So they are counting the bots and people with multiple accounts. AI-s are people too aren't they? If I have multiple personalities, can't someone use which ever account they feel comfortable with at the time. Can't we all accept each other without judging. Why should we let mere-biology facts dictate our biases?;^)
Or are we supposed to be hating on this (sometimes I forget, it's so complicated)...
FYI paper already published. Here's the final paper link , and the pre-print...
Abstract
Practical quantum computers require a large network of highly coherent qubits, interconnected in a design robust against errors. Donor spins in silicon provide state-of-the-art coherence and quantum gate fidelities, in a platform adapted from industrial semiconductor processing. Here we present a scalable design for a silicon quantum processor that does not require precise donor placement and leaves ample space for the routing of interconnects and readout devices. We introduce the flip-flop qubit, a combination of the electron-nuclear spin states of a phosphorus donor that can be controlled by microwave electric fields. Two-qubit gates exploit a second-order electric dipole-dipole interaction, allowing selective coupling beyond the nearest-neighbor, at separations of hundreds of nanometers, while microwave resonators can extend the entanglement to macroscopic distances. We predict gate fidelities within fault-tolerance thresholds using realistic noise models. This design provides a realizable blueprint for scalable spin-based quantum computers in silicon.
Of course they haven't built it yet, so you never know...
3 of the 4 don't come from China. NVIDIA and Qualcomm are US companies and Mediatek is based in Taiwan.
To what extent does Taiwan, Republic of China, have more practical autonomy from the PRC than, say, Hong Kong SAR?
Hong Kong is again part of PRC (as of 1997). According to the PRC, Taiwan is a renegade province. In fact the PRC is pretty pissed off that Tsai Ing-wen of the pan-green coalition (not to be confused with the green party), was elected in 2016. . The Pan-green coalition favors declaring Taiwan independence from the PRC, replacing the Kuomintang (part of the pan-blue which favor closer relations with the PRC). Although Tsai was somewhat careful not to anger the PRC too much on this matter, the PRC decided to unilaterally suspend communications and exchange programs with Taiwan.
You are free to judge for yourself if this results in Taiwan having more or less practical autonomy from the PRC...
In 1942, Alan Turning was essentially forced to go to the US to by a cryptography liaison with the explicit instructions from MI6 to not tell Americans anything because they couldn't be trusted. Here are some other comments that were made by him around that time...
Turing’s own reports from Washington are filled with disdain for what he saw as America’s overreliance on technology rather than thought. “I am persuaded that one cannot very well trust these people where a matter of judgment in cryptography is concerned,” he wrote. “It astonished me to find that they make these elaborate calculations before they had really grasped the main principles. [But] I think we can make quite a lot of use of their machinery.”
American culture was alien to Turing, who was irritated by what he saw as their incessant need for irrelevant small talk. “In one of his letters home, he’s complaining about their speech and the fact they kept saying ‘ummm’, ‘errrr’, ‘but’ and all these little stutters which got on his nerves,” Moore says. “He writes ‘Just say the sentence and then stop!’”
I'm no psychiatrist, but I suspect that an experience of being forced to play an adversarial role like that could poison the well a bit (anytime, it's them against us, there's a tendency to dehumanize your counterpart).
Nothing new here folks, same method was used to nail Ted Kaczynski - of course it was much more difficult back then so a far greater accomplishment.
Actually, I think David Kaczynski simply turned in his brother after reading his manifesto and recognizing his brother's writing style...
If you want call that the same method, well, I guess you are entitled, but that probably implies that Satoshi's brother works for the NSA... If that were true, I think the NSA creating bitcoin would be a far greater accomplishment than nabbing Ted...
Besides, getting convicted and serving jail time seems to be a Samsung leadership right of passage...
His father, Samsung chairman Lee Kun-hee, was twice sentenced to prison -- and twice pardoned. Serving jail time "is like a rite of passage," David Kang, director of the University of Southern California's Korean Studies Institute, said in an interview before the verdict was announced. "The question will really be how long does he serve."
That an engineer would have the ability to set policy for a multinational car company.
FWIW, James Liang isn't just some lowly engineer who toiled in obscurity at VW, Liang was a key member of the team that developed the EA189 engine in 2006 at VW in Germany. When the team realized that the engine wouldn't meet US's new 2007 NOx emissions requirements, Liang lead the team that created the software defeat scheme. He was later transferred to the US to as VW’s “Leader of Diesel Compliance” and was apparently one of the engineering representative meeting directly with EPA and CARB officials when confronted with the evidence, they lied about the existence of the defeat device.
