Add to this that software engineering has one of the highest turnover rates of any profession. More than 13% of software engineers change their jobs in any given year.
Assuming that Tesla is representative, and that it does indeed have 37500 engineers, you'd expect 4875 of them to get new jobs each year. So Apple would have hired a little less than 1% of the Tesla engineers coming onto the job market.
It doesn't look like Apple is making a wholesale effort to snap up Tesla expertise. But that doesn't preclude Apple targeting Tesla more selectively. You'd have to look at the particular people they're hiring. Are they key people? Is there some kind of common denominator?
I don't think DJT ought to be silenced. I think people should stop listening to him.
DJT is proof of Terry Pratchett's observation that hate and love are both forces of attraction, because people who hate DJT hang on his every word, even when it makes them sick with outrage and that makes his followers feel empowered, which of course shows the people who love him and the people who hate him are equally irrational.
Now I think Donald Trump is a miserable human being unworthy of the office. But I don't *hate* him; as far as I'm concerned if he goes back to being a successful reality TV star that's fine, because I don't feel compelled to pay attention to him. As long as he's president I do have to pay some attention to what he says, but since I don't hate him I have the luxury of not having to react emotionally to every bit of manipulative BS that comes out of his mouth.
Not really, unless you think the only way you can express yourself is on Twitter and Facebook. You can still go an alt-right forum or even set one up yourself.
But you'll find even sites like StormFront have community standards which they enforce, they're just different community standards. What it means is that everybody can find a platform to express their opinions, but nobody -- left or right, paleo-, neo-, or alt- -- gets a platform from which they can address *everybody*, even people who don't want to hear them.
You have a skin-deep view of the OS, and on that level you're actually right. Windows 95 UI is *similar* to modern version of Windows, and could reasonably be argued to be *better*, but Windows 95 isn't as good an OS. In fact it barely qualifies as an operating system at all. It relied on MS-DOS for a lot of the heavy lifting, which is why a simulation can be so small; you just trap the DOS hardware interrupts and translate them into Unix syscalls.
Windows 95 was something between an operating system and what we'd call a lightweight window manager. It's a low-resource kludge that existed because the average computer being sold at the time had 4MB of RAM, and Windows NT required 16 MB, which practically nobody had. Modern "lightweight" linux window managers typically call for 4 MB of RAM and most would not work on hardware of that era at all.
Now on the actual OS level lots of stuff that's been added since then that's pretty important. There's Unicode support, for example, and 64 bit computing. ACPI could be better than it is, but remember that Windows 95 had *no* power management and its hotplug capabilities were crude and only worked part of the time. There's security features like ASLR and better kernel process isolation. And modern Windows is much easier to manage for sysadmins.
But while OSs have got better, desktop UIs haven't, and for a good reason: every modern desktop system embodies an 1990s view of the desktop: as the main repository of your data and the digital switchboard for your life. That all went out the window in 2008, when the iPhone was introduced. Most of the UI "innovations" made since 2000 in UIs have been of limited or no use to most people. Remember Vista's Windows Gadgets? That would have been wildly popular in 1995, but in 2009 when Windows 7 came in they pulled the plug and nobody noticed.
The flip side of being a "capitalist culture" is being a consumer culture.
In a the capitalist facet of our culture people make informed decisions about things like risk. On the consumer side of things the habit of irrational, emotional decision making is relentlessly promoted. These people are raised to be sheep for the slaughter.
If you mix bullshit into the barrel, everything in the barrel turns to bullshit.
I think what you're zeroing in on is that a flagship phone is supposed to be a status symbol, but really phones should be a tool. With the exception of a superior camera, most of the characteristics that make a flagship are of questionable utility. I was sitting next to a woman on the airplane who had a Samsung S8, with the wrap-around screen. She had it in a case so that wrap-around part of the screen was under the bezel the case added to the phone.
What's the point? For the price I'll take a smaller, thicker phone and buy a GoPro.
