The indictment alleges conspiracy to steal secrets. Which is slightly different than actually having stolen secrets. Thus the company needs to actually dispute this by saying "we didn't plan to steal secrets" or "the stolen secrets we received were not known to be stolen by us". Simply saying they didn't steal the secrets isn't a denial.
the path here is indirect and while showing the pattern of a conspiracy has many layers of companies fronting this operation. It's not entirely unlike how Uber ended up with Waymo desgins
According to the indictment, the defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to steal the trade secrets of Micron Technology, Inc. (Micron), a leader in the global semiconductor industry specializing in the advanced research, development, and manufacturing of memory products, including dynamic random-access memory (DRAM). DRAM is a leading-edge memory storage device used in computer electronics. Micron is the only United States-based company that manufactures DRAM. According to the indictment, Micron maintains a significant competitive advantage in this field due in large part from its intellectual property, including its trade secrets that include detailed, confidential information pertaining to the design, development, and manufacturing of advanced DRAM products.
Prior to the events described in the indictment, the PRC did not possess DRAM technology, and the Central Government and State Council of the PRC publicly identified the development of DRAM and other microelectronics technology as a national economic priority. The criminal defendants are United Microelectronics Corporation (“UMC”), a Taiwan semiconductor foundry; Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit, Co., Ltd. (“Jinhua'”), a state-owned enterprise of the PRC; and three Taiwan nationals: Chen Zhengkun, a.k.a. Stephen Chen, age 55; He Jianting, a.k.a. J.T. Ho, age 42; and Wang Yungming, a.k.a. Kenny Wang, age 44. UMC is a publicly listed semiconductor foundry company traded on the New York Stock Exchange; is headquartered in Taiwan; and has offices worldwide, including in Sunnyvale, California. UMC mass produces integrated-circuit logic products based on designs and technology developed and provided by its customers. Jinhua is a state-owned enterprise of the PRC, funded entirely by the Chinese government, and established in February 2016 for the sole purpose of designing, developing, and manufacturing DRAM.
According to the indictment, Chen was a General Manager and Chairman of an electronics corporation that Micron acquired in 2013. Chen then became the president of a Micron subsidiary in Taiwan, Micron Memory Taiwan (“MMT”), responsible for manufacturing at least one of Micron’s DRAM chips. Chen resigned from MMT in July 2015 and began working at UMC almost immediately. While at UMC, Chen arranged a cooperation agreement between UMC and Fujian Jinhua whereby, with funding from Fujian Jinhua, UMC would transfer DRAM technology to Fujian Jinhua to mass-produce. The technology would be jointly shared by both UMC and Fujian Jinhua. Chen later became the President of Jinhua and was put in charge of its DRAM production facility.
While at UMC, Chen recruited numerous MMT employees, including Ho and Wang, to join him at UMC. Prior to leaving MMT, Ho and Wang both stole and brought to UMC several Micron trade secrets related to the design and manufacture of DRAM. Wang downloaded over 900 Micron confidential and proprietary files before he left MMT and stored them on USB external hard drives or in personal cloud storage, from where he could access the technology while working at UMC.
The only thing that can be construed as bad is any of this is accessing files from your previous company after you have left the
Yet America voted in a President who discounts the opinion of scientists because he thinks they have a political agenda. And in the UK a leading proponent of Brexit advises "who needs experts" and the UK duly votes to leave against the advice of experts. People are keenly interested in the views of people they regard as leaders. Stephen Hawking was a brilliant thinker and I for one am interested in his conclusions.
The whole AI stance seems like a Pauling's Vitamin C moment for Hawking.
"Goddamnit! The top CV's picked from this impartial unbiased machine learning algorithm are all men! It must be discriminating against women somehow, even though we aren't including gender in any of the data. Tweak it until more women pop out, or we're fucked once this gets out on Twitter..."
Maybe it *was* picking the best ones... and men just make better software engineers?
