It's hard to say exactly why he got canned, really.
Trump said it himself.
“And it took guts for Director Comey to make the move that he made in light of the kind of opposition he had where they’re trying to protect her from criminal prosecution. You know that. It took a lot of guts.”
“I was not his fan,” he added, “but I’ll tell you what: What he did, he brought back his reputation. He brought it back.”
“A lot of people want him to do the wrong thing,” Trump suggested. “What he did was the right thing.”
I've worked with software developers from India, Israel, France, Mexico and the U.S., and each group has run the gamut from excellent to atrocious.
Funny how this restaurant that charges $150+ for a dinner for two is just one block from McDonalds in my town. Yet somehow they haven't gone out of business.
You are comparing apples to oranges, my friend. Does that expensive restaurant serve McDonald's-quality food simply jacked up to a higher price? I sincerely doubt that. Now I'm not saying that paying more always gets you more, but your example is obviously flawed.
The question isn't whether they passed the test or not. The problem is that they are grading the total number of people who can do X by looking at how many can tackle one specific problem in the space of X in an hour. It's equivalent to declaring that only 10% of people can run because only 10% were able to run a 6-minute mile.
There is a reason why 0x7F is "DELETE" in the ASCII table, because in the days of 7-bit punch cards, if a "typo" was made, punching down all 7 bits was the way to clear it!
That makes perfect sense, fits with how a programmer would think, and I've never heard any competing theories. Thus, it's most likely totally wrong.
No one is claiming human progress itself is dangerous. But some technologies humans have employed are dangerous. It behooves us to figure out which ones are and stop doing them. Stop being such a simpleton or feigning ignorance.
In this case, burning fossil fuels to transport an iceberg will exacerbate the problems of climate change. It will also speed up sea level rise—especially if more countries follow suit—because while the ice may melt less quickly than you'd think, it still melts more quickly at the equator than at the poles.
Is this the first shot fired in the water war to come?
Net Neutrality is that set of rules that allow bicycles to share the roads with cars. Without those rules, road providers would certainly limit their roads to delivery vehicles and charge them for access. Sure, cyclists could pay those fees to gain access as well, but would quickly be priced out of the market.
Your entire post argues for the existance of Net Neutrality.
Oracle is going to make a ton of money selling user tracking databases.
Really? Oracle master plan is to crush net neutrality so they can sell more database licenses to "track users"?
Yes, as you said, duh. Do you recall when Oracle billed California for per-user database licenses based not on the number of users accessing the database but rather the number of citizens in the database?
What's next, Staples will jump in so they can sell more pens to Netflix who will sign a bunch of checks to ISP? How the fuck can people come up with such ridiculous theories is beyond me.
Given that super-realistic Netflix check-signing scenario you envisioned, I can see how it would be hard to imagine or assess the actual possibilities.
"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." - Obama
counted Obama using the words "I," "me," and "my" a total of 199 times in a 2014 speech where he vowed to use executive orders to bypass Congress if they wouldn't acquiesce to his agenda.
Unless the context you cut off started out, "I decided to save humanity from itself and signed EOs to curb carbon emissions because I alone know the dangers climate change poses to our species," your quote has nothing to do with changing timelines simply to allow taking credit for the achievements.
Right, Obama (or Clinton) makes the same pronouncement and you're all for it, Trump makes it and it is "EVIL!!!!!"
No, neither of them made it about themselves. At no point did you hear them say, "Well, we want to try and do it during my first term or, at worst, during my second term. Me! Me! Me!" [emphasis mine] Rather,
they deferred to the experts to come up with a reasonable schedule to maximize success and safety.
You fell into the common trap: since one thing is possible, all things must be possible.
And you fell into the common trap that because something is very, very hard it is impossible and should never be attempted. The very attempt of going into space and to the moon allowed us to produce many overwhelming technical advances that have affected day-to-day life.
Mars is nothing like the Earth. Nothing.
Oh, and here I was thinking Mars was a planet that orbits Sol, just like Earth. What is it then? A bowl of cherries?
Imagine living in the bottom of the sea, or on the North Pole.
Imagine living on Antarctica. Oh wait, people already are.
Just because you can run to the end of your block doesn't mean you can run a marathon either.
Well if you get off your ass, you can train to run a marathon in a few months. But that's just not fast enough for you, I guess, and thus it is impossible. Maybe just stand aside and let the grownups have a go.
Why would you expect the editors to be professionals programmers? Must they also be astronauts and chemical engineers? They are paid to pick submissions to place on the front page. They are clearly not experts in technical fields, nor should they need to be. Unfortunately, they are also not paid to edit those submissions for grammar or spelling.
No, the fault here lies squarely with Scientific American for publishing this drivel in the first place. WTF were they thinking? They really should have technical experts on hand—at least on call—for the hard stuff, but even their regular editors should have spotted this as the fluff piece it is.
Say you train an AI that will accept or reject loan applications by giving it a stack of previous loans. If the human loan officers were biased against minorities—rejecting otherwise acceptable applications—that AI may end up doing the same. This bias is much easier to detect in human behavior but less so with AI which can't explain why it made any particular choice or even what its criteria are.
Slashdot Mirror
In the same way that an STD test saying you have syphilis is useful. :p
AlphaGo.
They haven't blocked the site because that would be illegal. Once Title II status is revoked, then they will be free to block the site.
It's hard to say exactly why he got canned, really.
Trump said it himself.
“And it took guts for Director Comey to make the move that he made in light of the kind of opposition he had where they’re trying to protect her from criminal prosecution. You know that. It took a lot of guts.”
“I was not his fan,” he added, “but I’ll tell you what: What he did, he brought back his reputation. He brought it back.”
