A perturbation of that analysis is when a student is near the end of a degree during a bubble in the chosen field of study. AI is hot right now, and people that have some knowledge in it are commanding big salaries right off the bat. In five years, that bubble might pop, salaries return to normal, and the student will have lost the opportunity to cash in.
It is the same situation faced by ball players. Take the money now, or play for free at the university system while getting an undergrad degree. The ignored point is that there is nothing stopping the player from taking classes in the off season. And there is nothing to stop the PhD candidate from continuing studies later. Both will have a much larger bank account at that point.
"provoked angry Americans to take to the streets"? How? By exposing what the Democrats have been doing?
If the people are that easy to "provoke", then obviously there is something there to provoke them. Something more than a Facebook post. This is another example of the Democrats looking for an exterior reason for why their continuing indulgence in identity politics is not working for them. If you don't want Russia (or Israel) to have such an easy time "manipulating" elections, stop making it so easy for them.
And solar panels have been showing the same exponential decrease in cost as nearly all technologies. We have finally reached a crossover point where solar is becoming cheaper than building a power plant to make steam, then fueling it and maintaining all the equipment. It is quickly becoming a fool's errand to build a coal fired (or nuclear) power plant. You won't hear a new reporter proclaiming it, but the day is quickly approaching where a financier will look at the person applying for funding of a fossil fuel power plant and say, "Are you out of your mind!? You'll never be able to make you money back!!"
And all without any laws or government intervention.
The high/low temperature spread today is more than 10C. The summer winter spread is at least 50C.
And now you tell me that 2C over a century is going to cause species to die out. I smell a bit of alarmism in that claim.
About as much as I smell in the claim that the ice at the poles is going to melt (up from -40C) while the equator becomes unlivably hot . . . again, with a 2C overall increase. I could swallow the "average" claim, IF they said the poles would melt OR the equator would become unlivable. But, the alarmist want to claim both, with only a 2C increase.
Unless Bitsavers finish their work, there is a change in digital formats in 5 years, and this archive isn't rediscovered until 10 years later when there is no machinery available to read the hard disk or usb thumb drive it is encoded on.
Unfortunately, digital storage is the most ephemeral means of storing information man has ever created. If they wanted the manuals to be available for a reasonably long time, they'd copy it to papyrus.
As I've become more Libertarian, I've found the biggest difference I have with most other Libertarians is that I firmly believe there is a place and responsibility for government. One of the largest areas is wherever the power of eminent domain is required to provide a service. Yes you heard that right. As a Libertarian, I firmly believe that the government should own, regulate and maintain:
-the roads -the power lines -the communication infrastructure.
The reason I believe this is because the government should be responsible for creating markets. "Markets" being defined as infrastructure that enables all citizens to interact freely. The roads allow farmers to grow food in one place, then transport it for sale in another, while a miner can use them to ship ore to a steel plant, that can then use them to ship beams to a construction site. A central control is required to map out, lay down and maintain the infrastructure that allows all the players to interact. This will require some heavy handed moves, as sometimes property must be taken, but there is a legal due process to protect the weak in these cases.
The government owning and maintaining the power lines would mean that anyone could set up a solar power farm (or wind, or hydro, or flatulence), and sell their power to whoever was willing to pay for it. Building out the infrastructure requires eminent domain, and the same legal protections should be in place.
Likewise, the communication infrastructure should not stand to the whims of commercial interests. The same protections to be provided for all parties. Roads get build in the good parts of town, as well as the bad. The communication infrastructure should get build out the same way, and the weak should have the same legal protections.
Well, a survey of history will reveal that revolutions do not make things better for the average person, they just make the average person feel better about things. (At least according to the person whose name I can't remember.)
Governments always have the same solution to wealth disparity. The answer is always, "Give us more control of the money."
Higher taxes does not remove wealth disparity. It simply puts control of more money into the hands of the political animals that already have control of the most money (note: I subtly changed the definition of wealth from having money accredited to ones account, to having control of how money is spent. In this model, a bureaucrat that can decide who gets control of uranium deposits is rich, even if she is having to steal furniture from the White House).
How about some rules that would remove protections from the super rich. Remove some regulations for starting an enterprise that only the megawealthy can afford? How about removing protections from patents that are obvious and ubiquitous? How about not allowing a single corporation to have control of communication infrastructure where they have no presence?