Yeah, yeah, sorry double plus ungood thoughtcrime. Warm up room 101...
Substitute women with H1B.
Top CVs picked are H1Bs. Double ungood though-felony!!
Why not go all the way and say physics was built by white, affluent men who went to certain universities and lived in certain cities.
Physics was never done by the peasant class. Historically they were nobles. In the modern age, they are mostly affluent or middle class. No physicists I know has a working class background.
Physics was mostly done by white men of certain countries living in certain cities.
Most physics comes from education and work in certain institutions. There is virtually chance of making any impact from Bumfark state university.
I'm sure there is lots and lots of data to support all of this.
Why stop at men and women? Go all out. Physics would progress best if all of them were selected based on their university, family class, race etc based on historical data.
I agree with what you are saying, and was planning to post a similar response about how grade can be meaningless in a lot of cases.
But instead, your post made me wonder what counts as "expertise"?
I think beyond "clearly an expert" and "clearly not an expert" it all gets very murky. I would be good to be able to measure it, but I don't know how you could do it. The Dunning-Kruger effect comes into play.
I remember when I interviewed for my current job, which is mostly a Windows shop, one of the architects asked me about my proficiency with Linux. I said that I had switched to it in '99 and never looked back. He said "oh, so you're an expert at it" and I assured him that I was not an expert. I said that I knew enough about it to know that there is so much more that I don't know. He tested me with a few questions like what distro I ran, how I would do this or that. I tried not to geek out in my answers, but he could tell I wasn't faking it.
As a manager, I always find it interesting, and quite disheartening, when interviewing candidates about their technical skills. It seems that candidates now like to categorize their skills by expertise levels. It's kind of disheartening when someone says they are an expert in Linux and they have no answer to "vi or emacs?". Or they don't know what grep is. I once had someone who "helped architect and implement in AWS". Since we were building a platform on AWS, I asked him about his experience with that. He admitted that he had NEVER worked in AWS.
So as I said, it would be nice to be able to measure expertise, I don't see how you could realistically actually do that.
I think completely different scenarios.
In a classroom, I teach a course, give them work, grade their work and compare their work to give a grade. At the end of the semester, I have a good understanding of their level of expertise of the student in the course material and the prerequisite knowledge that they have to have to do the course.
Interviewing candidates is a different problem. You're looking for expertise in content that you are familiar with and the candidate is not.
A coworker of mine said that interviewing is a game of chance. You get the job where you know the answers to the questions asked in the interview. His ratio was 10-20 interviews to one job.
When I taught math or science, the girls were always among the top of the class.
The main reason was that they cared about their grades.
However, they never seemed to enjoy geeking out or talking about things that weren't going to be on the test.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Girls would invest in coming to class, taking notes, coming to study and tutoring sessions and really asking for help when they needed it.
Guys weren't as social. Some guys would have problems and not ask for help and do horribly in the end.
Grades are very artificial. They can be gamed since the teacher is giving the grade (it's not a third party assessment). You can get As and not learn much but also get a D and learn a lot.
What really should be looked at is expertise and not grades.
Of course, with every generalization I've made, I remember plenty of exceptions.
We were forced to use it when we hired international students - basically recently foreign graduates.
It requires every hire must be subjected to the E-Verify system. You cannot check someone and not others.
It has some false positives and can delay work. You have to get the green light from E-Verify before the person start the work. If for some reason the e-verify system goofs up (some record some department hasn't updated somewhere), which it did a few times, you have to wait for the system.
Last, it forces you to agree on a small clause that gives DHS the right to come in and search your office any time they want without any cause.
Reminds me of when we moved to a new office at our university.
The old office used to be a different department and they left behind a cabinet full of documents.
It was full of files of applicants, those who had applied to the department as faculty and students. Each of these files had all the recommendation letters.
I read through a whole bunch of recommendation letters to see how people write them. Most of them were really weird and would not be happy if the applicant read it.
