While somewhat frustrated that it breaks existing code, it also makes it needlessly difficult to write code that works on both for asinine reasons.
For example, if python 3 recognized 'xrange' word, then you could use xrange in both 2 and 3. But noooo, that wouldn't look pretty.
Same for other 'mistakes' they made, like naming their standard libraries things they didn't like later. They *could* have stubs with the old names in python3, but nooo...
There is an example of them doing the sane thing, at first they refused to recognize u'', now they do in python 3. So I can use b'' and u'' in python code and at least that chunk will be consistent from 2 to 3. I'm quite content to use b'' all over the place, and bytes() and bytearrays(), since it works in both 2 and 3 world.
Changing the meaning of unqualified strings I can understand. Changing the syntax of except so you must use 'as' to capture to a variable I can understand. Basically changes that can be made that work in both, so people delivering code that must work in RHEL6, for example, can port to python3 without it being a clusterfuck for the python 2.6 in RHEL6.
My point is while personally I can be confident in my choices, I can easily see not being confident in *other* people's choices, particularly if I find myself having to borrow a cable.
I'd say about 10% of the time when I have to borrow a micro-usb cable, someone hands me something that's a dud that they bought cheap and stuffed in a drawer. If there's a 10% chance of a dud damaging my device, then I would have lost an expensive device by now.
On the face of it, a single cable for things under 100W is a nice thing, but the fact that there are significant volumes of bad enough to damage in the wild is a worrying thing. Keeping the high current things to more simplistic cable/connector design is one area where it may have made more sense to be cautious.
It used to make sense, because things were too dumb to not screw up something if miscabled, sometimes catastrophically, at best without any recourse for helping the user tell why it seemed broken. USB host and USB target were different roles, and providing the ability to be fancy about being dynamic was not an affordable thing, hence the type b connector. So a USB hub particularly necessarily had directionality, and if you had 5 identical ports, but only *one* of them could be plugged to a USB host device and the rest should only go to USB target, so USB type B made sense as a way to enforce that.
I haven't looked at hubs, but other devices at least have gotten good at adapting so that it will 'do the right thing', so you don't have to worry about where the right port is, and things like indicator leds or even screens are affordable enough to guide the user should they do something that really can't easily make sense (plug two computers into the same 'dumb' usb hub)/there's enough experience in the market so people *know* what doesn't make sense now.
But you need bigger cables for 0s, because they are wider. Sure the 1s can sometimes go sideways and get stuck in bad cables, but good cables funnel the data so that the 1s can't really do that.
If you buy a crap cable from a crap vendor be prepared to get crap results.
Of course at the amperage of typical usb connection before, the 'crap results' were 'the damn cable didn't work, what a waste'. With USB power delivery, the 'crap results' are 'my thousand dollar laptop fried'. We have the unfortunate circumstance of 'cheap power cable' vendors, 'high current', and 'small form factor that mfg can screw up'.
Same *could* happen with C13 power cabling in theory, but those are so gigantic it's hard to screw up, or at least screwing up is not a natural consequence of trying to cut costs.
So apart from some asshat behavior (like some datacenter equipment that uses a micro-usb form factor, but RS-232 signaling), the point is anything with a usb type c connector *should* begin life by negotiating parameters and deciding if it can do what has been cabled, or if it doesn't make sense and provide some useful info to the user that what they are trying to do is crazy/unsupported.
So in your lawnmower case, if it truly took usb-type c for power only (unlikely, the power requirements require much thicker gauge cable, but anyway)... If you plug a display into it, it should say 'the other device does not support video' or something, and conversely the charge indicator on the mower should stay off or blink error or something.
The point is the universe of distinct things to do over a cable is actually really open ended. It would be highly impractical to have a distinct cable for every little usage scenario. To start with, audio only, video only, both, bidirectional, unidirectional, charging from the peer, charging to the peer, get text data, be block storage, be sequential storage, provide graphics processing capability, control LEDs, bridge to bluetooth, bridge to wifi, bridge to LTE..... To say some of these matter enough and some of them don't matter enough to have distinct cables would be an interesting arbitrary decision.
