... unless you wish to see massive poverty, stagnation of social mobility and the creation of a permanent underclass of people similar to the situation European economies saw in the 1800s in the wake of the industrial revolution.
Yeah man. I remember those days and it was not pretty. We definitely don't want that again.
No he's just a jack-of-all-trades that doesn't know a whole lot when it comes to computers.
Give him a welder and some random metal scraps and I'm sure he could come up with something nice. My point was simply that there are a lot of people like him, not just the older folks.
I was talking with my cousin over the weekend and he thought programming was just sitting at a computer inputing data from spreadsheets. The hard truth is, developers are sitting in front of a computer making things happen. It can't be that hard cause they're just sitting in front of a computer, right? AMIRITE?!
If its affecting future projects and delivery dates, then yes I'm doing it wrong. Perfect code, most of the time, does not pay the bills. Not in today's world.
The sales team fucked that one up, and it's definitely nice of you to help them out. Just don't let them take advantage of you by making it a habit.
While there's something to be said about forcing optimized workflows for them to at least semi-make it a habit (to get ahead of the competition, grow, and get rid of useless process), I agree.
Sometimes you do need those insane moments. Otherwise it'll stay "business as usual" and suddenly the next guy is outpacing you and you've no idea why.
There are also situations where you either live with it, or you find another company to work for.
Example: Sales commits to a date for a very important product delivery to a customer. They fucked up, but now it has to happen or we're in deep. While these situations are not the norm, they are definitely a thing, and I don't handle moments of pressure by walking out on the job like a prissy snowflake because I now can't write my code to be perfect. Rewards tend to follow.
I understand where you're coming from. I'd appreciate if you'd understand where I'm coming from instead of dismissing me as a lazy developer who browses Reddit all day.
I get what you're saying, but almost everything you said there applies to actual people.
Let me expand on that a little:
AlphaGo does not know what Go is, does not know why it intends to win, does not know what a board game is, does not know what else it might choose to do instead. It will never know who they are playing against and why they are playing. It will never know what it means to want to lose. It will never contemplate why its entire known existence is this Go board and training data. It will never be able to "know thyself".
What you stated here would essentially make a human Go player BETTER at the game if they could apply these in real-time, except for the "does not know what Go is", as I'm pretty sure both the computer and human need to know this to even play the game at all.
Who cares why you "intend" to win? Who cares what a board game is? As long as you know the rules of Go. Who cares what you might choose to do instead? As long as you make the right move everytime. Who cares who you're playing against? As long as you crush them. Why the fuck would you want to lose? Why would you contemplate your existence during a match of Go?
That's not usually development's fault though. Tight deadlines driven by people who don't code's decisions usually end up in the state most corporate code is in.
I have no idea what you just said. I also wasn't suggesting anything, although since we're on the subject of intelligence tests, I'd like to add a little.
Why would we have intelligence tests at all? So we can determine someone is "dumb" only to have them discover some new theory in Physics because their brain isn't wired like your average person? What if I don't know what a "cow" is, but can still put that white and black-spotted (vice-versa?) animal to use for its milk and meat? Does that not make me intelligent?
To finish, there's plenty of "intelligent" people out there. I wouldn't want to be lost in the woods with well over 90% of them.
No, playing games is not AI. But a computer playing a game against a human is very much AI, because if the player is unaware that their opponent is a computer, they could reasonably determine that Player 2 is intelligent (because it's making logical moves on the game), although the kicker here is that this intelligence is in fact artificial.
If you rearrange those two keywords a little you end up with Artificial Intelligence. Go figure huh?
The need for banks of phages makes regulatory testing for safety harder and more expensive under current rules in most countries. Such a process would make difficult the large-scale use of phage therapy. Additionally, patent issues (specifically on living organisms) may complicate distribution for pharmaceutical companies wishing to have exclusive rights over their "invention", which would discourage a commercial corporation from investing capital in this.
Gas stations count on gas purchasers. That's how they make the bulk of their income. The automated pumps that you see "everywhere" are what you call competition. Someone did it, people who preferred the convenience of it went to that store, and others noticed, so they integrated. It's simple stuff really...