They were not negative but not quite positive either. Just strange mostly.
I couldn't believe that they had just left confidential documents behind. I tried to get them to retrieve the documents but I got no reply. I was quite furious that I had to deal with their cabinets full of their crap and just left it all outside as trash to be picked up. Who knows who read them and what happened to them afterwards.
MIT's algorithm wasn't elegant. It was a complete failure. Still, it is being spun as some sort of success. They're blaming the field of algorithms. The brilliant and elegant men of MIT could not fail.
Slashdot economics experts: China has been bullying other countries economically for decades and unfairly favoring its own companies. We have to do something about it before its too late. The longer we wait the more painful it will be.
After Trump........
Slashdot economics experts: WAAA Trump did something China didn't like and they gave me a booboo. Waaa we must never offend china to keep cheap chinese goods forever!
This is cowardice and very un-American.
We promote freedom, democracy, prosperity and pursuit of happiness.
We're not goons who think in terms of having to do something about that guy.
From what I have seen so far Chinese papers are universally fraud. I am on peer review lists for a number of papers, and from what I have seen it is mostly junk papers that are coming out of China. Not just language, that can be forgiven/edited, but bad methods, obviously cooked data, blatant plagiarism.
They don't have publish or perish. Why's the incentive?
3D printer in every home will fundamentally change human society
IoT internet connected belt buckles and toothbrushes will take over the world
AI will revolutionize consumer electronics
Net PC from Sun will dominate the computer industry (this one is really old)
I don't know about home but it plays a big part in manufacturing. There are very specialized and successful medical companies that use 3d printing.
Don't know about belt buckles but fitbit, apple watch, garmin has been worth billions of dollars and fundamentally changed the way a lot of people do things.
I don't know about NetPC but what about the cloud? The hype that we would all put all our stuff in the cloud blah blah actually materialized. There are many companies who own no hardware except the dev laptops.
NVidia uses AI to do real time ray tracing. People use AI to talk to their smartphones for dictation or when driving. AI generates news bleeps. Google uses AI for search (text and image). AI is used to show ads on websites. In fact AI in advertising is so effective that it was upend the entire political spectrum of the US. AI beats the best players in the world in games like Go and DOTA.
I did not see any example where someone says: "I did not buy that product because it lacked AI".
I did not hear from anyone that they need AI so they are going out of their way to buy it. In its current form AI is good for pattern recognition in some cases, for example, face identification in photos.
The only customers are corporations with massive collections of personal data to analyze, but not individual consumers.
I believe AI has been over-hyped and pushed in areas where it is not usable in its current form (like self-driving cars) and we start to see the backlash.
I've already seen stories saying that the medical diagnoses made by IBM's Watson are just plain wrong. More examples will follow.
What about Google home and Alexa?
How do you recognize pedestrians in self-driving cars without AI?
IBM Watson was wrong quite a bit but it won jeopardy.
College costs have been rising and is expected to be financed by student loans. Student loans are now mostly private with up to 8% in interest rates.
It makes no financial sense to get yourself in $40,000-$50,000 in debt to get a humanities degree. Doing this will actually decrease your earnings as you have to make payments with 8% interest rates.
You can get the same knowledge with MOOCs.
Those majors are only for the independently wealthy now, not for the average person.
I'm a net neutrality proponent and... this doesn't seem to have anything to do with net neutrality.
It does in the sense that ISP will act in their best economic interests by manipulating data delivery.
If they can throttle firefighters fighting a wildfire for their own economic interests, they will do so for regular people using net neutrality if it is in their economic best interests.
42% of "gig-economy" couriers and taxi drivers reported vehicle damage because of a collision
How does that compare to the general public? how about when corrected per vehicle mile/hour?
Of course an Uber or Taxi driver is going to be more likely to get into a collision since they drive more. I drive 20 minutes in the morning and evening on familiar routes that I've driven hundreds of times before. I deliberately avoid congested downtown areas when I drive, choosing off-peak times to drive downtown whenever possible.
