Except for the part where I said that he was flaunting it, you mean?
Yes, obviously except for that part. Your assessment of his behavior is separate of an actual description of this behavior which could bolster the confidence a reader gives to your assessment. Considering the rest of your statements about the need to apologize for not knowing esoteric information, it is hard to take your claims seriously without significant backup information. Based on your statements in this forum, my assumption is now that you were being a braggart and this person was simply being dismissive of you because of it.
You seem to not understand the point, despite it being explicitly stated several times. It's not the lack of knowledge, it's the lack of embarrassment.
When someone seems to believe I should know some piece of esoteric information, embarrassment is certainly not the reaction they get from me. My first assumption would likely be this person has a confidence problem and needs to boast about how great s/he is. At that point I'm probably not too engaged in the conversation anymore unless I am interested in the topic being discussed. Although often I like to take these opportunities to learn about cultural differences which cause our different opinions about what common knowledge should be. My foreign born coworkers and neighbors are generally filled with interesting information about how our different upbringings affected us.
Macron, is that you? Terrorism is a fact of life now and you better get used to it because we will do nothing, eh?
Doing nothing about terrorism is not the same thing as accurately assessing its impact. You can both fight terrorism and not be irrationally afraid of it at the same time.
Terrorism is not a problem because leaders aren't doing enough to fight it. Terrorism is only a problem because leaders are stoking the flames of fear. If our general society cared as much about terrorist related deaths as we do about automobile related deaths, there would be no incentive for these groups to attack us in the first place.
The people who fear terrorism are far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
So you libtards keep acting like the world is at peace - and when they start blowing shit up here, the blood is on YOUR hands.
And conservatives keep acting like terrorism is a significant source of danger for US citizens. If you bought one Powerball ticket per year, you would have about the same chance of winning the lottery in your lifetime as you would being killed by terrorists. It takes extreme ignorance for US citizens to be scared of terrorism either at home or abroad. But that ignorance is just what some politicians are banking on.
Given that SCOTUS partially revived the ban, does that mean that they are predisposed to a more lenient view of the ban than lower courts? How much can we read into this.
No. It means that it sees that there is a significant constitutional issue that needs to be resolved. In the end, it could very well reject the ban.
Since they won't be hearing the case until the Fall, their ruling later this year is nearly inconsequential as it pertains to this travel ban. The ban will be mostly over by then. This Supreme Court case will probably only have an effect on future executive actions.
because there's just no feasible way to have missed not just school geography, but all other references that would have one look it up, like Maltese dogs, The Maltese Falcon, the Blue Lagoon, Maltese Cross and crusaders, WWII operations and the recent independence
I do remember school geography, and I'm sorry to say Malta didn't even make the cut when we were tested about European countries and their capitals. We also didn't learn about Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, or Monaco. Vatican City was mentioned, but only because it was the smallest. I believe Luxembourg was the smallest country we learned about in any detail. Perhaps European countries learned about these more obscure countries in school, just like some obscure American geography and history is probably not commonly taught in Europe.
Your post shows how ignorant people can be about what knowledge really is common and what comes from their own particular interests and experience. It's ironic you are even flaunting that ignorance
I specifically said that it was not the ignorance that threw me, but his flaunting it.
You have quite the chip on your shoulder. Nothing in your description shows he was flaunting his ignorance. He was seeking knowledge by asking where your vacation location was. It shows interest in gaining knowledge, instead of the alternative of continuing to be ignorant about a small self-governing set of islands in the Mediterranean. It also shows the maturity to ask someone for help instead of thinking it shows weakness.
Not knowing where neighboring Algeria, Libya, or Italy might cause some embarrassment, but not knowing about a 450k population country? I would be as embarrassed as if I couldn't identify where Matola, Londrina, Gdansk, Yamoussoukro, or Adygeja are, which are all cities with a greater population than Malta. Do you also criticize someone not knowing where the Stapedius is, or not knowing what the 409 HTTP Response Code is?