Apparently someone else on the team (an as of yet undisclosed collaborating witness VW employee) latter tipped off the CARB and decided to cooperate with the FBI investigation into the matter. Since Liang was the engineer at the meeting with the regulators, he is taking some of the blame (by all reports, he seems to be pretty remorseful about his role and is cooperating with the investigation).
Another twist in this whole saga, Oliver Schmidt, 48, who headed the company's regulatory compliance office in the U.S. and has also been arrested in this matter, apparently wrote an email to another VW manager explaining that one employee would not be coming to a meeting with California regulators "so he would not have to consciously lie." I think we can assume that the employee mentioned wasn't Engineer James Liang.
Well, that engineer should have the ability to not lie about implementing a specific policy on behalf of a multinational car company. Of course it would have probably taken steel balls to actually resist the pressure, it is still within one's ability...
Sometimes it just sucks to be you, but that is life.
I've not taken such a grand stand IRL, so I don't know the pressure, but I've take smaller stands, and I'm pretty sure my career has taken hits because of it. I don't have a high profile job, but at least I can sleep at night in my own bed. Sometimes you have to pick your own poison. There's a reason why some other folks get paid the big bucks...
Technically, a country is considered "rogue" if it does not play in the UN's various treaty regimes (e.g., IAEA) , or violate terms of a UN security council resolution (e.g., United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 disallowing Iran to test ballistic missile tech).
Probably isn't "fair", but things in geo-politics are rarely ever fair.
Despite president Carter's totally inept handling of the Shah (despite being warned by the State Department) that resulted in the anti-USA escalation after his overthrow, I doubt the USA will soon forgive Iran for allowing the embassy to be overrun and the subsequent taking the hostages (non "rogue" nations are supposed to respect diplomatic immunity and simply "expel" diplomats). I suspect the USA will continue to apply the "rogue" label (whether still actually true or not) w/o giving them the benefit of the doubt for the for the foreseeable future as long as their interests are not aligned to the USA.
FWIW, it appears that Iran and Israel are pretty much aligned for conflict soon. Iran's support of Hezbollah and Hezbollah's increasing role in the ISIL/Syria war mean that if al-Assad and Syria prevail (and it looks likely), Hezbollah will effectively be once again primed for mobilization against Israel. I doubt Israel will like that scenario and I doubt that Iran's interests in this matter aligns with the USA's interests in the region so I guess Iran will continue to wear the "rogue" label for a while.
People are starting to realize what the real implications of this are, and they're having the perfectly reasonable, rational, and logical reaction to it: You're either in control of the vehicle that your safety and life depends on, or you are NOT, and if you're not in control, you can't cope with that -- and when you can't reason with, or even communicate in a meaningful way (i.e., talk to/have a conversation with) the machine that your life depends on? Then that's a dealbreaker. I'm sure this technology will be very useful to public safety in the future -- as a sophisticated 'cruise control' feature, and as a fail-safe collision-avoidance system, and perhaps maybe preventing you from going off the road if you fall asleep at the wheel or are otherwise incapacitated suddenly. But people WANT to drive themselves, even if they say they don't sometimes, because we need to be in control of the tool (vehicle), not the other way around. Human nature. So you can forget 'Level 5' autonomous vehicles, no one will accept them in the end.
But people ride horses... Probably because they believe that the horse will look out for itself and they will be relatively safe because of that (and they feel they have some sway over where the horse will take them). At some point in time, I suspect people will "feel" that way about autonomous vehicles, but of course there will be hold-outs (just like some folks that *won't* ever ride a horse).
a car with lights that cost $30 each dealer only service failed in the test marketing group.
Maybe they realized the problem with the upgrade to a new model every 2 years and discard/hand-down hardware demand model... You can't hand down a car to anyone less than 16yo, and anyone above that age wants the new model not the old one....
Historically, whenever I've wanted to call someone stupid and embarrass them publicly, I ask them "What's your lotto numbers" and when they respond, I say "I don't know what's worse... that you're the type of person that plays lotto or that you think that by choosing your numbers it will increase your odds"
Although choosing your numbers won't increase your odds, it can improve the expectation value of your winnings (if you win a shared prize). For example, since many people choose numbers that have to do with dates, by picking random numbers that cannot be dates will decrease your expected loss value of playing the lottery. Doing this exercise once making them your "lotto number" is an efficient way to get this small improvement...
Anyhow, you can now return to your standard mocking program...