The world has advanced so that it's affordable to have microcontrollers that can first decide if using the connected device as desired can make sense, and adapt if it's one of a selection of possibilities.
Over RJ45, it got to 10Gbps (though there is also 2.5 Gbps and 5 Gbps, which are appealing for range and power requirement reasons, largely done due to the oddity that many wireless access points were constrained by their ethernet uplink, which is embarassing for etherenet...). Over SFP+, it's at 25 Gbps now, and QSFP is at 100 GBps.
Of course, in terms of what's relevant to the sorts of systems that use usb seriously, it pretty much is at 1 Gpbs.
Actually, you can have dynamic UI often with nothing more than CSS trickery. If your application happens to fall in that category and you implement it in that way, the browser will behave much more smoothly and in fact there's less to micromanage.
Of course there are things that plain CSS cannot do, but it can do far more than a lot of people do not realize.
In short, guess my message is don't go too crazy doing something visual with javascript without seeing if CSS has a way of doing it first.
Because Apple point blank refused to allow flash on the iPhone.
As a result, Adobe sticking to their guns on flash and content creation for flash caused web developers to look elsewhere.
Adobe decided the way forward was to refresh their content creation tools (where they actually make money) to help developers with non-flash content.
With that in theory done, the flash platform represents a cost, and their whole marketing message is now that you don't need flash, so they are paying for something that, per their own messaging, doesn't advance the value of their authoring tools.
The places using flash still are generally not revenue sources for Adobe right now. They are sites that authored their stuff ages ago and have not bought into new authoring tools. In a way, telling those developers 'your platform is dead, your users are going to evaporate,.... *unless* you buy our snazzy new authoring tools to help refresh your site to modern status!"
The black plague did not have human like intelligence. Malaria does not have human-like intelligence. Software glitching out because we don't understand the random string of algorithms that scored highest during training is a new element of risk, and can have nothing to do with 'DESTROY ALL HUMANS' or similar such thing.
I think there's a presumed leap being made that in order for AI to be dangerous, it has to be sapient, or self aware, have consciousness, whatever.
However, we can be killed by parasites, insects, bacteria, and other things that are not really smart, and are not trying to kill humans, just humans die as a consequence of the way they happen to try to live.
So a computer vision application powering some sort of image search is not something that is going to lead to a crisis. Computer vision driving some weapons guidance systems could cause problems.
The good news is that the scope of a first problem is likely to be manageable, since the sorts of things to be big problems aren't generally a goal of implementors (having a 'will' to live, optimizing for self replication, etc).
Also 'learning' is a generous word. It's effectively trying random combinations of the things a human told it to do, and marking which random combination of those tools resulted in the highest score in a test designed by human. It's incredibly far off from the sort of AI that is presented as scary.
Now on the other hand, we can be killed off by very dumb organisms (bacteria, parasites), so it's not like AI *has* to be human intelligence to pose an existential threat.
In that particular article, I think it was more a response for claims at the time that he was a Bernie person and hated Trump. Those more specific speculations were not supported by any evidence beyond a 10 year old voter registration record.
So yes, the claim that he 'was a democrat' is true, the leap to infer very specific things about the election cycle of the time was not justified.
Instead of using the in-app method, you can go into the settings/apps somewhere and forbid an app from being able to send notifications (at least in android).
Generally if some app starts spamming me with notifications, I'm inclined to remove it, unless I really want it, then I go and block notifications. Sure I could block notifications as my first course, but I want to punish app developers for being stupid about notifications for their crappy app.
Note that while this is bad, generally speaking the economy works around value that pretty much gets sequestered out of circulation. So the result of injecting this money into the economy long term would pretty much be no change and a touch of inflation. Short term some people close to major influx of cash will be very happy and elevated, but it's like a pyramid scheme, barely moving the needle as it moves outward.
But they also move US money abroad using tax exemptions.
For example, they make themselves a wholly owned subsidiary of some Irish company. That Irish company charges the US based subsidiary a certain amount, wow look at that, it's right about 100% of what *would* have otherwise been US product! US company deducts as business expenses the amount of money they had to pay to their foreign parent company for whatever reasons (e.g. intellectual property rights, what have you).