You need to grow up. Knowing the names and locations of all 196 countries is closer to obscure trivia than something you should expect everyone to know.
Failure of a croudsource project is a feature, it indicates the lack of a market so that people don't start a company and commit to expenses when there is not a market for their product.
At least read the summary. This is for crowdfunding the cost of insulin, surgery or chemotherapy, not starting company.
The problem with your logic is that you don't see people violating our laws and the government not enforcing the laws as a problem
The problem with your logic is you are putting words in his mouth and then arguing against statements he never made. He never said illegal immigration wasn't a problem. He was I believe inferring it wasn't as big of a problem as it is being made out to be, which is a fair point. Illegal immigration is arguably just an appropriate byproduct of failing immigration policies. Our country needs more workers willing to do jobs US citizens tend to find undesirable but that produce goods US citizens do find desirable at a low cost (like food). Unless we create a legal way to let millions of workers into this country to fill these jobs, we need illegal immigrants. The tragedy is how poorly these immigrants are treated, not that they are here in the first place. The thing to fix is to thank them for the risks they take to improve our country even as our country marginalizes them.
Thankfully we have people willing to break our laws when they are unjust and harm our country, just like we had people willing to fight against slavery while that was still legal. The thought that the rule of law is more important than human decency is a horrible source of evil in this world. It is a shameful belief to hold.
This is just a video game which is heavy on story and light on gameplay. It has animated characters you control through a very limited set of choices instead of having to move them around manually.
And while my comment may seem disparaging, I would like if more games like this were created. I don't have much time to play games anymore, but some games have story lines which end up making entertaining movies. For instance I have watched the cut scenes from both Injustice games without every playing them and found that quite entertaining. Add in a non-linear story line I can control at a few dozen key decisions and I would probably like it even more.
>It will never be more efficient to hire one worker for 20 hours and one slightly less competent worker for 20 hours. It will always be more efficient to have the higher quality worker work 40 hours
This is only true when there are fixed costs imposed on employers on a per employee basis. Get rid of the payroll tax and a bunch of the regulations and businesses would be happy to allot their work to more employees.
Someone already mentioned the cost of communication between employees making your comment inaccurate. But another cost is lowered level of average competency of your workforce. If you currently have two workers working 40 hours and their workload is cut in half, you have the option of firing the less capable worker and having all of the work done by your more capable employee. If you let each employee work 20 hours, you allowing half of the work to be done by a less capable person. There may not always be a drastic difference in competence between employees, but there often is.
People said that back in the 1950s too. Then along came this thing called greed, and its enabler called power.
The problem isn't greed, it is the belief that the free market will bring about this change on its own. In the free market, companies need to maintain a competitive advantage. This isn't just a requirement to make more profit, it is a requirement to stay in business.
It will never be more efficient to hire one worker for 20 hours and one slightly less competent worker for 20 hours. It will always be more efficient to have the higher quality worker work 40 hours. So companies will always have an incentive to hire less people and work them at least 40-45 hours.
Companies are also likely to find ways to hire more people to find competitive advantages once their current R&D / operations / support processes become more efficient. The more simplistic way is to hire more salesmen. If 60% of their budget goes into providing their service they only have 40% - profit to spend on sales / marketing. If only 30% of their budget goes into their service, they have 70% - profit to spend on sales / marketing. The companies that increase their sales and marketing budgets will probably win out in the market, which again makes the post-work utopia less likely to come about.
So, this prowess in self-promotion led him to having a North Korea style cabinet meeting where his department heads exclaimed what an honor it was to serve him? All that did was make him look like pompous ass he is.
To you it does. But most likely you didn't vote for him. To the people who voted for him it makes him look important. He doesn't need to care what you think about him, he just needs to appeal to the type of people who will buy $200 shoes because it has Jordan's name attached.
In my only 15 years in the industry, what has usually determined success is whether the project sponsors have given authority to the project leads who are competent enough to make decisions that affect multiple departments, or to individual VPs/Directors/Managers in charge of each department. When high ranking management are treated as subject matter experts, but with minimal control over the project, things tend to go well. When high ranking management consistently gets their way and win repeated disagreements with project leads, things spiral out of control real quick.