Not sure if you mis-worded something here but I don't quite follow. If you take any problem that you suspect is in NP and find a polynomial time algorithm for it is by definition then in P, and you've shed no light on the P=NP question. I think you're implying this point. So I'm interpreting what you've written as hypothesizing about showing some problem is neither in P nor NP-complete. This proof would be equivalent to proving P!=NP, as Ladner's Theorem proven in the 70s says that if there *are* any problems that exist strictly between P and NP-complete in so called NP-intermediate, then P!=NP. In other words it wouldn't just be as difficult as the P=NP problem, it *is* the P=NP problem.
Yeah, that wasn't worded correctly. As I understand it, there might exist NP problems that are not NP-complete, but are also not P, but proving a specific problem is a so-called NP-intermediate does not seem to be the same as proving P!=NP. There might be a more straight forward proof which doesn't depend on identifying a NP-intermediate problem, and I suspect it would be as difficult as the P=NP problem.
Let's talk about medicine. Women make up roughly 47% of medical school graduates. The gender difference is nurses. And nearly every nursing school and hospital has programs to actively recruit, train and hire more male nurses. Everybody recognizes the issue and every institution is working to address it.
Yes, let's talk about male nurses. It's a sad fact, but some surveys of nursing programs seem to indicate they may be under the impression that if more males entered the profession, it might improve salaries by lending it more career "legitimacy".
CS and IT should be doing the same.
I don't think CS and IT are the "same boat" as Nursing. Although it may be tempting to look at this as a comparable, it appears that economics (the desire for more $$) is driving this change in Nursing. Until a widely accepted economic driver is in place for CS/IT, there will be resistance (however good the intentions).
Right now CS/IT is seemingly more like the construction/trade gig. There's good money in it, not that many women in it, and the pipeline isn't well established for women and there's probably a culture of resistance to women. That's been going on a lot longer than the CS/IT situation and it doesn't seem like it will get better any time soon. Both industry get by using imported labor for now. Maybe that's the problem?
During WWII labor shortages, things were quite different for women in the workplace so maybe there's something there... Nah, that's too politically incorrect to mutter. The downtrodden need to provide a united front against the faceless institutions and search for a non-economic, government imposed solution, right? No time to fight among ourselves for the scraps...
It only takes one specific example to disprove a general proposition.
They can still prove that P = NP for specific cases, but if this proof holds up, the general case is disproven.
This isn't interesting. We know of many algorithms that are both P and NP (e.g., can be solved deterministic polynomial time and by a non-determistic polynomial algorithm *and* verified in polynomial time). The interesting NP problems can be verified, but there is no known solution in polynomial time.
If you could find an interesting problem in NP that didn't have a known solution in polynomial time (proving that it was in P), you would additionally have to prove it was not an NP-complete problem (otherwise all NP problems could be converted to your problem in polynomial time), because if it was an NP-complete problem and the proof holds, it would by definition not be in the set P. I suspect that proof would be as difficult as the P=NP problem.
More interesting would be to find a problem that is was thought to be in NP, but it's complement (which would be in co-NP) is solvable in P time. That would be like finding the that NP != co-NP which would be much more interesting.
FWIW, most commercial debt is rotated on 5 year basis subjecting it to interest rate risk, but the bond terms are more varied (Amazon are issuing 3 year to 40 year bonds). Also, most banks really can't make a $16B loan (they don't generally have charter to take that kind of singleton risk). There are private equity groups that do amounts this large, but they generally want equity stake in exchange for loaning the money. On the the other hand, you can think of a bond offering as distributing the risk among the holders which is similar, but w/o the equity stake.
The zero-to-negative interest rate is for having the bank *hold* your money, the bank will always charge for lending money (the spread is how they make money) although having to pay less for money allows them to lend it out at a lower rate. Unfortunately, this anti-deflationary stance is mostly responsible for modifying inter-bank lending behavior rather than any other effect relating to business loans.
However, the reason they probably went with a bond issue is that given the relatively historically low interest rates, it makes the most sense to go the bond route (to lock it in as long as possible) so they can save their cash for something Bezos like best: spending it on expansion.
But we do have at least one specific biological adaptation that is a result of eating meat. Our intestinal system and muscle mass as evolved to much smaller than equivalent animals that are pure herbivores.
Gorillas may be a better example. They do have MASSIVE canines and aren't known for eating meat.
As I recall, since Gorilla canine teeth have a large sexual dimorphism (difference between male and female) the are likely used as part of dominance rituals among male Gorillas competing for mates (for deterrence, defense, attack, etc). However since humans have very limited dimorphic differentiation in canine size, they probably serve a different purpose or are simply vestigial.
In any case, there is a case to be made that humans are built to be omnivores. The basic argument is advanced by the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis (ETH) which argues that eating meat led to smaller stomachs and in conjunction with smaller muscle mass allowed for larger brains (relative to our prehistoric predecessors).