This is of course a gross oversimplification of it, but it's roughly one of the tricks used to make what any rational person would assume to be US based profit magically appear in a more favorable tax jurisdiction.
So Android is trying to *fix* their update problems by trying to better segregate the portions of their platform that are heavily dependent on the specific hardware vendors from the upper application layers. In this way, they can work toward fixing the problem where Android devices are notorious for not being able to take updates, since it's all one big lump today.
Microsoft seems to be going the other direction, having a big monolithic glob of crap, where a hardware vendor dropping out means you suddenly can't get, say, a new version of paint, or a fix for some software bug (they said *security* updates would continue, but you have some crash in some application that isn't exploitable, well tough because the really unrelated graphics driver they want doesn't exist). Even worse because it's all 'Windows 10', so now when something says 'Windows 10' it's really hard to know which 'Windows 10' is really meant.
Of course, this reaction by people is only partially about Netflix per se. The general sentiment of 'any company is successful if they spend more money than they make' brings back many bad memories of companies that go bust. Netflix would be sorely missed if they got *too* caught up in overspending and failed as a result, but also a company like Netflix reinforcing this concept that is prevalent across the industry contributes to continued unsustainable behavior across companies in the industry, and when just a few noteworthy ones finally collapse under the weight, it will probably trigger a bust that would take a lot of good work with it.
Near as I can tell, Netflix licenses Daredevil from Marvel Television. It may be a 'netflix original series', but does not seem to be like Stranger Things where Netflix owns the copyright.
Just because a show is 'Netflix original' does not mean it controls the copyright.
The problem is that even if it is a wise move and correct, it is still not an 'indicator of success'. An 'indicator' would be positive cash flow.
Note that the alternative to spending more than you have is not 'sitting on cash'. You can spend exactly as much as you have. Again, circumstances may dictate temporarily exceeding your cash on hand and taking on debt, but if it is a long term situation that revenue never outpaces your costs, then it's a big problem.
Not necessarily netflix, but a *lot* of companies that look suspciously like netflix in this attitude flounder around and ultimately fail, because they never parlayed their investments to profit.
Well, that's also putting the marginal cost of the subscriber at 0. There is some cost for infrastructure that increases with subscriber count, and more dramatic: licensing costs for the content. They are talking a *lot* about 'Stranger Things' which they do outright completely own, but the vast majority of content they provide is licensed, and that licensed content costs money per subscriber. One can imagine how much money they are spending on a per-subscriber basis for Disney alone.... Even the much talked about House of Cards and Orange is the New Black is not owned by netflix....
I think the point is that while that can make sense for 'starting up', at *some* point you have to point and say 'here's where revenue will exceed investment'.
The problem is the statement on its face doesn't imply that the investment will stop.
If their investment outstrips subscription revenue by 2.5 billion annually, well you need to be able to find 2.5 billion worth of new subscribers. That's actually better than reality, as some analysts have noted that license costs grow with subscriber count for shows they don't own (including many 'netflix original series' like house of cards or orange is the new black, they license, not own), so the number is worse than 2.5 billion. Further complicating matters as that netflix may pretty well be close to saturating the market.
We are not talking about a capital 2.5 billion dollar investment and we are done either. We are talking about content creation, which means that they have to keep this up *every single year*, lest they stop having new content and subscribers tire of stale content.
While you may feel the guy acted irresponsibly and deserves some sort of insulting moniker, script kiddie isn't a good fit.
A script kiddie can't write exploits or generally understand the things they are using. They don't post exploits because they aren't that capable, they just know where to go to download and then clumsily apply the work of others.
Now find a company that owns the rights that will play ball, since ultimately the copyright holders have to do that.
Also, in part a customer usage issue. Even if they were willing to play ball, it is much easier to support selling the rom embedded in an emulator than it is to explain how to use a rom file with emulators. If a user can't figure it out, they will blame the company and the company will get badly rated.
Slashdot Mirror
While somewhat frustrated that it breaks existing code, it also makes it needlessly difficult to write code that works on both for asinine reasons.