Competency outside of a very narrow domain is very rare in this world, and I've never seen a company capable of filling its entire management team with people who not only know their domain well but also can think critically and outside of the box during times of transformation. If average managers (no matter how far up the org chart) get too much control over transformational projects you almost always get a mess.
So rich people don't have medical issues while driving that might prevent them from responding to verbal cues?
What do you think happens to a traditional car on the highway when a driver becomes unresponsive, genius? A crash is about to happen, that's what. Self driving cars are not going to remove all accidents in the short term, and probably not even the long term. The goal is to become safer and more efficiently use roads, not to reach some unattainable ideal of being perfectly safe.
Have a heart attack which makes you unable to grip your steering wheel when driving 80 mph on a highway, and then tell me if you would have liked an autonomous car at the time.
Regardless of my feelings about Trump's lack of competence, he is undeniably a master at self promotion and posturing. Tech companies were never going to say no to hundreds of billions in new government IT contracts. But why waste an opportunity to make it seem like he masterfully negotiated the deal? He certainly knew most of his campaign promises would be disastrous, but they spoke to his base (and often independents) and gave him room to maneuver in the undiscerning public eye.
Trump never wanted to be responsible for destroying our economy with protectionist practices; it would make him look bad. Trump's performance as president has arguably shown his lack of competence at actually executing on his agenda, but his competence at self promoting himself even in the absence of accomplishments is unquestionable.
Except for the absence of a "god", Physicalism is religion. Similar variations of the religious meme have existed before, see, e.g. some variants of communism or national socialism. These are religions in all but name and about as well-funded on actual facts.
Without a god or some form of metaphysical beliefs, you cannot classify something as a religion. You can describe it as a philosophy, belief system, etc. but not a religion. Physicalism is by definition not a religion because it does not consist of metaphysical or supernatural claims.
Rather strong evidence to the contrary is completely ignored (the nature of consciousness is completely unknown, how intelligence works in a smart person is completely unknown and consciousness and real intelligence are _only_ observable together)
Consciousness and intelligence variability provide no evidence for the existence of any force/substance/etc we have not yet been able to measure. The very fact we do not understand the mechanism behind consciousness makes it evidence of nothing. If I don't understand something I surely cannot use it as evidence of something else. How one person can be smarter than another is no more mystical than how one person can be stronger than another, even though we don't yet know how to measure intelligence on a genetic / cellular / etc level. Every time society attributes mysticism to the boundaries of our scientific knowledge they have been wrong so far, so there is no reason to think it will be any different with consciousness.
Right now science describes a world where humans are no different than another other complex system. We could surely find out we are wrong in the future, but nothing we can measure now suggests we are wrong.
Exactly. I seem to recall quite a hype bubble about 3D printing. We were all going to drive 3D printed cars, printed right into the garage of our 3D printed houses.
Um, we have 3D printed cars and 3D printed houses. Considering 3D printing hype arguably started in earnest in 2014 we are a decade or two away from being able to tell if it was all just hype. The 3D printing industry is still growing today and showing no signs of stopping.
Then it was private space. We were going to colonize the Galaxy because "the species", and technology always gets better.
I have not heard anything about companies such as SpaceX or Virgin Galactic pulling back on their commercial space travel ambitions.
Overall you seem to be just complaining about new technologies and industries with nothing to back it up.
(Oh, but the way: You, too, are just an automation; at some point, automation becomes so complex that it is indistinguishable from "sentience".)
You can spread your religion-surrogate crap somewhere else please. There is no scientific basis to your claim.
You appear to have it backwards. Nearly all if not all of our scientific knowledge points to humans being an automation just like any other robot, although much more complex and with fundamentally different hardware. Religion or religion-surrogates are the only source of belief to the contrary.
That thing does not exist. Algorithms are improving glacially slow or not at all at this time.