Of course we can argue about "why" till the cows come home, since "why" is really an unknown quantity that is basically all speculation.
Seems like what they want isn't just a wife, it's a particular kind of wife that was something of a myth even in the 50s.
Interesting. I thought it was the women who were giving up on marriage because they didn't want just a husband, but a particular kind of husband that probably never really existed...
In the past that whole marriage thing was a social construct that you got in place before you left your nest. Today, people are waiting until the have some sort of semblance of a career and/or stability before looking. That not only gives people time to get picky, but makes it a bit more difficult to meet a suitable variety of potential marriage material outside a diverse structured environment (say like a school).
There's something to be said for simply just jumping in with ignorance and hoping for the best (basically the old days), but I suspect there is more net-happiness today than there was in the past because in the balance, happiness come more from yourself than your partner anyhow...
Somehow in that quagmire I was eventually able find a SO, but it isn't too hard to see the chain of events where some of my peers (both male and female) have not wanted to "settle" and have seemingly given up... Whether this is for better or worse, no doubt people will finding meaning in inconsequential decisions...
Companies shouldn't even keep track of race or gender of their employees, there is no legitimate reason to keep that information, and it is only ever useful for discriminatory practices.
FWIW, in the USA, most large companies are *required* by the government to collect information about the race and gender of their employee by the EEOC.
Of course they aren't required to *keep* or *use* the information, but when would a post-modern company in the social media age not keep data that it is actually required to collect? If a company takes advantage of their customers that way, why would they treat their employees with more respect?
IANAL, but there is a legal thing called negligent culpability. If I sell you 2 tons of TNT, under dont-ask-dont-tell terms, and you blow up a school with it, I could be held to be negligent in my duty to attempt to determine that the customer had a legitimate use for it (even if they did end up using it to blow up a school).
If, however, you gave me some evidence that you had a legitimate use (e.g., you wanted to ship it to a construction company that does demolition work and that company has a Dun/Bradstreet credit report at the same address), that would go a long way to show that I wasn't negligent...
Cooperation with the buyer doesn't need to be shown, only negligence on the part of the seller.
There are shares, the company has an unknown value, this means each share is worth an unknown amount
Where the flying fuck did I say that anybody knew the share price?
an unknown amount is not a price
I don't know how much a new Bugatti costs but it still has a fucking price.
If cannot buy the Bugatti (because of people who currently own Bugattis won't allow you to buy them because it dillutes their collector values), it doesn't have a price. Similarly, if nobody is contractually allowed to sell the Bugatti to you (or doesn't want to), it doesn't have price. This is what a illiquid investment is (compared to a product or a stock in a public market). For non-public companies, you don't get shares, you get restricted shares and you can't buy them unless the company wants you to buy them. They also aren't allowed to sell them to you unless you know what you are doing because there are landmines that are hard to predict or value.
For example, if when you got your Bugatti, you had to sign a restriction that said, before you get to sell your Bugatti, the company has the right to know who that person is and is allowed (but not required) to offer a new Bugatti to your buyer at the fraction price you negotiated, does your Bugatti actually have determined price? Or perhaps you being a savy investor in Bugattis, negotiate that the next time the company sells a Bugatti, you can (but are not forced to) buy more Bugattis at the same price you paid originally (even if the "$$/new-Bugatti" went up in the meantime). Believe it or not, all sorts of stuff like this exist in the world of restricted shares. Extra warrants that exercise on percentage ownership changes, anti-debt provisions, milestone warrants, most-favored pricing, down-round protection, etc mean that the "price-paid" is not a real reflection of the ownership of the company received. This is why there is no "price" denominated in currency for the shares.
To be more clear, what I am saying is illegal is creating a hostile working environment for women (as they are a "protected" class). Creating a hostile working environment for non-Stanford grads does not seem like it would be illegal nor tickle the political tides, but probably simply only be stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
So they are counting the bots and people with multiple accounts. AI-s are people too aren't they? If I have multiple personalities, can't someone use which ever account they feel comfortable with at the time. Can't we all accept each other without judging. Why should we let mere-biology facts dictate our biases? ;^)
Or are we supposed to be hating on this (sometimes I forget, it's so complicated)...
FYI paper already published. Here's the final paper link , and the pre-print...