Well, since you brought the president up, his August 5 tweet pretty much admits the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting of June 9 2016 was to solicit campaign aid from a foreign intelligence service -- to coin a phrase, to "collude" with the Russians. The claim now is that it was perfectly legal to do that (experts disagree).
The story about that meeting has changed so frequently I don't blame you if you missed that particular entry.
Cohen hasn't flipped on Trump yet. There is actually no cooperation deal on the Russian thing which the prosecutors have made clear.
What Cohen has done is pleaded guilty to bank fraud and campaign finance reporting violations, presumably for a reduction in the 65 years of prison time he was facing.
This implications for this vis-a-vis the president is that this is the first time the Trump campaign, and the president himself, has been connected to a crime in court. However I doubt those implications are politically catastrophic. The laws broekn probably seem obscure to the average person.
What the president needs is for Cohen and Manafort to hang tough on Russia, which thus far they have, which is pretty remarkable. Either they don't have anything valuable to give up on that score, they're angling for a pardon, or they've got more serious problems than jail time. Cohen in particular is up to his eyeballs with the Russian mob.
Trying to make sense out of Nazi actions and ideology is a fool's errand, but it's quite a stretch to imply that sanitizing the media of sex was a "primary" goal. The media was used to serve the regime in any way it could, on an opportunistic basis.
While pornography was officially frowned on, it was really pornography produced by people who weren't in the party. The Schutzstaffel "Hygeine Institute" actually produced pornographic films for use by party members, and titillating images of naked "Aryan" women were common. For the vulgar masses, material that was pornographic by the standards of the day was printed in Der Sturmer -- if often depicted the violation of young Aryan women by Jews, skillfully blending sexual arousal and hate.
It wasn't porn they objected to, it was porn that didn't serve their political ends.
And why should these poor ignoramuses be anything but ignorant? Did the media warn them about the volatility of cryptocurrencies? Did their schools teach them how to manage risk in a balanced investment portfolio? Would you expect their life experience to equip them for defining "opportunity cost" or explaining dollar cost averaging?
How are they supposed to even know they don't know enough to mess with this kind of shit?
Here's the downside of saying, "Well, let them learn the hard way." The Internet has brought us to the brink of a new era of mass hysteria and popular delusion. Yes, the Internet gives us instant access to nuggets of information, but those nuggets are buried in a mountain of bullshit. This makes the masses easier to con than ever, and when they get burned they aren't going to be philosophical about it. They're going to demands action. Drastic action.
When you run a statistical test they automatically run sanity checks which warn you if the data doesn't look like it should be used with that particular test.
This is a huge advance over the way statistics was done when I was a college student in the 80s, where it was common to collect the data and then go hunting for exotic tests that would give you a significant result because nobody had the time to check. Although I'm sure that's still done, it's a lot easier to double check someone's significance claims.
You spend a lot more time thinking about what data means these days, and that's a good thing.
What I'm saying is that it depends on context. Nonetheless, if a 20% reduction in strength caused the bridge to fail catastrophically, then the bridge was unsafe at full strength.
So the bridge is 0.8 * X strong. How big is X? How big did X need to be?
A two-fold factor of safety is normal in projects like this, so if the bridge is 0.8 * X strong, it should still be 60% than it needs to be. And civil engineers tend to be a cautious lot; after several rounds of review of something like a bridge it tends to end up grossly over-designed as each engineer adds an additional margin of safety to the prior engineer's work. So there should be no way that a bridge that has lost 20% of its strength is dangerous.
So this raises a number of questions. Did the inspectors miss something? Was the bridge improperly designed for the load it was carrying? Was it not built according to the design? Those are all possibilities. It could be a combination of them.
The Kansas City Hyatt pedestrian bridge collapse was due to two factors. First, the original design did not meet building codes; but even so the design should have been able to support as many people on the bridge as could fit. Second, changes were made to the design as the bridges were constructed, such that the bridges could barely support their own weight. Now had the original design been as strong as the code called for, the disaster wouldn't have happened. Had it been built to the original, inadequate design, the disaster wouldn't have happened.
The point is disasters can be complicated affairs involving many errors. While in this case the rust no doubt contributed to the failure, it may not be the only thing that went wrong.