For example, if python 3 recognized 'xrange' word, then you could use xrange in both 2 and 3. But noooo, that wouldn't look pretty.
Same for other 'mistakes' they made, like naming their standard libraries things they didn't like later. They *could* have stubs with the old names in python3, but nooo...
There is an example of them doing the sane thing, at first they refused to recognize u'', now they do in python 3. So I can use b'' and u'' in python code and at least that chunk will be consistent from 2 to 3. I'm quite content to use b'' all over the place, and bytes() and bytearrays(), since it works in both 2 and 3 world.
Changing the meaning of unqualified strings I can understand. Changing the syntax of except so you must use 'as' to capture to a variable I can understand. Basically changes that can be made that work in both, so people delivering code that must work in RHEL6, for example, can port to python3 without it being a clusterfuck for the python 2.6 in RHEL6.
My point is while personally I can be confident in my choices, I can easily see not being confident in *other* people's choices, particularly if I find myself having to borrow a cable.
I'd say about 10% of the time when I have to borrow a micro-usb cable, someone hands me something that's a dud that they bought cheap and stuffed in a drawer. If there's a 10% chance of a dud damaging my device, then I would have lost an expensive device by now.
On the face of it, a single cable for things under 100W is a nice thing, but the fact that there are significant volumes of bad enough to damage in the wild is a worrying thing. Keeping the high current things to more simplistic cable/connector design is one area where it may have made more sense to be cautious.
It used to make sense, because things were too dumb to not screw up something if miscabled, sometimes catastrophically, at best without any recourse for helping the user tell why it seemed broken. USB host and USB target were different roles, and providing the ability to be fancy about being dynamic was not an affordable thing, hence the type b connector. So a USB hub particularly necessarily had directionality, and if you had 5 identical ports, but only *one* of them could be plugged to a USB host device and the rest should only go to USB target, so USB type B made sense as a way to enforce that.
I haven't looked at hubs, but other devices at least have gotten good at adapting so that it will 'do the right thing', so you don't have to worry about where the right port is, and things like indicator leds or even screens are affordable enough to guide the user should they do something that really can't easily make sense (plug two computers into the same 'dumb' usb hub)/there's enough experience in the market so people *know* what doesn't make sense now.
USB-C certainly cannot do 10GB/s, it is definitely 10Gb/s.
But you need bigger cables for 0s, because they are wider. Sure the 1s can sometimes go sideways and get stuck in bad cables, but good cables funnel the data so that the 1s can't really do that.
If you buy a crap cable from a crap vendor be prepared to get crap results.
Of course at the amperage of typical usb connection before, the 'crap results' were 'the damn cable didn't work, what a waste'. With USB power delivery, the 'crap results' are 'my thousand dollar laptop fried'. We have the unfortunate circumstance of 'cheap power cable' vendors, 'high current', and 'small form factor that mfg can screw up'.
Same *could* happen with C13 power cabling in theory, but those are so gigantic it's hard to screw up, or at least screwing up is not a natural consequence of trying to cut costs.
So apart from some asshat behavior (like some datacenter equipment that uses a micro-usb form factor, but RS-232 signaling), the point is anything with a usb type c connector *should* begin life by negotiating parameters and deciding if it can do what has been cabled, or if it doesn't make sense and provide some useful info to the user that what they are trying to do is crazy/unsupported.
So in your lawnmower case, if it truly took usb-type c for power only (unlikely, the power requirements require much thicker gauge cable, but anyway)... If you plug a display into it, it should say 'the other device does not support video' or something, and conversely the charge indicator on the mower should stay off or blink error or something.
The point is the universe of distinct things to do over a cable is actually really open ended. It would be highly impractical to have a distinct cable for every little usage scenario. To start with, audio only, video only, both, bidirectional, unidirectional, charging from the peer, charging to the peer, get text data, be block storage, be sequential storage, provide graphics processing capability, control LEDs, bridge to bluetooth, bridge to wifi, bridge to LTE..... To say some of these matter enough and some of them don't matter enough to have distinct cables would be an interesting arbitrary decision.