Abstract
Practical quantum computers require a large network of highly coherent qubits, interconnected in a design robust against errors. Donor spins in silicon provide state-of-the-art coherence and quantum gate fidelities, in a platform adapted from industrial semiconductor processing. Here we present a scalable design for a silicon quantum processor that does not require precise donor placement and leaves ample space for the routing of interconnects and readout devices. We introduce the flip-flop qubit, a combination of the electron-nuclear spin states of a phosphorus donor that can be controlled by microwave electric fields. Two-qubit gates exploit a second-order electric dipole-dipole interaction, allowing selective coupling beyond the nearest-neighbor, at separations of hundreds of nanometers, while microwave resonators can extend the entanglement to macroscopic distances. We predict gate fidelities within fault-tolerance thresholds using realistic noise models. This design provides a realizable blueprint for scalable spin-based quantum computers in silicon.
Of course they haven't built it yet, so you never know...
3 of the 4 don't come from China. NVIDIA and Qualcomm are US companies and Mediatek is based in Taiwan.
To what extent does Taiwan, Republic of China, have more practical autonomy from the PRC than, say, Hong Kong SAR?
Hong Kong is again part of PRC (as of 1997). According to the PRC, Taiwan is a renegade province. In fact the PRC is pretty pissed off that Tsai Ing-wen of the pan-green coalition (not to be confused with the green party), was elected in 2016. . The Pan-green coalition favors declaring Taiwan independence from the PRC, replacing the Kuomintang (part of the pan-blue which favor closer relations with the PRC). Although Tsai was somewhat careful not to anger the PRC too much on this matter, the PRC decided to unilaterally suspend communications and exchange programs with Taiwan.
You are free to judge for yourself if this results in Taiwan having more or less practical autonomy from the PRC...
In 1942, Alan Turning was essentially forced to go to the US to by a cryptography liaison with the explicit instructions from MI6 to not tell Americans anything because they couldn't be trusted. Here are some other comments that were made by him around that time...
Turing’s own reports from Washington are filled with disdain for what he saw as America’s overreliance on technology rather than thought. “I am persuaded that one cannot very well trust these people where a matter of judgment in cryptography is concerned,” he wrote. “It astonished me to find that they make these elaborate calculations before they had really grasped the main principles. [But] I think we can make quite a lot of use of their machinery.”
American culture was alien to Turing, who was irritated by what he saw as their incessant need for irrelevant small talk. “In one of his letters home, he’s complaining about their speech and the fact they kept saying ‘ummm’, ‘errrr’, ‘but’ and all these little stutters which got on his nerves,” Moore says. “He writes ‘Just say the sentence and then stop!’”
I'm no psychiatrist, but I suspect that an experience of being forced to play an adversarial role like that could poison the well a bit (anytime, it's them against us, there's a tendency to dehumanize your counterpart).
Nothing new here folks, same method was used to nail Ted Kaczynski - of course it was much more difficult back then so a far greater accomplishment.
Actually, I think David Kaczynski simply turned in his brother after reading his manifesto and recognizing his brother's writing style...
If you want call that the same method, well, I guess you are entitled, but that probably implies that Satoshi's brother works for the NSA... If that were true, I think the NSA creating bitcoin would be a far greater accomplishment than nabbing Ted...
I really get the VW dude.
I don't think you do...
Check out my my comment on that story...
Besides, getting convicted and serving jail time seems to be a Samsung leadership right of passage...
His father, Samsung chairman Lee Kun-hee, was twice sentenced to prison -- and twice pardoned.
Serving jail time "is like a rite of passage," David Kang, director of the University of Southern California's Korean Studies Institute, said in an interview before the verdict was announced. "The question will really be how long does he serve."
Someday terrorists will upload a zero day worm that spreads from car to car turning our quiet city streets into Death Race 2000. (David Carradine RIP)
I was thinking Maximum Overdrive myself...
That an engineer would have the ability to set policy for a multinational car company.
FWIW, James Liang isn't just some lowly engineer who toiled in obscurity at VW, Liang was a key member of the team that developed the EA189 engine in 2006 at VW in Germany. When the team realized that the engine wouldn't meet US's new 2007 NOx emissions requirements, Liang lead the team that created the software defeat scheme. He was later transferred to the US to as VW’s “Leader of Diesel Compliance” and was apparently one of the engineering representative meeting directly with EPA and CARB officials when confronted with the evidence, they lied about the existence of the defeat device.
Apparently someone else on the team (an as of yet undisclosed collaborating witness VW employee) latter tipped off the CARB and decided to cooperate with the FBI investigation into the matter. Since Liang was the engineer at the meeting with the regulators, he is taking some of the blame (by all reports, he seems to be pretty remorseful about his role and is cooperating with the investigation).