There are a lot of answers beyond "All your monies belongs to us."
I would agree with this if the retailers were required to take the item being replaced back for recycling. A TV's lifespan is quickly approaching three or four years. Most are lucky to get two out of a phone. Dumping all this used up waste because it can't be repaired is an externalized cost.
We the people told American businesses they can't dump sludge in our rivers.
Translation: You are not free to make others responsible for your choices.
We told them that they have to provide clear and honest information to investors.
Translation: You are not free to make others responsible for your choices, which made your company a bad investment.
We make all kinds of rules because the country works better when corporations fucking behave themselves.
Why must good behavior be limited to corporations? Would you demand good behavior from a privately owned business?
We can tell them to post their service documents and make parts available if we damn well please.
Yes. We can tell them anything we damn well please. We enjoy making laws for other people to follow. But, the unintended consequences when those laws come back to also apply to us often makes us wish we had not been such control freaks.
Good point, but I know that back in the day, people around me didn't want anything to do with a car that you couldn't work on under a shade tree. It was an actual significant point in the purchase decision. It still is for me when buying even a new car.
It's not just the intelligence of the AI that makes it dangerous. What is its programmed GOAL? Understanding an AI's (or person's) goals is how you control them and protect yourself from them. In the case of AI, the goals are what has to be used as an end condition to make sure the program breaks out of its while loop.
Example: What is your manager's goal? What actions do you take that promote or inhibit those goals, and what reaction do they garner?
They've got a flat surface on top that will hold about 30m^2 solar panel, and they spend a large amount of their time parked for loading/unloading. I wouldn't consider it for charging, but would work as a "range extender".
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, somehow they are able to compete with the private sector for administrator pay.
A perturbation of that analysis is when a student is near the end of a degree during a bubble in the chosen field of study. AI is hot right now, and people that have some knowledge in it are commanding big salaries right off the bat. In five years, that bubble might pop, salaries return to normal, and the student will have lost the opportunity to cash in.
It is the same situation faced by ball players. Take the money now, or play for free at the university system while getting an undergrad degree. The ignored point is that there is nothing stopping the player from taking classes in the off season. And there is nothing to stop the PhD candidate from continuing studies later. Both will have a much larger bank account at that point.
PhD in what?
Basket weaving isn't a lucrative area of study. Is it?
So, you're saying that Hillary should not have been going to the British for "opposition research"? Got it.
we shouldn't have to deal with the Russians creating a charged atmosphere of political divisiveness
Yes. That should be the exclusive purview of our own corporate controlled media.
Yes. They really should say, "You don't get it! The internet is a GLOBAL network, that fortunately you don't get to control."
"provoked angry Americans to take to the streets"? How? By exposing what the Democrats have been doing?
If the people are that easy to "provoke", then obviously there is something there to provoke them. Something more than a Facebook post. This is another example of the Democrats looking for an exterior reason for why their continuing indulgence in identity politics is not working for them. If you don't want Russia (or Israel) to have such an easy time "manipulating" elections, stop making it so easy for them.
This.
And solar panels have been showing the same exponential decrease in cost as nearly all technologies. We have finally reached a crossover point where solar is becoming cheaper than building a power plant to make steam, then fueling it and maintaining all the equipment. It is quickly becoming a fool's errand to build a coal fired (or nuclear) power plant. You won't hear a new reporter proclaiming it, but the day is quickly approaching where a financier will look at the person applying for funding of a fossil fuel power plant and say, "Are you out of your mind!? You'll never be able to make you money back!!"
And all without any laws or government intervention.
Think of the chillllddrennnnn!!
Time to evolve? For 2C?
The high/low temperature spread today is more than 10C.
The summer winter spread is at least 50C.
And now you tell me that 2C over a century is going to cause species to die out. I smell a bit of alarmism in that claim.
About as much as I smell in the claim that the ice at the poles is going to melt (up from -40C) while the equator becomes unlivably hot . . . again, with a 2C overall increase. I could swallow the "average" claim, IF they said the poles would melt OR the equator would become unlivable. But, the alarmist want to claim both, with only a 2C increase.
Unless Bitsavers finish their work, there is a change in digital formats in 5 years, and this archive isn't rediscovered until 10 years later when there is no machinery available to read the hard disk or usb thumb drive it is encoded on.
Unfortunately, digital storage is the most ephemeral means of storing information man has ever created. If they wanted the manuals to be available for a reasonably long time, they'd copy it to papyrus.