The world has advanced so that it's affordable to have microcontrollers that can first decide if using the connected device as desired can make sense, and adapt if it's one of a selection of possibilities.
Over RJ45, it got to 10Gbps (though there is also 2.5 Gbps and 5 Gbps, which are appealing for range and power requirement reasons, largely done due to the oddity that many wireless access points were constrained by their ethernet uplink, which is embarassing for etherenet...). Over SFP+, it's at 25 Gbps now, and QSFP is at 100 GBps.
Of course, in terms of what's relevant to the sorts of systems that use usb seriously, it pretty much is at 1 Gpbs.
Actually, you can have dynamic UI often with nothing more than CSS trickery. If your application happens to fall in that category and you implement it in that way, the browser will behave much more smoothly and in fact there's less to micromanage.
Of course there are things that plain CSS cannot do, but it can do far more than a lot of people do not realize.
In short, guess my message is don't go too crazy doing something visual with javascript without seeing if CSS has a way of doing it first.
Because Apple point blank refused to allow flash on the iPhone.
As a result, Adobe sticking to their guns on flash and content creation for flash caused web developers to look elsewhere.
Adobe decided the way forward was to refresh their content creation tools (where they actually make money) to help developers with non-flash content.
With that in theory done, the flash platform represents a cost, and their whole marketing message is now that you don't need flash, so they are paying for something that, per their own messaging, doesn't advance the value of their authoring tools.
The places using flash still are generally not revenue sources for Adobe right now. They are sites that authored their stuff ages ago and have not bought into new authoring tools. In a way, telling those developers 'your platform is dead, your users are going to evaporate,.... *unless* you buy our snazzy new authoring tools to help refresh your site to modern status!"
but first of all we need human-like AI.
The black plague did not have human like intelligence. Malaria does not have human-like intelligence. Software glitching out because we don't understand the random string of algorithms that scored highest during training is a new element of risk, and can have nothing to do with 'DESTROY ALL HUMANS' or similar such thing.
I think there's a presumed leap being made that in order for AI to be dangerous, it has to be sapient, or self aware, have consciousness, whatever.
However, we can be killed by parasites, insects, bacteria, and other things that are not really smart, and are not trying to kill humans, just humans die as a consequence of the way they happen to try to live.
So a computer vision application powering some sort of image search is not something that is going to lead to a crisis. Computer vision driving some weapons guidance systems could cause problems.
The good news is that the scope of a first problem is likely to be manageable, since the sorts of things to be big problems aren't generally a goal of implementors (having a 'will' to live, optimizing for self replication, etc).
Also 'learning' is a generous word. It's effectively trying random combinations of the things a human told it to do, and marking which random combination of those tools resulted in the highest score in a test designed by human. It's incredibly far off from the sort of AI that is presented as scary.
Now on the other hand, we can be killed off by very dumb organisms (bacteria, parasites), so it's not like AI *has* to be human intelligence to pose an existential threat.
In that particular article, I think it was more a response for claims at the time that he was a Bernie person and hated Trump. Those more specific speculations were not supported by any evidence beyond a 10 year old voter registration record.
So yes, the claim that he 'was a democrat' is true, the leap to infer very specific things about the election cycle of the time was not justified.
Instead of using the in-app method, you can go into the settings/apps somewhere and forbid an app from being able to send notifications (at least in android).
Generally if some app starts spamming me with notifications, I'm inclined to remove it, unless I really want it, then I go and block notifications. Sure I could block notifications as my first course, but I want to punish app developers for being stupid about notifications for their crappy app.
Note that while this is bad, generally speaking the economy works around value that pretty much gets sequestered out of circulation. So the result of injecting this money into the economy long term would pretty much be no change and a touch of inflation. Short term some people close to major influx of cash will be very happy and elevated, but it's like a pyramid scheme, barely moving the needle as it moves outward.
But they also move US money abroad using tax exemptions.