Another twist in this whole saga, Oliver Schmidt, 48, who headed the company's regulatory compliance office in the U.S. and has also been arrested in this matter, apparently wrote an email to another VW manager explaining that one employee would not be coming to a meeting with California regulators "so he would not have to consciously lie." I think we can assume that the employee mentioned wasn't Engineer James Liang.
Well, that engineer should have the ability to not lie about implementing a specific policy on behalf of a multinational car company. Of course it would have probably taken steel balls to actually resist the pressure, it is still within one's ability...
Sometimes it just sucks to be you, but that is life.
I've not taken such a grand stand IRL, so I don't know the pressure, but I've take smaller stands, and I'm pretty sure my career has taken hits because of it. I don't have a high profile job, but at least I can sleep at night in my own bed. Sometimes you have to pick your own poison. There's a reason why some other folks get paid the big bucks...
Just food for thought.
Technically, a country is considered "rogue" if it does not play in the UN's various treaty regimes (e.g., IAEA) , or violate terms of a UN security council resolution (e.g., United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 disallowing Iran to test ballistic missile tech).
Probably isn't "fair", but things in geo-politics are rarely ever fair.
Despite president Carter's totally inept handling of the Shah (despite being warned by the State Department) that resulted in the anti-USA escalation after his overthrow, I doubt the USA will soon forgive Iran for allowing the embassy to be overrun and the subsequent taking the hostages (non "rogue" nations are supposed to respect diplomatic immunity and simply "expel" diplomats). I suspect the USA will continue to apply the "rogue" label (whether still actually true or not) w/o giving them the benefit of the doubt for the for the foreseeable future as long as their interests are not aligned to the USA.
FWIW, it appears that Iran and Israel are pretty much aligned for conflict soon. Iran's support of Hezbollah and Hezbollah's increasing role in the ISIL/Syria war mean that if al-Assad and Syria prevail (and it looks likely), Hezbollah will effectively be once again primed for mobilization against Israel. I doubt Israel will like that scenario and I doubt that Iran's interests in this matter aligns with the USA's interests in the region so I guess Iran will continue to wear the "rogue" label for a while.
People are starting to realize what the real implications of this are, and they're having the perfectly reasonable, rational, and logical reaction to it: You're either in control of the vehicle that your safety and life depends on, or you are NOT, and if you're not in control, you can't cope with that -- and when you can't reason with, or even communicate in a meaningful way (i.e., talk to/have a conversation with) the machine that your life depends on? Then that's a dealbreaker. I'm sure this technology will be very useful to public safety in the future -- as a sophisticated 'cruise control' feature, and as a fail-safe collision-avoidance system, and perhaps maybe preventing you from going off the road if you fall asleep at the wheel or are otherwise incapacitated suddenly. But people WANT to drive themselves, even if they say they don't sometimes, because we need to be in control of the tool (vehicle), not the other way around. Human nature. So you can forget 'Level 5' autonomous vehicles, no one will accept them in the end.
But people ride horses... Probably because they believe that the horse will look out for itself and they will be relatively safe because of that (and they feel they have some sway over where the horse will take them). At some point in time, I suspect people will "feel" that way about autonomous vehicles, but of course there will be hold-outs (just like some folks that *won't* ever ride a horse).
a car with lights that cost $30 each dealer only service failed in the test marketing group.
Maybe they realized the problem with the upgrade to a new model every 2 years and discard/hand-down hardware demand model...
You can't hand down a car to anyone less than 16yo, and anyone above that age wants the new model not the old one....
Now on to business Plan B.
Historically, whenever I've wanted to call someone stupid and embarrass them publicly, I ask them "What's your lotto numbers" and when they respond, I say "I don't know what's worse... that you're the type of person that plays lotto or that you think that by choosing your numbers it will increase your odds"
Although choosing your numbers won't increase your odds, it can improve the expectation value of your winnings (if you win a shared prize). For example, since many people choose numbers that have to do with dates, by picking random numbers that cannot be dates will decrease your expected loss value of playing the lottery. Doing this exercise once making them your "lotto number" is an efficient way to get this small improvement...
Anyhow, you can now return to your standard mocking program...
Not sure if you mis-worded something here but I don't quite follow. If you take any problem that you suspect is in NP and find a polynomial time algorithm for it is by definition then in P, and you've shed no light on the P=NP question. I think you're implying this point. So I'm interpreting what you've written as hypothesizing about showing some problem is neither in P nor NP-complete. This proof would be equivalent to proving P!=NP, as Ladner's Theorem proven in the 70s says that if there *are* any problems that exist strictly between P and NP-complete in so called NP-intermediate, then P!=NP. In other words it wouldn't just be as difficult as the P=NP problem, it *is* the P=NP problem.