Your comment is at odds with all of the research I could find on the topic. For instance this paper estimates that between 33%-50% of recent improvements in AI come from algorithmic improvements. In a quick Google search I couldn't find any research papers claiming hardware improvements are the only source of new breakthroughs in AI or any other computation heavy domain.
Even with such tracking how does that help the next customer if their ride shows up to fetch them from work or such and it's in such appalling shape?
Because then they get moved to the top of the queue and get a new car quickly. It isn't like it would be a common occurrence for a car with puke or piss to show up. Repeat offenders would be black balled so a few bad apples don't ruin the experience for everyone else.
People are really stretching with this complaint. Human cab drivers are not the only way to ensure the cars are clean.
Since when did "a significant portion" become "a ratio"???? Ironic in a thread fragment talking about the need to know what ratios are you make one that shows how little ratios are needed beyond the fact that they exist.
Teaching students the difference between quantitative and qualitative measurements and when each are appropriate is also important. Just because sometimes you only have qualitative measurements in no way means you never need to learn how to calculate qualitative measurements.
But what percentage of the population will actually have a use for either?
A significant portion of the best jobs today require algebra and calculus to complete their standard college curriculum. So most people in STEM jobs require both. I would argue they also need the knowledge and the reasoning skills built during the learning process, but even if I'm wrong about that they still need those skills to graduate college.
How my kids turn out doesn't depend on me providing you with statistical proof. Quit being such a nerd!
What a perfect display of prideful ignorance. Not only a disregard for the importance of establishing causality, but actual disdain for those who do. Truly pathetic.
but only a small percentage are idle during rush hour
Rush hour tends to start at around 4pm and last until 6pm, and with an average of 30-45 minute commute time one car could service 2-5 people during rush hour depending on how many people are going each way. And likely less than half of cars are even on the road during rush hour, as not everyone works 9-5 and some don't work outside of the house at all. Even during rush hour I would guess each car is at least 75% idle on average.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the part where I said that he was flaunting it, you mean?
Yes, obviously except for that part. Your assessment of his behavior is separate of an actual description of this behavior which could bolster the confidence a reader gives to your assessment. Considering the rest of your statements about the need to apologize for not knowing esoteric information, it is hard to take your claims seriously without significant backup information. Based on your statements in this forum, my assumption is now that you were being a braggart and this person was simply being dismissive of you because of it.
You seem to not understand the point, despite it being explicitly stated several times. It's not the lack of knowledge, it's the lack of embarrassment.
When someone seems to believe I should know some piece of esoteric information, embarrassment is certainly not the reaction they get from me. My first assumption would likely be this person has a confidence problem and needs to boast about how great s/he is. At that point I'm probably not too engaged in the conversation anymore unless I am interested in the topic being discussed. Although often I like to take these opportunities to learn about cultural differences which cause our different opinions about what common knowledge should be. My foreign born coworkers and neighbors are generally filled with interesting information about how our different upbringings affected us.
Macron, is that you? Terrorism is a fact of life now and you better get used to it because we will do nothing, eh?
Doing nothing about terrorism is not the same thing as accurately assessing its impact. You can both fight terrorism and not be irrationally afraid of it at the same time.
Terrorism is not a problem because leaders aren't doing enough to fight it. Terrorism is only a problem because leaders are stoking the flames of fear. If our general society cared as much about terrorist related deaths as we do about automobile related deaths, there would be no incentive for these groups to attack us in the first place.
The people who fear terrorism are far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.
So you libtards keep acting like the world is at peace - and when they start blowing shit up here, the blood is on YOUR hands.
And conservatives keep acting like terrorism is a significant source of danger for US citizens. If you bought one Powerball ticket per year, you would have about the same chance of winning the lottery in your lifetime as you would being killed by terrorists. It takes extreme ignorance for US citizens to be scared of terrorism either at home or abroad. But that ignorance is just what some politicians are banking on.
Given that SCOTUS partially revived the ban, does that mean that they are predisposed to a more lenient view of the ban than lower courts? How much can we read into this.