"Philosophical conservative" is not the same as "Republican". The Republican party *brands* itself as conservative, but it's precisely what Edmund Burke hated: a pack of utopians. It's actually less conservative than the Democratic party.
Which means they have data to back it up. They may be wrong, of course, in which case their assertions will be disproved -- which is the thing that distinguishes the scientific consensus from religious opinion.
I sympathize with your position, but in all probability it will cause problems for people who not only never asked for autonomous driving, because that's how the world works. If everything that caused problems for people who didn't ask for them didn't happen, then practically nothing would happen. Cars create problems for people who never drive; bike lanes and mass transit create problems for people who prefer to drive.
Sure, we'd all like to know that everything is going to work out perfectly. I'm just saying we have a consistent habit of learning to live with much less than perfection.
I don't think we'll solve the problems intrinsic to self-driving cars, I think we'll learn to live with them, just like we've learned to live with all the problems highways create. We won't see those problems as the consequence of choice, although they will be. We'll see them as just the way things are.
I have no doubt self-driving cars are coming, and when they do they'll be a huge PITA, and the costs and benefits will be distributed grossly unfairly. I have no doubt self-driving cars are going to cost the taxpayer a bundle, much of which will be spent dubiously or even irresponsibly. But that doesn't mean they won't happen; it's no different from any other huge thing that burdens the public, like highways or national defense. We really *should* keep a critical attitude towards all those things but it's almost deviant behavior politically speaking to question spending that's become habitual, like highway construction or big ticket weapon systems.
Well, the world definitely gets weirder as you get older. The thing to remember is that the sensible world of your youth was just as weird and arbitrary, you just took it for granted.
Slashdot Mirror
Add to this that software engineering has one of the highest turnover rates of any profession. More than 13% of software engineers change their jobs in any given year.
Assuming that Tesla is representative, and that it does indeed have 37500 engineers, you'd expect 4875 of them to get new jobs each year. So Apple would have hired a little less than 1% of the Tesla engineers coming onto the job market.
It doesn't look like Apple is making a wholesale effort to snap up Tesla expertise. But that doesn't preclude Apple targeting Tesla more selectively. You'd have to look at the particular people they're hiring. Are they key people? Is there some kind of common denominator?
Discontinue use if you experience an erection lasting than four hours...
I don't think DJT ought to be silenced. I think people should stop listening to him.
DJT is proof of Terry Pratchett's observation that hate and love are both forces of attraction, because people who hate DJT hang on his every word, even when it makes them sick with outrage and that makes his followers feel empowered, which of course shows the people who love him and the people who hate him are equally irrational.
Now I think Donald Trump is a miserable human being unworthy of the office. But I don't *hate* him; as far as I'm concerned if he goes back to being a successful reality TV star that's fine, because I don't feel compelled to pay attention to him. As long as he's president I do have to pay some attention to what he says, but since I don't hate him I have the luxury of not having to react emotionally to every bit of manipulative BS that comes out of his mouth.
Not really, unless you think the only way you can express yourself is on Twitter and Facebook. You can still go an alt-right forum or even set one up yourself.
But you'll find even sites like StormFront have community standards which they enforce, they're just different community standards. What it means is that everybody can find a platform to express their opinions, but nobody -- left or right, paleo-, neo-, or alt- -- gets a platform from which they can address *everybody*, even people who don't want to hear them.
You have a skin-deep view of the OS, and on that level you're actually right. Windows 95 UI is *similar* to modern version of Windows, and could reasonably be argued to be *better*, but Windows 95 isn't as good an OS. In fact it barely qualifies as an operating system at all. It relied on MS-DOS for a lot of the heavy lifting, which is why a simulation can be so small; you just trap the DOS hardware interrupts and translate them into Unix syscalls.
Windows 95 was something between an operating system and what we'd call a lightweight window manager. It's a low-resource kludge that existed because the average computer being sold at the time had 4MB of RAM, and Windows NT required 16 MB, which practically nobody had. Modern "lightweight" linux window managers typically call for 4 MB of RAM and most would not work on hardware of that era at all.