Yeah, that wasn't worded correctly. As I understand it, there might exist NP problems that are not NP-complete, but are also not P, but proving a specific problem is a so-called NP-intermediate does not seem to be the same as proving P!=NP. There might be a more straight forward proof which doesn't depend on identifying a NP-intermediate problem, and I suspect it would be as difficult as the P=NP problem.
Let's talk about medicine. Women make up roughly 47% of medical school graduates. The gender difference is nurses. And nearly every nursing school and hospital has programs to actively recruit, train and hire more male nurses. Everybody recognizes the issue and every institution is working to address it.
Yes, let's talk about male nurses. It's a sad fact, but some surveys of nursing programs seem to indicate they may be under the impression that if more males entered the profession, it might improve salaries by lending it more career "legitimacy".
CS and IT should be doing the same.
I don't think CS and IT are the "same boat" as Nursing. Although it may be tempting to look at this as a comparable, it appears that economics (the desire for more $$) is driving this change in Nursing. Until a widely accepted economic driver is in place for CS/IT, there will be resistance (however good the intentions).
Right now CS/IT is seemingly more like the construction/trade gig. There's good money in it, not that many women in it, and the pipeline isn't well established for women and there's probably a culture of resistance to women. That's been going on a lot longer than the CS/IT situation and it doesn't seem like it will get better any time soon. Both industry get by using imported labor for now. Maybe that's the problem?
During WWII labor shortages, things were quite different for women in the workplace so maybe there's something there... Nah, that's too politically incorrect to mutter. The downtrodden need to provide a united front against the faceless institutions and search for a non-economic, government imposed solution, right? No time to fight among ourselves for the scraps...
First of all, stop identifying as a "cis". It's a ridiculous label created by leftist to further divide us. You're either a male or female.
Why don't you just go all the way and get rid of all labels and simply say you are a person (until we get AI, we are all people right ;^)
It only takes one specific example to disprove a general proposition.
They can still prove that P = NP for specific cases, but if this proof holds up, the general case is disproven.
This isn't interesting. We know of many algorithms that are both P and NP (e.g., can be solved deterministic polynomial time and by a non-determistic polynomial algorithm *and* verified in polynomial time). The interesting NP problems can be verified, but there is no known solution in polynomial time.
If you could find an interesting problem in NP that didn't have a known solution in polynomial time (proving that it was in P), you would additionally have to prove it was not an NP-complete problem (otherwise all NP problems could be converted to your problem in polynomial time), because if it was an NP-complete problem and the proof holds, it would by definition not be in the set P. I suspect that proof would be as difficult as the P=NP problem.
More interesting would be to find a problem that is was thought to be in NP, but it's complement (which would be in co-NP) is solvable in P time. That would be like finding the that NP != co-NP which would be much more interesting.
FWIW, most commercial debt is rotated on 5 year basis subjecting it to interest rate risk, but the bond terms are more varied (Amazon are issuing 3 year to 40 year bonds). Also, most banks really can't make a $16B loan (they don't generally have charter to take that kind of singleton risk). There are private equity groups that do amounts this large, but they generally want equity stake in exchange for loaning the money. On the the other hand, you can think of a bond offering as distributing the risk among the holders which is similar, but w/o the equity stake.
The zero-to-negative interest rate is for having the bank *hold* your money, the bank will always charge for lending money (the spread is how they make money) although having to pay less for money allows them to lend it out at a lower rate. Unfortunately, this anti-deflationary stance is mostly responsible for modifying inter-bank lending behavior rather than any other effect relating to business loans.
However, the reason they probably went with a bond issue is that given the relatively historically low interest rates, it makes the most sense to go the bond route (to lock it in as long as possible) so they can save their cash for something Bezos like best: spending it on expansion.
We have no specific biological adaptations to eating meat. Our teeth are those of herbivores, and our digestive system is that of a frugivore. Based on dental calculus analysis and corprolite data, our ancestors ate shit-loads of plants.
But we do have at least one specific biological adaptation that is a result of eating meat. Our intestinal system and muscle mass as evolved to much smaller than equivalent animals that are pure herbivores.
http://time.com/4252373/meat-e...
http://news.harvard.edu/gazett...
Some folks think that these adaptations allowed us the luxury of evolving larger brains...
Gorillas may be a better example. They do have MASSIVE canines and aren't known for eating meat.
As I recall, since Gorilla canine teeth have a large sexual dimorphism (difference between male and female) the are likely used as part of dominance rituals among male Gorillas competing for mates (for deterrence, defense, attack, etc). However since humans have very limited dimorphic differentiation in canine size, they probably serve a different purpose or are simply vestigial.
