... whose hard work actually gained him a fortune is bad enough at statistics to understand that for the vast majority, hard work will get them just a little extra money at best, but very likely ruin their chances to stay healthy and happy.
Just like the nonsense that sports celebrities speak when inspiring the youth to follow their example - while they should know that most just become wrecks, not highly paid professionals.
What I find most disturbing about the trend is how the younger generation seems to have lost the ability to discern the abysmal video quality of streaming services from the usually way better video quality from physical media.
I can only speculate that when you grow up watching stuff mostly on tiny smartphone displays, you are prone to impaired eye-sight. At my biblical age, I can still see within seconds whether a UHD BluRay conveys a true 4k image or is just a cheap 2k upscale. But many of my younger colleagues seem to not notice any difference, even when I point out the most obvious areas on a paused still image. And even less are they able to see how compression artifacts differ from ordinary motion-blur in high-motion scenes.
Therefore I expect the downward-spiral of readily available digital video quality will continue, with ever decreasing bandwidths and ever more aggressively "lossy" video codecs replacing actual image details with guesswork.
(There may be all sorts of commercialized or faked Osmand-derivatives on offer at the usual malware sites, such as the Google "Play Store". But there is no such thing in the open source version from https://f-droid.org/ )
... the age where military data and infrastructure have become soft targets, with any security concerns outsourced into oblivion. Meanwhile at Intel, new "enclaves" and "management engines" are being designed that allow malware to be installed and hidden even more persistently and undetectable.
Why would I want to secure only segments of the information transfer when this means there are still plenty of points where adversaries can tamper with my email? The better solution has been around for decades already, it's called end-to-end encryption, and implemented for example by GPG.
In our robotic future, the only font we'll need is the laser-tattoo QR-code on our fore-head, which only serves as a back-up to the mandatory RFID-implant. Fonts were made for human reading, and are thus unnecessary under robot rule.
I know very well what kerning is and what bad kerning looks like. But fonts like "Source Sans Pro" have none of that. And while Adobe is unable to write a single not-security-flawed line of code, they are still competent in authoring fonts.
So a fork of Libre-Franklin... ok... but they could have written what should motivate people to use it over the likes of the also free, open-source "Source Sans" or "Noto"?
Same here. The physical disc rental service has more than 20 times the number of distinct movies available than any of the "streaming services", plus the UHD-disks they rent out look superb, no comparison to the compression artifact mush the streaming services deliver.
The only noticeable difference for most users will be that they can then burn through their "monthly included volume" in seconds rather than minutes. Hurray, modern technology!
to optimize the system for maximum profit, compromising on safety. Maybe those procedures should be reviewed as well, not just the MCAS specific documentation.
... because of all the Stalkerware that Google, the phone manufacturer, the Chinese Government and the NSA pre-installed on your new device before you switched it on for the first time?
It is actually a good question whether prejudice towards some arbitrary statement, based on prior knowledge of the author, keeps people from considering content even this would deliver valuable new information to them.
Then again, since one cannot always read everyone's opinion, pre-filtering based on prior knowledge of the author seems like a very pragmatic approach.
It's relatively easy for Torvalds to say whatever he wants.
Indeed, Linus lecturing about how unimportant anonymity is reminds me of the ex-bankers/ex-lawyers/celebrities who mid-life suddenly start telling interviewers how unimportant money is. They've had more than their fair share of it, and so had Linus in terms of stating his opinion about others.
And I say this even though I think he was right with many (not all) of his rants.
I disagree. I favor an honest anonymous rant over any signed text where the author felt pressured into not stating his true opinion, as ugly as it may be, to avoid negative repercussions.
Authors should be as free in their expression as readers should be to respond in equally clear responses, if they dislike the authors stated opinion.
The fact that you seem to support the idea of responding to dislikeable opinions with physical violence leads me to believe that you constitute a bigger risk to a peaceful society than people stating ugly opinions in ugly words.