A car-share driver is in the car all day long, called out to areas throughout the city and beyond in areas were he may have never been, and his busiest time is also the most congested time, he can't change his work hours to avoid congestion since that's exactly the times his customers most want to travel.
Over-confidence also leads to crashes. If you drive a route 200 times, your brain will start ignoring things because they don't happen often. But, when it does happen, you might end up in a crash.
If you drive to a new place, you'll be constantly tailgated by people who drive there regularly. Familiarity with a route does not necessarily make you a safer driver, most often time it makes you a more aggressive driver.
Plus Uber drivers are not going to be on the phone or texting on the phone.
Not only has millions of tonnes of greenhouses gases been produced due to mining, it has also produced millions of graphics cards that are now useless due to being fried alive by mining, which will now be in a third world waste dump now as they are too hard to recycle. meanwhile bona fide users of graphics cards have had their supplies disrupted, had their prices more than doubled and have had to wait an extra year for new hardare to come out because nvidia was too busy making mining cards to do r&d. Anyone who made “money” from mining should have it seized under environmental protection laws.
Actually NVidia got lots of money by selling their cards for cryptocurrency mining which they then used to hire more engineers to do R&D for their next generation of cards.
Like almost every company that was producing chips for mining, they are now pivoting to AI.
H1-B is, at its core, a mechanism for re-distributing wealth from richer countries to poorer ones. Which doesn't sound like a bad thing, until I look more closely. Then I see the companies that are importing cheap labour, are simultaneously taking advantage of tax breaks, concessions, and taxation-funded infrastructure. So to a fairly large extent, the companies aren't re-distributing their own wealth - they're exporting money that taxpayers legitimately expect to be spent in their own jurisdictions and for their own interests.
There should be two classes of corporations. Those that oink away at the public tax trough, should be required to hire locally. Those who DON'T get tax breaks and other government subsidies, can hire whomever they want from wherever they want. I can't think of a single major corporation that falls into that second category - and I'm pretty sure that category would remain empty even if my 'two classes' idea was actually implemented and enforced. So why aren't we forcing corporations to hire locally? I guess it's because government isn't "by the people, and for the people". That needs to change.
If you really think about it, it is actually the opposite.
A foreign country's tax payers bears all the costs of raising a child, 15+ years of education and then US just swoops in and gets to use the most productive years of the engineer. On top of that, US gets to choose the most best engineers of those who want to come.
H1Bs also have to pay taxes. Also have to spend money on housing, transportation, health care that goes into the local economy. On top of that, they cannot be displacing an American employee.
Actually H1B is a movement of wealth from a poorer country to a richer country.
What you've said is corporations not paying taxes which is different than hiring H1Bs. They could hire Americans and not pay taxes.
There is a hidden tax in hiring H1Bs which is lawyer costs and H1B fees to the government. So, there is a clear incentive to hire local.
I cared in 1998 when windows was unstable and unreliable. Windows 10 runs rock solid for steam gaming, what problem are we solving here? I guess freeing people from the evil of Microsoft is an admirable goal, but it all seems so early 2000s
I don't want to have to boot to windows to play games.
Slashdot Mirror
and eating too much. probably more the fault.
No.
The cause of obesity is the body storing fat beyond 20% of the body weight
Nobody got fat eating too much celery.
The indictment alleges conspiracy to steal secrets. Which is slightly different than actually having stolen secrets. Thus the company needs to actually dispute this by saying "we didn't plan to steal secrets" or "the stolen secrets we received were not known to be stolen by us". Simply saying they didn't steal the secrets isn't a denial.
the path here is indirect and while showing the pattern of a conspiracy has many layers of companies fronting this operation. It's not entirely unlike how Uber ended up with Waymo desgins
from the primary source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...