Do the convenience stores in question lose out because of it? Yes. Although I'm sure some stations bump up their fuel price a bit to offset. No two stores around here seem to have the same price, it'll vary by at least 2-3 cents around town, with a couple extremes of course.
Do you believe gas station business owners (or convenience stores to be proper, as the "gas" will likely be phased out from the "station" sooner than later) won't just have charging stations installed? The whole point for them is to bring customers into the store so they buy stuff.
This is why you often see contests like "Fill a ballot to win 60" TV with $20 spent on fuel!" They're not trying to sell more fuel, they're trying to get people to go into the store rather than pay at the pump, for example.
Not that I'm thinking on this subject, the pumps will probably stay there anyways, and be sized down considerably (probably down to 1-2 pumps) when they are required by law to change their fuel tanks. The charging stations will then take up the new extra room, at which point EVs will be all over the place.
Where they do stand to lose however is in supporting both, because the cost of installation is on them.
It is reasonable, yes. It is also reasonable as a driver to expect cyclists and pedestrians to not act like the roads aren't full of huge moving pieces of iron.
Risk management is a team effort. If we ban drivers we might as well ban everyone from the roads entirely unless they're inside an autonomous vehicle.
What do you think is going to happen when kids catch on that if they jump in front of an auto-vehicle, that that vehicle swerves in another direction into a wall? I'll let you think about that. Have fun figuring out who's accountable for every incident too, humans are crafty little fuckers. Especially the children.
Young people are no longer fascinated by the iron cages stuck in traffic.
No, but taking a drive in the country is something else entirely. I rather enjoy my iron cage with the windows rolled down, the wind in my hair, a long walk on the beach and a cool drink in my hand.
Maybe some subset of idiots are scared of surprise, but don't dump all of us into the same basket. If someone doesn't want to watch a movie because he's scared something that wasn't in trailer is going to happen then I mean... fuck that person is a lost cause anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
... unless you wish to see massive poverty, stagnation of social mobility and the creation of a permanent underclass of people similar to the situation European economies saw in the 1800s in the wake of the industrial revolution.
Yeah man. I remember those days and it was not pretty. We definitely don't want that again.
:) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No he's just a jack-of-all-trades that doesn't know a whole lot when it comes to computers.
Give him a welder and some random metal scraps and I'm sure he could come up with something nice.
My point was simply that there are a lot of people like him, not just the older folks.
I was talking with my cousin over the weekend and he thought programming was just sitting at a computer inputing data from spreadsheets.
The hard truth is, developers are sitting in front of a computer making things happen. It can't be that hard cause they're just sitting in front of a computer, right?
AMIRITE?!
A clear example of what the Earth will look like in less than 50 years!
And I can't help but completely agree with that.
If its affecting future projects and delivery dates, then yes I'm doing it wrong.
Perfect code, most of the time, does not pay the bills. Not in today's world.
The sales team fucked that one up, and it's definitely nice of you to help them out. Just don't let them take advantage of you by making it a habit.
While there's something to be said about forcing optimized workflows for them to at least semi-make it a habit (to get ahead of the competition, grow, and get rid of useless process), I agree.
Sometimes you do need those insane moments. Otherwise it'll stay "business as usual" and suddenly the next guy is outpacing you and you've no idea why.
There are also situations where you either live with it, or you find another company to work for.
Example: Sales commits to a date for a very important product delivery to a customer. They fucked up, but now it has to happen or we're in deep.
While these situations are not the norm, they are definitely a thing, and I don't handle moments of pressure by walking out on the job like a prissy snowflake because I now can't write my code to be perfect. Rewards tend to follow.
I understand where you're coming from. I'd appreciate if you'd understand where I'm coming from instead of dismissing me as a lazy developer who browses Reddit all day.
You've never been turned down an estimate, have you?
That or you've had excellent managers. I envy you.
Ho ho ho! Look at you!
I get what you're saying, but almost everything you said there applies to actual people.
Let me expand on that a little :
AlphaGo does not know what Go is, does not know why it intends to win, does not know what a board game is, does not know what else it might choose to do instead. It will never know who they are playing against and why they are playing. It will never know what it means to want to lose. It will never contemplate why its entire known existence is this Go board and training data. It will never be able to "know thyself".
