course of the next six years it will become apparent even for those who do not want to see.
A prosperous country means more freedom to do ANYTHING you like, as long as you are not harming others. That is exactly what Trump supports.
I knew I was interested in math and computers since an early age, and I was largely self-taught until university. And everything I did was fairly self-driven. So I don't understand the problems people face when they say "what should I do?"
So the advice he's really giving here, just in a roundabout way, is "Do what you like".
That is, if some aspect of computer technology is not complying enough that you want to try and work with it for fun, move around until you find something that does so move you.
I would say there are a lot more areas to explore now than there used to be when studying CS, so it's easier for younger students to feel a bit lost and not really know what to do. Explore niches and find out what is naturally fun and interesting, even better if it cross-correlates with any other interests you have.
Linking to fellow climate alarmists does not help your case either you know... just sad to see such lack of respect for appropriate scientific terminology.
Sorry if I prefer to stick with scientific terms while you try to spread fear on behalf of your death cult.
I'll let you have the last response as I've found usually you can't really convince people of faith about matters of fact, just try to give them those facts and hope some day they wake up.
That works much better when change is gradual.
The fact that CO2 levels were as high then as they are now, yet our temperatures are much lower currently provides absolute proof that changes are gradual.
As far as I can tell, all Liberals do is talk about climate change, while either doing nothing at all that actually helps, or actually do great harm (like so-called "environmentalist" over the years have done by stopping nuclear energy projects, or by people like Al Gore flying private jets all over the world).
Meanwhile Trump seems to be the only one actually trying to fix the climate.
Really, it's a matter of historical ignorance to claim conservatives do not want to help the environment, as all of the strongest supporters of the environment to date have been conservative (like Theodore Roosevelt, and now Trump).
Furthermore, from traveling the world a great truth I have seen is that countries that have poor economies do a great deal of harm to the local environment, those that are well off do not. So the absolutely first step of a true environmentalist is to ensure a healthy economy and a prosperous people, who have the kind offer time and resources totally help where it counts.
Serious question: Why do you think so?
Because with the CO2 levels we have, predicted rise is only around 2C.
The same CO2 levels that once had the atmosphere at a far greater degree of warming.
Thus there must be some other factor involved in warming climate besides CO2 alone.
The rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 in the past ~150 years is essentially an impulse to what is admittedly a complex system.
Correct.
a suggestion of what is possible once the system settles
Serious question for you - why would you assume the earth would settle at CO2 levels we have now? Since the rise is artificial, once the CO2 is absorbed back into the system, and human output decreases over time (inevitable given the uptake in alternative energy), WHY would you, or how could you assume the CO2 levels today are anywhere near a steady state? Indeed a rise of 2C of warming means lots more flourishing plant life around the globe. Guess what plants absorb from the atmosphere...
And then we have water, which doesn't consume, but absorbs and acidifies.
The only thing water does when absorbing LOTS of CO2, is becomes more neutral - not acidic.
If you want people to take you seriously, stop using the language of fear and get your terminology correct.