According to the indictment, the defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to steal the trade secrets of Micron Technology, Inc. (Micron), a leader in the global semiconductor industry specializing in the advanced research, development, and manufacturing of memory products, including dynamic random-access memory (DRAM). DRAM is a leading-edge memory storage device used in computer electronics. Micron is the only United States-based company that manufactures DRAM. According to the indictment, Micron maintains a significant competitive advantage in this field due in large part from its intellectual property, including its trade secrets that include detailed, confidential information pertaining to the design, development, and manufacturing of advanced DRAM products.
Prior to the events described in the indictment, the PRC did not possess DRAM technology, and the Central Government and State Council of the PRC publicly identified the development of DRAM and other microelectronics technology as a national economic priority. The criminal defendants are United Microelectronics Corporation (“UMC”), a Taiwan semiconductor foundry; Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit, Co., Ltd. (“Jinhua'”), a state-owned enterprise of the PRC; and three Taiwan nationals: Chen Zhengkun, a.k.a. Stephen Chen, age 55; He Jianting, a.k.a. J.T. Ho, age 42; and Wang Yungming, a.k.a. Kenny Wang, age 44. UMC is a publicly listed semiconductor foundry company traded on the New York Stock Exchange; is headquartered in Taiwan; and has offices worldwide, including in Sunnyvale, California. UMC mass produces integrated-circuit logic products based on designs and technology developed and provided by its customers. Jinhua is a state-owned enterprise of the PRC, funded entirely by the Chinese government, and established in February 2016 for the sole purpose of designing, developing, and manufacturing DRAM.
According to the indictment, Chen was a General Manager and Chairman of an electronics corporation that Micron acquired in 2013. Chen then became the president of a Micron subsidiary in Taiwan, Micron Memory Taiwan (“MMT”), responsible for manufacturing at least one of Micron’s DRAM chips. Chen resigned from MMT in July 2015 and began working at UMC almost immediately. While at UMC, Chen arranged a cooperation agreement between UMC and Fujian Jinhua whereby, with funding from Fujian Jinhua, UMC would transfer DRAM technology to Fujian Jinhua to mass-produce. The technology would be jointly shared by both UMC and Fujian Jinhua. Chen later became the President of Jinhua and was put in charge of its DRAM production facility.
While at UMC, Chen recruited numerous MMT employees, including Ho and Wang, to join him at UMC. Prior to leaving MMT, Ho and Wang both stole and brought to UMC several Micron trade secrets related to the design and manufacture of DRAM. Wang downloaded over 900 Micron confidential and proprietary files before he left MMT and stored them on USB external hard drives or in personal cloud storage, from where he could access the technology while working at UMC.
The only thing that can be construed as bad is any of this is accessing files from your previous company after you have left the
We all know that we need universal health care and UBI.
Yet, a small powerful segment of society will always fight it and postpone it.
As a result of advertising and disinformation, we actually end up fighting ideas that should be very beneficial for us individually and as a society.
We are beyond the talk of why to implement it. We should be talking about how.
Yet America voted in a President who discounts the opinion of scientists because he thinks they have a political agenda. And in the UK a leading proponent of Brexit advises "who needs experts" and the UK duly votes to leave against the advice of experts. People are keenly interested in the views of people they regard as leaders. Stephen Hawking was a brilliant thinker and I for one am interested in his conclusions.
The whole AI stance seems like a Pauling's Vitamin C moment for Hawking.
I can imagine the conversation at Amazon...
"Goddamnit! The top CV's picked from this impartial unbiased machine learning algorithm are all men! It must be discriminating against women somehow, even though we aren't including gender in any of the data. Tweak it until more women pop out, or we're fucked once this gets out on Twitter..."
Maybe it *was* picking the best ones... and men just make better software engineers?
Yeah, yeah, sorry double plus ungood thoughtcrime. Warm up room 101...
Substitute women with H1B.
Top CVs picked are H1Bs. Double ungood though-felony!!
just remove the gender part of the application form, or otherwise obscure it so the AI doesn't factor it in. Surely they've thought of this?