Now on the actual OS level lots of stuff that's been added since then that's pretty important. There's Unicode support, for example, and 64 bit computing. ACPI could be better than it is, but remember that Windows 95 had *no* power management and its hotplug capabilities were crude and only worked part of the time. There's security features like ASLR and better kernel process isolation. And modern Windows is much easier to manage for sysadmins.
But while OSs have got better, desktop UIs haven't, and for a good reason: every modern desktop system embodies an 1990s view of the desktop: as the main repository of your data and the digital switchboard for your life. That all went out the window in 2008, when the iPhone was introduced. Most of the UI "innovations" made since 2000 in UIs have been of limited or no use to most people. Remember Vista's Windows Gadgets? That would have been wildly popular in 1995, but in 2009 when Windows 7 came in they pulled the plug and nobody noticed.
Sounds like posturing. We'll know if the pardon is actually proffered, which it shouldn't be if Trump knows what's good for him.
A lot of "mobile apps" could be HTML 5 apps.
The flip side of being a "capitalist culture" is being a consumer culture.
In a the capitalist facet of our culture people make informed decisions about things like risk. On the consumer side of things the habit of irrational, emotional decision making is relentlessly promoted. These people are raised to be sheep for the slaughter.
If you mix bullshit into the barrel, everything in the barrel turns to bullshit.
I think what you're zeroing in on is that a flagship phone is supposed to be a status symbol, but really phones should be a tool. With the exception of a superior camera, most of the characteristics that make a flagship are of questionable utility. I was sitting next to a woman on the airplane who had a Samsung S8, with the wrap-around screen. She had it in a case so that wrap-around part of the screen was under the bezel the case added to the phone.
What's the point? For the price I'll take a smaller, thicker phone and buy a GoPro.
Well, since you brought the president up, his August 5 tweet pretty much admits the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting of June 9 2016 was to solicit campaign aid from a foreign intelligence service -- to coin a phrase, to "collude" with the Russians. The claim now is that it was perfectly legal to do that (experts disagree).
The story about that meeting has changed so frequently I don't blame you if you missed that particular entry.
Cohen hasn't flipped on Trump yet. There is actually no cooperation deal on the Russian thing which the prosecutors have made clear.
What Cohen has done is pleaded guilty to bank fraud and campaign finance reporting violations, presumably for a reduction in the 65 years of prison time he was facing.
This implications for this vis-a-vis the president is that this is the first time the Trump campaign, and the president himself, has been connected to a crime in court. However I doubt those implications are politically catastrophic. The laws broekn probably seem obscure to the average person.
What the president needs is for Cohen and Manafort to hang tough on Russia, which thus far they have, which is pretty remarkable. Either they don't have anything valuable to give up on that score, they're angling for a pardon, or they've got more serious problems than jail time. Cohen in particular is up to his eyeballs with the Russian mob.
Trying to make sense out of Nazi actions and ideology is a fool's errand, but it's quite a stretch to imply that sanitizing the media of sex was a "primary" goal. The media was used to serve the regime in any way it could, on an opportunistic basis.
While pornography was officially frowned on, it was really pornography produced by people who weren't in the party. The Schutzstaffel "Hygeine Institute" actually produced pornographic films for use by party members, and titillating images of naked "Aryan" women were common. For the vulgar masses, material that was pornographic by the standards of the day was printed in Der Sturmer -- if often depicted the violation of young Aryan women by Jews, skillfully blending sexual arousal and hate.
It wasn't porn they objected to, it was porn that didn't serve their political ends.
Stupidity isn't the problem here. It's ignorance
And why should these poor ignoramuses be anything but ignorant? Did the media warn them about the volatility of cryptocurrencies? Did their schools teach them how to manage risk in a balanced investment portfolio? Would you expect their life experience to equip them for defining "opportunity cost" or explaining dollar cost averaging?
How are they supposed to even know they don't know enough to mess with this kind of shit?