What you stated here would essentially make a human Go player BETTER at the game if they could apply these in real-time, except for the "does not know what Go is", as I'm pretty sure both the computer and human need to know this to even play the game at all.
Who cares why you "intend" to win? Who cares what a board game is? As long as you know the rules of Go. Who cares what you might choose to do instead? As long as you make the right move everytime. Who cares who you're playing against? As long as you crush them. Why the fuck would you want to lose? Why would you contemplate your existence during a match of Go?
Do you understand?
That's not usually development's fault though.
Tight deadlines driven by people who don't code's decisions usually end up in the state most corporate code is in.
I have no idea what you just said. I also wasn't suggesting anything, although since we're on the subject of intelligence tests, I'd like to add a little.
Why would we have intelligence tests at all? So we can determine someone is "dumb" only to have them discover some new theory in Physics because their brain isn't wired like your average person? What if I don't know what a "cow" is, but can still put that white and black-spotted (vice-versa?) animal to use for its milk and meat? Does that not make me intelligent?
To finish, there's plenty of "intelligent" people out there. I wouldn't want to be lost in the woods with well over 90% of them.
No, playing games is not AI. But a computer playing a game against a human is very much AI, because if the player is unaware that their opponent is a computer, they could reasonably determine that Player 2 is intelligent (because it's making logical moves on the game), although the kicker here is that this intelligence is in fact artificial.
If you rearrange those two keywords a little you end up with Artificial Intelligence. Go figure huh?
The same.
The difference is that the level of play and thought process goes much deeper than what any human being is capable of processing.
From the Wiki article:
The need for banks of phages makes regulatory testing for safety harder and more expensive under current rules in most countries. Such a process would make difficult the large-scale use of phage therapy. Additionally, patent issues (specifically on living organisms) may complicate distribution for pharmaceutical companies wishing to have exclusive rights over their "invention", which would discourage a commercial corporation from investing capital in this.
Unfortunate.
That's what they want you to believe. It's actually a Russian hoax, but don't tell anyone I told you that.
Gas stations count on gas purchasers. That's how they make the bulk of their income. The automated pumps that you see "everywhere" are what you call competition. Someone did it, people who preferred the convenience of it went to that store, and others noticed, so they integrated. It's simple stuff really...
Do the convenience stores in question lose out because of it? Yes. Although I'm sure some stations bump up their fuel price a bit to offset. No two stores around here seem to have the same price, it'll vary by at least 2-3 cents around town, with a couple extremes of course.
Do you believe gas station business owners (or convenience stores to be proper, as the "gas" will likely be phased out from the "station" sooner than later) won't just have charging stations installed? The whole point for them is to bring customers into the store so they buy stuff.
This is why you often see contests like "Fill a ballot to win 60" TV with $20 spent on fuel!" They're not trying to sell more fuel, they're trying to get people to go into the store rather than pay at the pump, for example.
Not that I'm thinking on this subject, the pumps will probably stay there anyways, and be sized down considerably (probably down to 1-2 pumps) when they are required by law to change their fuel tanks. The charging stations will then take up the new extra room, at which point EVs will be all over the place.
Where they do stand to lose however is in supporting both, because the cost of installation is on them.
It is reasonable, yes. It is also reasonable as a driver to expect cyclists and pedestrians to not act like the roads aren't full of huge moving pieces of iron.
Risk management is a team effort. If we ban drivers we might as well ban everyone from the roads entirely unless they're inside an autonomous vehicle.
What do you think is going to happen when kids catch on that if they jump in front of an auto-vehicle, that that vehicle swerves in another direction into a wall? I'll let you think about that. Have fun figuring out who's accountable for every incident too, humans are crafty little fuckers. Especially the children.
Young people are no longer fascinated by the iron cages stuck in traffic.
No, but taking a drive in the country is something else entirely. I rather enjoy my iron cage with the windows rolled down, the wind in my hair, a long walk on the beach and a cool drink in my hand.
Category 7 Hurricanadoes
Maybe some subset of idiots are scared of surprise, but don't dump all of us into the same basket.
If someone doesn't want to watch a movie because he's scared something that wasn't in trailer is going to happen then I mean... fuck that person is a lost cause anyways.
No, shark tornados.