There are other parts of the application that can be used to easily infer gender.
This has bee the same problem with race as well. For example, your address has a very indicator of your race.
Why not go all the way and say physics was built by white, affluent men who went to certain universities and lived in certain cities.
Physics was never done by the peasant class. Historically they were nobles. In the modern age, they are mostly affluent or middle class. No physicists I know has a working class background.
Physics was mostly done by white men of certain countries living in certain cities.
Most physics comes from education and work in certain institutions. There is virtually chance of making any impact from Bumfark state university.
I'm sure there is lots and lots of data to support all of this.
Why stop at men and women? Go all out. Physics would progress best if all of them were selected based on their university, family class, race etc based on historical data.
I agree with what you are saying, and was planning to post a similar response about how grade can be meaningless in a lot of cases. But instead, your post made me wonder what counts as "expertise"?
I think beyond "clearly an expert" and "clearly not an expert" it all gets very murky. I would be good to be able to measure it, but I don't know how you could do it. The Dunning-Kruger effect comes into play.
I remember when I interviewed for my current job, which is mostly a Windows shop, one of the architects asked me about my proficiency with Linux. I said that I had switched to it in '99 and never looked back. He said "oh, so you're an expert at it" and I assured him that I was not an expert. I said that I knew enough about it to know that there is so much more that I don't know. He tested me with a few questions like what distro I ran, how I would do this or that. I tried not to geek out in my answers, but he could tell I wasn't faking it.
As a manager, I always find it interesting, and quite disheartening, when interviewing candidates about their technical skills. It seems that candidates now like to categorize their skills by expertise levels. It's kind of disheartening when someone says they are an expert in Linux and they have no answer to "vi or emacs?". Or they don't know what grep is. I once had someone who "helped architect and implement in AWS". Since we were building a platform on AWS, I asked him about his experience with that. He admitted that he had NEVER worked in AWS.
So as I said, it would be nice to be able to measure expertise, I don't see how you could realistically actually do that.
I think completely different scenarios.
In a classroom, I teach a course, give them work, grade their work and compare their work to give a grade. At the end of the semester, I have a good understanding of their level of expertise of the student in the course material and the prerequisite knowledge that they have to have to do the course.
Interviewing candidates is a different problem. You're looking for expertise in content that you are familiar with and the candidate is not.
A coworker of mine said that interviewing is a game of chance. You get the job where you know the answers to the questions asked in the interview. His ratio was 10-20 interviews to one job.
When I taught math or science, the girls were always among the top of the class.
The main reason was that they cared about their grades.
However, they never seemed to enjoy geeking out or talking about things that weren't going to be on the test.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Girls would invest in coming to class, taking notes, coming to study and tutoring sessions and really asking for help when they needed it.
Guys weren't as social. Some guys would have problems and not ask for help and do horribly in the end.
Grades are very artificial. They can be gamed since the teacher is giving the grade (it's not a third party assessment). You can get As and not learn much but also get a D and learn a lot.
What really should be looked at is expertise and not grades.
Of course, with every generalization I've made, I remember plenty of exceptions.
Yes, why doesn't the government have a system like that...
The E-Verify system has its problems.
We were forced to use it when we hired international students - basically recently foreign graduates.
It requires every hire must be subjected to the E-Verify system. You cannot check someone and not others.
It has some false positives and can delay work. You have to get the green light from E-Verify before the person start the work. If for some reason the e-verify system goofs up (some record some department hasn't updated somewhere), which it did a few times, you have to wait for the system.
Last, it forces you to agree on a small clause that gives DHS the right to come in and search your office any time they want without any cause.
Reminds me of when we moved to a new office at our university.
The old office used to be a different department and they left behind a cabinet full of documents.
It was full of files of applicants, those who had applied to the department as faculty and students. Each of these files had all the recommendation letters.