In any case, there is a case to be made that humans are built to be omnivores. The basic argument is advanced by the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis (ETH) which argues that eating meat led to smaller stomachs and in conjunction with smaller muscle mass allowed for larger brains (relative to our prehistoric predecessors).
Of course we can argue about "why" till the cows come home, since "why" is really an unknown quantity that is basically all speculation.
I'm sorry
For something I didn't do
Offended somebody
I don't know who
You blame me
For sexism
Hundreds of miles away from where I work
Guilty of Being White (Male)
Guilty of Being White (Male)
Guilty of Being White (Male)
Guilty of Being White (Male)
You must be Canadian... ;^)
Aren't men supposed to be giving up on marriage?
Seems like what they want isn't just a wife, it's a particular kind of wife that was something of a myth even in the 50s.
Interesting. I thought it was the women who were giving up on marriage because they didn't want just a husband, but a particular kind of husband that probably never really existed...
In the past that whole marriage thing was a social construct that you got in place before you left your nest. Today, people are waiting until the have some sort of semblance of a career and/or stability before looking. That not only gives people time to get picky, but makes it a bit more difficult to meet a suitable variety of potential marriage material outside a diverse structured environment (say like a school).
There's something to be said for simply just jumping in with ignorance and hoping for the best (basically the old days), but I suspect there is more net-happiness today than there was in the past because in the balance, happiness come more from yourself than your partner anyhow...
Somehow in that quagmire I was eventually able find a SO, but it isn't too hard to see the chain of events where some of my peers (both male and female) have not wanted to "settle" and have seemingly given up... Whether this is for better or worse, no doubt people will finding meaning in inconsequential decisions...
Companies shouldn't even keep track of race or gender of their employees, there is no legitimate reason to keep that information, and it is only ever useful for discriminatory practices.
FWIW, in the USA, most large companies are *required* by the government to collect information about the race and gender of their employee by the EEOC.
Of course they aren't required to *keep* or *use* the information, but when would a post-modern company in the social media age not keep data that it is actually required to collect? If a company takes advantage of their customers that way, why would they treat their employees with more respect?
IANAL, but there is a legal thing called negligent culpability. If I sell you 2 tons of TNT, under dont-ask-dont-tell terms, and you blow up a school with it, I could be held to be negligent in my duty to attempt to determine that the customer had a legitimate use for it (even if they did end up using it to blow up a school).
If, however, you gave me some evidence that you had a legitimate use (e.g., you wanted to ship it to a construction company that does demolition work and that company has a Dun/Bradstreet credit report at the same address), that would go a long way to show that I wasn't negligent...
Cooperation with the buyer doesn't need to be shown, only negligence on the part of the seller.
There are shares, the company has an unknown value, this means each share is worth an unknown amount
Where the flying fuck did I say that anybody knew the share price?
an unknown amount is not a price
I don't know how much a new Bugatti costs but it still has a fucking price.
If cannot buy the Bugatti (because of people who currently own Bugattis won't allow you to buy them because it dillutes their collector values), it doesn't have a price. Similarly, if nobody is contractually allowed to sell the Bugatti to you (or doesn't want to), it doesn't have price. This is what a illiquid investment is (compared to a product or a stock in a public market). For non-public companies, you don't get shares, you get restricted shares and you can't buy them unless the company wants you to buy them. They also aren't allowed to sell them to you unless you know what you are doing because there are landmines that are hard to predict or value.
For example, if when you got your Bugatti, you had to sign a restriction that said, before you get to sell your Bugatti, the company has the right to know who that person is and is allowed (but not required) to offer a new Bugatti to your buyer at the fraction price you negotiated, does your Bugatti actually have determined price? Or perhaps you being a savy investor in Bugattis, negotiate that the next time the company sells a Bugatti, you can (but are not forced to) buy more Bugattis at the same price you paid originally (even if the "$$/new-Bugatti" went up in the meantime). Believe it or not, all sorts of stuff like this exist in the world of restricted shares. Extra warrants that exercise on percentage ownership changes, anti-debt provisions, milestone warrants, most-favored pricing, down-round protection, etc mean that the "price-paid" is not a real reflection of the ownership of the company received. This is why there is no "price" denominated in currency for the shares.
To be more clear, what I am saying is illegal is creating a hostile working environment for women (as they are a "protected" class). Creating a hostile working environment for non-Stanford grads does not seem like it would be illegal nor tickle the political tides, but probably simply only be stupid.