Here's the downside of saying, "Well, let them learn the hard way." The Internet has brought us to the brink of a new era of mass hysteria and popular delusion. Yes, the Internet gives us instant access to nuggets of information, but those nuggets are buried in a mountain of bullshit. This makes the masses easier to con than ever, and when they get burned they aren't going to be philosophical about it. They're going to demands action. Drastic action.
When you run a statistical test they automatically run sanity checks which warn you if the data doesn't look like it should be used with that particular test.
This is a huge advance over the way statistics was done when I was a college student in the 80s, where it was common to collect the data and then go hunting for exotic tests that would give you a significant result because nobody had the time to check. Although I'm sure that's still done, it's a lot easier to double check someone's significance claims.
You spend a lot more time thinking about what data means these days, and that's a good thing.
What I'm saying is that it depends on context. Nonetheless, if a 20% reduction in strength caused the bridge to fail catastrophically, then the bridge was unsafe at full strength.
So the bridge is 0.8 * X strong. How big is X? How big did X need to be?
A two-fold factor of safety is normal in projects like this, so if the bridge is 0.8 * X strong, it should still be 60% than it needs to be. And civil engineers tend to be a cautious lot; after several rounds of review of something like a bridge it tends to end up grossly over-designed as each engineer adds an additional margin of safety to the prior engineer's work. So there should be no way that a bridge that has lost 20% of its strength is dangerous.
So this raises a number of questions. Did the inspectors miss something? Was the bridge improperly designed for the load it was carrying? Was it not built according to the design? Those are all possibilities. It could be a combination of them.
The Kansas City Hyatt pedestrian bridge collapse was due to two factors. First, the original design did not meet building codes; but even so the design should have been able to support as many people on the bridge as could fit. Second, changes were made to the design as the bridges were constructed, such that the bridges could barely support their own weight. Now had the original design been as strong as the code called for, the disaster wouldn't have happened. Had it been built to the original, inadequate design, the disaster wouldn't have happened.
The point is disasters can be complicated affairs involving many errors. While in this case the rust no doubt contributed to the failure, it may not be the only thing that went wrong.
"Philosophical conservative" is not the same as "Republican". The Republican party *brands* itself as conservative, but it's precisely what Edmund Burke hated: a pack of utopians. It's actually less conservative than the Democratic party.
Well, tell me where *your* interpretation of the data comes from.
Which means they have data to back it up. They may be wrong, of course, in which case their assertions will be disproved -- which is the thing that distinguishes the scientific consensus from religious opinion.
Conservatism as a political philosophy isn't bigoted at all. It's skeptical.
However in the US things are confused by the Republicans using "conservative" as a brand for whatever the flavor of the month is.
It *is* dangerous for private parties to have freedom. They might do things you don't like with it.
I sympathize with your position, but in all probability it will cause problems for people who not only never asked for autonomous driving, because that's how the world works. If everything that caused problems for people who didn't ask for them didn't happen, then practically nothing would happen. Cars create problems for people who never drive; bike lanes and mass transit create problems for people who prefer to drive.
Yep, but they'll solve problems too. Most things are like that.
Sure, we'd all like to know that everything is going to work out perfectly. I'm just saying we have a consistent habit of learning to live with much less than perfection.
I don't think we'll solve the problems intrinsic to self-driving cars, I think we'll learn to live with them, just like we've learned to live with all the problems highways create. We won't see those problems as the consequence of choice, although they will be. We'll see them as just the way things are.
I have no doubt self-driving cars are coming, and when they do they'll be a huge PITA, and the costs and benefits will be distributed grossly unfairly. I have no doubt self-driving cars are going to cost the taxpayer a bundle, much of which will be spent dubiously or even irresponsibly. But that doesn't mean they won't happen; it's no different from any other huge thing that burdens the public, like highways or national defense. We really *should* keep a critical attitude towards all those things but it's almost deviant behavior politically speaking to question spending that's become habitual, like highway construction or big ticket weapon systems.
Well, the world definitely gets weirder as you get older. The thing to remember is that the sensible world of your youth was just as weird and arbitrary, you just took it for granted.