I read through a whole bunch of recommendation letters to see how people write them. Most of them were really weird and would not be happy if the applicant read it.
They were not negative but not quite positive either. Just strange mostly.
I couldn't believe that they had just left confidential documents behind. I tried to get them to retrieve the documents but I got no reply. I was quite furious that I had to deal with their cabinets full of their crap and just left it all outside as trash to be picked up. Who knows who read them and what happened to them afterwards.
MIT's algorithm wasn't elegant. It was a complete failure. Still, it is being spun as some sort of success. They're blaming the field of algorithms. The brilliant and elegant men of MIT could not fail.
All this university branding ...
China developed this huge industry around bitcoin ASICs and mining.
The excess capacity can now be used to make AI chips.
As the cliche goes, "every future product will have a little bit of AI in them"
Slashdot economics experts: China has been bullying other countries economically for decades and unfairly favoring its own companies. We have to do something about it before its too late. The longer we wait the more painful it will be. After Trump ........
Slashdot economics experts: WAAA Trump did something China didn't like and they gave me a booboo. Waaa we must never offend china to keep cheap chinese goods forever!
This is cowardice and very un-American.
We promote freedom, democracy, prosperity and pursuit of happiness.
We're not goons who think in terms of having to do something about that guy.
Don't let fear turn you into a coward.
If current generation 'brake by wire' passes, the standard isn't close to good enough.
Are you talking about the Toyota's "sudden acceleration" problems from 10 years ago?
Give it to them. Make them all develop ECUs using FAA 'commercial air' software standards!
That's not what they meant? Too bad for them, it's what they need.
There are plenty of ISO standards for ECUs. ISO 26262
From what I have seen so far Chinese papers are universally fraud. I am on peer review lists for a number of papers, and from what I have seen it is mostly junk papers that are coming out of China. Not just language, that can be forgiven/edited, but bad methods, obviously cooked data, blatant plagiarism.
They don't have publish or perish. Why's the incentive?
3D printer in every home will fundamentally change human society
IoT internet connected belt buckles and toothbrushes will take over the world
AI will revolutionize consumer electronics
Net PC from Sun will dominate the computer industry (this one is really old)
I don't know about home but it plays a big part in manufacturing. There are very specialized and successful medical companies that use 3d printing.
Don't know about belt buckles but fitbit, apple watch, garmin has been worth billions of dollars and fundamentally changed the way a lot of people do things.
I don't know about NetPC but what about the cloud? The hype that we would all put all our stuff in the cloud blah blah actually materialized. There are many companies who own no hardware except the dev laptops.
NVidia uses AI to do real time ray tracing. People use AI to talk to their smartphones for dictation or when driving. AI generates news bleeps. Google uses AI for search (text and image). AI is used to show ads on websites. In fact AI in advertising is so effective that it was upend the entire political spectrum of the US. AI beats the best players in the world in games like Go and DOTA.
I did not see any example where someone says: "I did not buy that product because it lacked AI".
I did not hear from anyone that they need AI so they are going out of their way to buy it. In its current form AI is good for pattern recognition in some cases, for example, face identification in photos. The only customers are corporations with massive collections of personal data to analyze, but not individual consumers. I believe AI has been over-hyped and pushed in areas where it is not usable in its current form (like self-driving cars) and we start to see the backlash.
I've already seen stories saying that the medical diagnoses made by IBM's Watson are just plain wrong. More examples will follow.
What about Google home and Alexa?
How do you recognize pedestrians in self-driving cars without AI?
IBM Watson was wrong quite a bit but it won jeopardy.
College costs have been rising and is expected to be financed by student loans. Student loans are now mostly private with up to 8% in interest rates.
It makes no financial sense to get yourself in $40,000-$50,000 in debt to get a humanities degree. Doing this will actually decrease your earnings as you have to make payments with 8% interest rates.
You can get the same knowledge with MOOCs.