As I've become more Libertarian, I've found the biggest difference I have with most other Libertarians is that I firmly believe there is a place and responsibility for government. One of the largest areas is wherever the power of eminent domain is required to provide a service. Yes you heard that right. As a Libertarian, I firmly believe that the government should own, regulate and maintain:
-the roads
-the power lines
-the communication infrastructure.
The reason I believe this is because the government should be responsible for creating markets. "Markets" being defined as infrastructure that enables all citizens to interact freely. The roads allow farmers to grow food in one place, then transport it for sale in another, while a miner can use them to ship ore to a steel plant, that can then use them to ship beams to a construction site. A central control is required to map out, lay down and maintain the infrastructure that allows all the players to interact. This will require some heavy handed moves, as sometimes property must be taken, but there is a legal due process to protect the weak in these cases.
The government owning and maintaining the power lines would mean that anyone could set up a solar power farm (or wind, or hydro, or flatulence), and sell their power to whoever was willing to pay for it. Building out the infrastructure requires eminent domain, and the same legal protections should be in place.
Likewise, the communication infrastructure should not stand to the whims of commercial interests. The same protections to be provided for all parties. Roads get build in the good parts of town, as well as the bad. The communication infrastructure should get build out the same way, and the weak should have the same legal protections.
Well, a survey of history will reveal that revolutions do not make things better for the average person, they just make the average person feel better about things. (At least according to the person whose name I can't remember.)
Because "fair" is a politician's weasel word that cannot be given a proper definition that even a majority can agree to on a universal basis?
Governments always have the same solution to wealth disparity. The answer is always, "Give us more control of the money."
Higher taxes does not remove wealth disparity. It simply puts control of more money into the hands of the political animals that already have control of the most money (note: I subtly changed the definition of wealth from having money accredited to ones account, to having control of how money is spent. In this model, a bureaucrat that can decide who gets control of uranium deposits is rich, even if she is having to steal furniture from the White House).
How about some rules that would remove protections from the super rich. Remove some regulations for starting an enterprise that only the megawealthy can afford? How about removing protections from patents that are obvious and ubiquitous? How about not allowing a single corporation to have control of communication infrastructure where they have no presence?
There are a lot of answers beyond "All your monies belongs to us."
I would agree with this if the retailers were required to take the item being replaced back for recycling. A TV's lifespan is quickly approaching three or four years. Most are lucky to get two out of a phone. Dumping all this used up waste because it can't be repaired is an externalized cost.
We the people told American businesses they can't dump sludge in our rivers.
Translation: You are not free to make others responsible for your choices.
We told them that they have to provide clear and honest information to investors.
Translation: You are not free to make others responsible for your choices, which made your company a bad investment.
We make all kinds of rules because the country works better when corporations fucking behave themselves.
Why must good behavior be limited to corporations? Would you demand good behavior from a privately owned business?
We can tell them to post their service documents and make parts available if we damn well please.
Yes. We can tell them anything we damn well please. We enjoy making laws for other people to follow. But, the unintended consequences when those laws come back to also apply to us often makes us wish we had not been such control freaks.
Good point, but I know that back in the day, people around me didn't want anything to do with a car that you couldn't work on under a shade tree. It was an actual significant point in the purchase decision. It still is for me when buying even a new car.
But, the problem they create is the annihilation of the human race....
So what was the point of green pieces of paper in a bank somewhere?
We promise to task our AI to find a solution for those problems.
It's not just the intelligence of the AI that makes it dangerous. What is its programmed GOAL? Understanding an AI's (or person's) goals is how you control them and protect yourself from them. In the case of AI, the goals are what has to be used as an end condition to make sure the program breaks out of its while loop.
Example: What is your manager's goal? What actions do you take that promote or inhibit those goals, and what reaction do they garner?
I don't find it hard to admit.
AI presents a very powerful tool...and every tool can be weaponized...often unintentionally.
Being afraid of the unknown is a useful instinct for staying alive.
It doesn't have a mother. We ate her already. Delicious.
But, you also need to look at their jeans...er' genes.
They've got a flat surface on top that will hold about 30m^2 solar panel, and they spend a large amount of their time parked for loading/unloading. I wouldn't consider it for charging, but would work as a "range extender".
Maybe they can put a playing card in the tire spokes. Worked when I was a kid.