“A lot of people want him to do the wrong thing,” Trump suggested. “What he did was the right thing.”
So he obviously had to go.
Can we possibly sustain having Trump as our president? And uh, we're seeing how that's turning out now.
What d'ya mean? Everything's going great! What's that, crewman? Large iceberg off the port bow? I'm sure it'll be fine. This ship is unsinkable!
I've worked with software developers from India, Israel, France, Mexico and the U.S., and each group has run the gamut from excellent to atrocious.
Funny how this restaurant that charges $150+ for a dinner for two is just one block from McDonalds in my town. Yet somehow they haven't gone out of business.
You are comparing apples to oranges, my friend. Does that expensive restaurant serve McDonald's-quality food simply jacked up to a higher price? I sincerely doubt that. Now I'm not saying that paying more always gets you more, but your example is obviously flawed.
I can't even do that . . . and I work from home!
The question isn't whether they passed the test or not. The problem is that they are grading the total number of people who can do X by looking at how many can tackle one specific problem in the space of X in an hour. It's equivalent to declaring that only 10% of people can run because only 10% were able to run a 6-minute mile.
There is a reason why 0x7F is "DELETE" in the ASCII table, because in the days of 7-bit punch cards, if a "typo" was made, punching down all 7 bits was the way to clear it!
That makes perfect sense, fits with how a programmer would think, and I've never heard any competing theories. Thus, it's most likely totally wrong.
;)
No one is claiming human progress itself is dangerous. But some technologies humans have employed are dangerous. It behooves us to figure out which ones are and stop doing them. Stop being such a simpleton or feigning ignorance.
In this case, burning fossil fuels to transport an iceberg will exacerbate the problems of climate change. It will also speed up sea level rise—especially if more countries follow suit—because while the ice may melt less quickly than you'd think, it still melts more quickly at the equator than at the poles.
Is this the first shot fired in the water war to come?
Net Neutrality is that set of rules that allow bicycles to share the roads with cars. Without those rules, road providers would certainly limit their roads to delivery vehicles and charge them for access. Sure, cyclists could pay those fees to gain access as well, but would quickly be priced out of the market.
Your entire post argues for the existance of Net Neutrality.
Oracle is going to make a ton of money selling user tracking databases.
Really? Oracle master plan is to crush net neutrality so they can sell more database licenses to "track users"?
Yes, as you said, duh. Do you recall when Oracle billed California for per-user database licenses based not on the number of users accessing the database but rather the number of citizens in the database?
What's next, Staples will jump in so they can sell more pens to Netflix who will sign a bunch of checks to ISP? How the fuck can people come up with such ridiculous theories is beyond me.
Given that super-realistic Netflix check-signing scenario you envisioned, I can see how it would be hard to imagine or assess the actual possibilities.
No. I've tried running. I end up with injuries when my run goes over a couple of miles.
Therefore, it is impossible for a human being to run a marathon. Q.E.D.
"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." - Obama
counted Obama using the words "I," "me," and "my" a total of 199 times in a 2014 speech where he vowed to use executive orders to bypass Congress if they wouldn't acquiesce to his agenda.
Unless the context you cut off started out, "I decided to save humanity from itself and signed EOs to curb carbon emissions because I alone know the dangers climate change poses to our species," your quote has nothing to do with changing timelines simply to allow taking credit for the achievements.
I for one am very excited to read their pages on Tibet and Falun Gong.
Right, Obama (or Clinton) makes the same pronouncement and you're all for it, Trump makes it and it is "EVIL!!!!!"
No, neither of them made it about themselves. At no point did you hear them say, "Well, we want to try and do it during my first term or, at worst, during my second term. Me! Me! Me!" [emphasis mine] Rather, they deferred to the experts to come up with a reasonable schedule to maximize success and safety.
You fell into the common trap: since one thing is possible, all things must be possible.
And you fell into the common trap that because something is very, very hard it is impossible and should never be attempted. The very attempt of going into space and to the moon allowed us to produce many overwhelming technical advances that have affected day-to-day life.
Mars is nothing like the Earth. Nothing.
Oh, and here I was thinking Mars was a planet that orbits Sol, just like Earth. What is it then? A bowl of cherries?
Imagine living in the bottom of the sea, or on the North Pole.
Imagine living on Antarctica. Oh wait, people already are.
Just because you can run to the end of your block doesn't mean you can run a marathon either.
Well if you get off your ass, you can train to run a marathon in a few months. But that's just not fast enough for you, I guess, and thus it is impossible. Maybe just stand aside and let the grownups have a go.
Why would you expect the editors to be professionals programmers? Must they also be astronauts and chemical engineers? They are paid to pick submissions to place on the front page. They are clearly not experts in technical fields, nor should they need to be. Unfortunately, they are also not paid to edit those submissions for grammar or spelling.
No, the fault here lies squarely with Scientific American for publishing this drivel in the first place. WTF were they thinking? They really should have technical experts on hand—at least on call—for the hard stuff, but even their regular editors should have spotted this as the fluff piece it is.
It's going to be raining . . . sheep.
Gimme a nice MLT—mutton, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomatoes are ripe.
Did IMDB handle the voting?
An excellent example of why limited terms are a necessity, even if it means cutting short a good leader's reign.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people involved in WW1 aren't around anymore.
You want votes from real people who've actually seen the movie.
You'll probably only have about a 0.0001% false positive rate.
AIs could incorporate existing biases.
Say you train an AI that will accept or reject loan applications by giving it a stack of previous loans. If the human loan officers were biased against minorities—rejecting otherwise acceptable applications—that AI may end up doing the same. This bias is much easier to detect in human behavior but less so with AI which can't explain why it made any particular choice or even what its criteria are.