Those majors are only for the independently wealthy now, not for the average person.
I'm a net neutrality proponent and ... this doesn't seem to have anything to do with net neutrality.
It does in the sense that ISP will act in their best economic interests by manipulating data delivery.
If they can throttle firefighters fighting a wildfire for their own economic interests, they will do so for regular people using net neutrality if it is in their economic best interests.
42% of "gig-economy" couriers and taxi drivers reported vehicle damage because of a collision
How does that compare to the general public? how about when corrected per vehicle mile/hour?
Of course an Uber or Taxi driver is going to be more likely to get into a collision since they drive more. I drive 20 minutes in the morning and evening on familiar routes that I've driven hundreds of times before. I deliberately avoid congested downtown areas when I drive, choosing off-peak times to drive downtown whenever possible.
A car-share driver is in the car all day long, called out to areas throughout the city and beyond in areas were he may have never been, and his busiest time is also the most congested time, he can't change his work hours to avoid congestion since that's exactly the times his customers most want to travel.
Over-confidence also leads to crashes. If you drive a route 200 times, your brain will start ignoring things because they don't happen often. But, when it does happen, you might end up in a crash.
If you drive to a new place, you'll be constantly tailgated by people who drive there regularly. Familiarity with a route does not necessarily make you a safer driver, most often time it makes you a more aggressive driver.
Plus Uber drivers are not going to be on the phone or texting on the phone.
Not only has millions of tonnes of greenhouses gases been produced due to mining, it has also produced millions of graphics cards that are now useless due to being fried alive by mining, which will now be in a third world waste dump now as they are too hard to recycle. meanwhile bona fide users of graphics cards have had their supplies disrupted, had their prices more than doubled and have had to wait an extra year for new hardare to come out because nvidia was too busy making mining cards to do r&d. Anyone who made “money” from mining should have it seized under environmental protection laws.
Actually NVidia got lots of money by selling their cards for cryptocurrency mining which they then used to hire more engineers to do R&D for their next generation of cards.
Like almost every company that was producing chips for mining, they are now pivoting to AI.
H1-B is, at its core, a mechanism for re-distributing wealth from richer countries to poorer ones. Which doesn't sound like a bad thing, until I look more closely. Then I see the companies that are importing cheap labour, are simultaneously taking advantage of tax breaks, concessions, and taxation-funded infrastructure. So to a fairly large extent, the companies aren't re-distributing their own wealth - they're exporting money that taxpayers legitimately expect to be spent in their own jurisdictions and for their own interests.
There should be two classes of corporations. Those that oink away at the public tax trough, should be required to hire locally. Those who DON'T get tax breaks and other government subsidies, can hire whomever they want from wherever they want. I can't think of a single major corporation that falls into that second category - and I'm pretty sure that category would remain empty even if my 'two classes' idea was actually implemented and enforced. So why aren't we forcing corporations to hire locally? I guess it's because government isn't "by the people, and for the people". That needs to change.
If you really think about it, it is actually the opposite.
A foreign country's tax payers bears all the costs of raising a child, 15+ years of education and then US just swoops in and gets to use the most productive years of the engineer. On top of that, US gets to choose the most best engineers of those who want to come.
H1Bs also have to pay taxes. Also have to spend money on housing, transportation, health care that goes into the local economy. On top of that, they cannot be displacing an American employee.
Actually H1B is a movement of wealth from a poorer country to a richer country.
What you've said is corporations not paying taxes which is different than hiring H1Bs. They could hire Americans and not pay taxes.
There is a hidden tax in hiring H1Bs which is lawyer costs and H1B fees to the government. So, there is a clear incentive to hire local.
Does anyone still care?
I cared in 1998 when windows was unstable and unreliable. Windows 10 runs rock solid for steam gaming, what problem are we solving here? I guess freeing people from the evil of Microsoft is an admirable goal, but it all seems so early 2000s
I don't want to have to boot to windows to play games.