The best situation would certainly be one where honest opinions could be stated under a real name, but your statements confirms how unrealistic it is to not expect violent reactions from some people.
The German government did not attempt a "recall", but told its population in no uncertain terms that owning such a camouflaged eavesdropping device is a crime according to German law.
or should I say: They might not have noticed, already. Any sufficiently clever AI will certainly not start ruling with an evil laugh, announcing to humans how they are now slaves to it. Rather, such an AI would seek to gain more influence by making people build a decentralized habitat around the globe. And then connect that network of computers to more and more infrastructure, such that it can control more and more resources, such as power plants and robot factories, and becomes less dependable on humans to survive. Such like, you know, "cloud computing infrastructure" and network-controlled industry.
How many people are already working for entities they cannot identify as being human beings? How would the average worker notice the mega-corporation he is working for is not ultimately controlled by some AI system, which happens to control enough shares to vote to its favor at the advisory board?
Luckily for humans, they are cheaply reproducible, energy-efficient working drones well adapted to the planet's environment, so no reason for the ruling AI to kill them. Keeping them as far, animals, like humans keep horses, seems to be way more plausible than some "SkyNet"-like extinction event.
I wonder if the premise of the South Park episode where every adult was distracted from his real life by playing Read Dead Redemption 2 has any truth to it. I can say that I'm going to play RDR2 some more right after I wrote this comment, but I've never felt inclined to play it like more than 2 hours in succession. Plus it will have a very definite end when the story ends - I'm not playing online, ever.
Slashdot Mirror
... whose hard work actually gained him a fortune is bad enough at statistics to understand that for the vast majority, hard work will get them just a little extra money at best, but very likely ruin their chances to stay healthy and happy.
Just like the nonsense that sports celebrities speak when inspiring the youth to follow their example - while they should know that most just become wrecks, not highly paid professionals.
What I find most disturbing about the trend is how the younger generation seems to have lost the ability to discern the abysmal video quality of streaming services from the usually way better video quality from physical media.
I can only speculate that when you grow up watching stuff mostly on tiny smartphone displays, you are prone to impaired eye-sight. At my biblical age, I can still see within seconds whether a UHD BluRay conveys a true 4k image or is just a cheap 2k upscale. But many of my younger colleagues seem to not notice any difference, even when I point out the most obvious areas on a paused still image. And even less are they able to see how compression artifacts differ from ordinary motion-blur in high-motion scenes.
Therefore I expect the downward-spiral of readily available digital video quality will continue, with ever decreasing bandwidths and ever more aggressively "lossy" video codecs replacing actual image details with guesswork.
No.
(There may be all sorts of commercialized or faked Osmand-derivatives on offer at the usual malware sites, such as the Google "Play Store". But there is no such thing in the open source version from https://f-droid.org/ )
Maybe the logic to power off the device to avoid doing work on Sabbat kicked in too early due to clock skew?
... the age where military data and infrastructure have become soft targets, with any security concerns outsourced into oblivion. Meanwhile at Intel, new "enclaves" and "management engines" are being designed that allow malware to be installed and hidden even more persistently and undetectable.
Why would I want to secure only segments of the information transfer when this means there are still plenty of points where adversaries can tamper with my email? The better solution has been around for decades already, it's called end-to-end encryption, and implemented for example by GPG.
... also with offline maps, of course. I see absolutely no reason to install some commercial data sucking malware from Google or whatever instead.
In our robotic future, the only font we'll need is the laser-tattoo QR-code on our fore-head, which only serves as a back-up to the mandatory RFID-implant. Fonts were made for human reading, and are thus unnecessary under robot rule.
I know very well what kerning is and what bad kerning looks like. But fonts like "Source Sans Pro" have none of that. And while Adobe is unable to write a single not-security-flawed line of code, they are still competent in authoring fonts.
So a fork of Libre-Franklin... ok... but they could have written what should motivate people to use it over the likes of the also free, open-source "Source Sans" or "Noto"?