For example, they make themselves a wholly owned subsidiary of some Irish company. That Irish company charges the US based subsidiary a certain amount, wow look at that, it's right about 100% of what *would* have otherwise been US product! US company deducts as business expenses the amount of money they had to pay to their foreign parent company for whatever reasons (e.g. intellectual property rights, what have you).
This is of course a gross oversimplification of it, but it's roughly one of the tricks used to make what any rational person would assume to be US based profit magically appear in a more favorable tax jurisdiction.
So Android is trying to *fix* their update problems by trying to better segregate the portions of their platform that are heavily dependent on the specific hardware vendors from the upper application layers. In this way, they can work toward fixing the problem where Android devices are notorious for not being able to take updates, since it's all one big lump today.
Microsoft seems to be going the other direction, having a big monolithic glob of crap, where a hardware vendor dropping out means you suddenly can't get, say, a new version of paint, or a fix for some software bug (they said *security* updates would continue, but you have some crash in some application that isn't exploitable, well tough because the really unrelated graphics driver they want doesn't exist). Even worse because it's all 'Windows 10', so now when something says 'Windows 10' it's really hard to know which 'Windows 10' is really meant.
Of course, this reaction by people is only partially about Netflix per se. The general sentiment of 'any company is successful if they spend more money than they make' brings back many bad memories of companies that go bust. Netflix would be sorely missed if they got *too* caught up in overspending and failed as a result, but also a company like Netflix reinforcing this concept that is prevalent across the industry contributes to continued unsustainable behavior across companies in the industry, and when just a few noteworthy ones finally collapse under the weight, it will probably trigger a bust that would take a lot of good work with it.
Near as I can tell, Netflix licenses Daredevil from Marvel Television. It may be a 'netflix original series', but does not seem to be like Stranger Things where Netflix owns the copyright.
Just because a show is 'Netflix original' does not mean it controls the copyright.
The problem is that even if it is a wise move and correct, it is still not an 'indicator of success'. An 'indicator' would be positive cash flow.
Note that the alternative to spending more than you have is not 'sitting on cash'. You can spend exactly as much as you have. Again, circumstances may dictate temporarily exceeding your cash on hand and taking on debt, but if it is a long term situation that revenue never outpaces your costs, then it's a big problem.
Not necessarily netflix, but a *lot* of companies that look suspciously like netflix in this attitude flounder around and ultimately fail, because they never parlayed their investments to profit.
Well, that's also putting the marginal cost of the subscriber at 0. There is some cost for infrastructure that increases with subscriber count, and more dramatic: licensing costs for the content. They are talking a *lot* about 'Stranger Things' which they do outright completely own, but the vast majority of content they provide is licensed, and that licensed content costs money per subscriber. One can imagine how much money they are spending on a per-subscriber basis for Disney alone.... Even the much talked about House of Cards and Orange is the New Black is not owned by netflix....
I think the point is that while that can make sense for 'starting up', at *some* point you have to point and say 'here's where revenue will exceed investment'.
The problem is the statement on its face doesn't imply that the investment will stop.
If their investment outstrips subscription revenue by 2.5 billion annually, well you need to be able to find 2.5 billion worth of new subscribers. That's actually better than reality, as some analysts have noted that license costs grow with subscriber count for shows they don't own (including many 'netflix original series' like house of cards or orange is the new black, they license, not own), so the number is worse than 2.5 billion. Further complicating matters as that netflix may pretty well be close to saturating the market.
We are not talking about a capital 2.5 billion dollar investment and we are done either. We are talking about content creation, which means that they have to keep this up *every single year*, lest they stop having new content and subscribers tire of stale content.
While you may feel the guy acted irresponsibly and deserves some sort of insulting moniker, script kiddie isn't a good fit.
A script kiddie can't write exploits or generally understand the things they are using. They don't post exploits because they aren't that capable, they just know where to go to download and then clumsily apply the work of others.
legally sure.
Now find a company that owns the rights that will play ball, since ultimately the copyright holders have to do that.
Also, in part a customer usage issue. Even if they were willing to play ball, it is much easier to support selling the rom embedded in an emulator than it is to explain how to use a rom file with emulators. If a user can't figure it out, they will blame the company and the company will get badly rated.