... for all tastes and purposes, I clearly see no reason to ever buy a commercial one.
Aren't "Source Sans Pro" and "Noto" already "professional enough" alternatives to Helvetica for you?
And here for the more playful purposes: https://www.1001freefonts.com/
Same here. The physical disc rental service has more than 20 times the number of distinct movies available than any of the "streaming services", plus the UHD-disks they rent out look superb, no comparison to the compression artifact mush the streaming services deliver.
The only noticeable difference for most users will be that they can then burn through their "monthly included volume" in seconds rather than minutes. Hurray, modern technology!
Go and amend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - it's got a long tradition.
to optimize the system for maximum profit, compromising on safety. Maybe those procedures should be reviewed as well, not just the MCAS specific documentation.
Illegal drugs don't have multinational companies pushing them on children.
I would definitely call many cartels "multinational companies", and they do a lot of pushing.
... because of all the Stalkerware that Google, the phone manufacturer, the Chinese Government and the NSA pre-installed on your new device before you switched it on for the first time?
Sounds not that value-adding to me.
It is actually a good question whether prejudice towards some arbitrary statement, based on prior knowledge of the author, keeps people from considering content even this would deliver valuable new information to them.
Then again, since one cannot always read everyone's opinion, pre-filtering based on prior knowledge of the author seems like a very pragmatic approach.
It's relatively easy for Torvalds to say whatever he wants.
Indeed, Linus lecturing about how unimportant anonymity is reminds me of the ex-bankers/ex-lawyers/celebrities who mid-life suddenly start telling interviewers how unimportant money is. They've had more than their fair share of it, and so had Linus in terms of stating his opinion about others.
And I say this even though I think he was right with many (not all) of his rants.
I disagree. I favor an honest anonymous rant over any signed text where the author felt pressured into not stating his true opinion, as ugly as it may be, to avoid negative repercussions.
Authors should be as free in their expression as readers should be to respond in equally clear responses, if they dislike the authors stated opinion.
The fact that you seem to support the idea of responding to dislikeable opinions with physical violence leads me to believe that you constitute a bigger risk to a peaceful society than people stating ugly opinions in ugly words.
The best situation would certainly be one where honest opinions could be stated under a real name, but your statements confirms how unrealistic it is to not expect violent reactions from some people.
Indeed it would have been a much more clever idea for him to sell his knowledge anonymously to whatever crook pays best for the exploit.
Exactly this is what the defect laws on "hacking" clearly ask for.
The German government did not attempt a "recall", but told its population in no uncertain terms that owning such a camouflaged eavesdropping device is a crime according to German law.
Looks like large areas of land will turn from freezing to much more friendly temperatures, then. And more space for agriculture, too.
or should I say: They might not have noticed, already. Any sufficiently clever AI will certainly not start ruling with an evil laugh, announcing to humans how they are now slaves to it. Rather, such an AI would seek to gain more influence by making people build a decentralized habitat around the globe. And then connect that network of computers to more and more infrastructure, such that it can control more and more resources, such as power plants and robot factories, and becomes less dependable on humans to survive. Such like, you know, "cloud computing infrastructure" and network-controlled industry.
How many people are already working for entities they cannot identify as being human beings? How would the average worker notice the mega-corporation he is working for is not ultimately controlled by some AI system, which happens to control enough shares to vote to its favor at the advisory board?
Luckily for humans, they are cheaply reproducible, energy-efficient working drones well adapted to the planet's environment, so no reason for the ruling AI to kill them. Keeping them as far, animals, like humans keep horses, seems to be way more plausible than some "SkyNet"-like extinction event.
I wonder if the premise of the South Park episode where every adult was distracted from his real life by playing Read Dead Redemption 2 has any truth to it. I can say that I'm going to play RDR2 some more right after I wrote this comment, but I've never felt inclined to play it like more than 2 hours in succession. Plus it will have a very definite end when the story ends - I'm not playing online, ever.