No. It means that it sees that there is a significant constitutional issue that needs to be resolved. In the end, it could very well reject the ban.
Since they won't be hearing the case until the Fall, their ruling later this year is nearly inconsequential as it pertains to this travel ban. The ban will be mostly over by then. This Supreme Court case will probably only have an effect on future executive actions.
because there's just no feasible way to have missed not just school geography, but all other references that would have one look it up, like Maltese dogs, The Maltese Falcon, the Blue Lagoon, Maltese Cross and crusaders, WWII operations and the recent independence
I do remember school geography, and I'm sorry to say Malta didn't even make the cut when we were tested about European countries and their capitals. We also didn't learn about Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, or Monaco. Vatican City was mentioned, but only because it was the smallest. I believe Luxembourg was the smallest country we learned about in any detail. Perhaps European countries learned about these more obscure countries in school, just like some obscure American geography and history is probably not commonly taught in Europe.
Your post shows how ignorant people can be about what knowledge really is common and what comes from their own particular interests and experience. It's ironic you are even flaunting that ignorance
I specifically said that it was not the ignorance that threw me, but his flaunting it.
You have quite the chip on your shoulder. Nothing in your description shows he was flaunting his ignorance. He was seeking knowledge by asking where your vacation location was. It shows interest in gaining knowledge, instead of the alternative of continuing to be ignorant about a small self-governing set of islands in the Mediterranean. It also shows the maturity to ask someone for help instead of thinking it shows weakness.
Not knowing where neighboring Algeria, Libya, or Italy might cause some embarrassment, but not knowing about a 450k population country? I would be as embarrassed as if I couldn't identify where Matola, Londrina, Gdansk, Yamoussoukro, or Adygeja are, which are all cities with a greater population than Malta. Do you also criticize someone not knowing where the Stapedius is, or not knowing what the 409 HTTP Response Code is?
You need to grow up. Knowing the names and locations of all 196 countries is closer to obscure trivia than something you should expect everyone to know.
Failure of a croudsource project is a feature, it indicates the lack of a market so that people don't start a company and commit to expenses when there is not a market for their product.
At least read the summary. This is for crowdfunding the cost of insulin, surgery or chemotherapy, not starting company.
The problem with your logic is that you don't see people violating our laws and the government not enforcing the laws as a problem
The problem with your logic is you are putting words in his mouth and then arguing against statements he never made. He never said illegal immigration wasn't a problem. He was I believe inferring it wasn't as big of a problem as it is being made out to be, which is a fair point. Illegal immigration is arguably just an appropriate byproduct of failing immigration policies. Our country needs more workers willing to do jobs US citizens tend to find undesirable but that produce goods US citizens do find desirable at a low cost (like food). Unless we create a legal way to let millions of workers into this country to fill these jobs, we need illegal immigrants. The tragedy is how poorly these immigrants are treated, not that they are here in the first place. The thing to fix is to thank them for the risks they take to improve our country even as our country marginalizes them.
Thankfully we have people willing to break our laws when they are unjust and harm our country, just like we had people willing to fight against slavery while that was still legal. The thought that the rule of law is more important than human decency is a horrible source of evil in this world. It is a shameful belief to hold.
This is just a video game which is heavy on story and light on gameplay. It has animated characters you control through a very limited set of choices instead of having to move them around manually.
And while my comment may seem disparaging, I would like if more games like this were created. I don't have much time to play games anymore, but some games have story lines which end up making entertaining movies. For instance I have watched the cut scenes from both Injustice games without every playing them and found that quite entertaining. Add in a non-linear story line I can control at a few dozen key decisions and I would probably like it even more.
Apparently the Choose Your Own Adventure books were just too damn difficult for some people, so we're remaking them as movies.
That is no different than comparing traditional TV shows to traditional books. News Flash: there is more than one form of entertainment in the world.
>It will never be more efficient to hire one worker for 20 hours and one slightly less competent worker for 20 hours. It will always be more efficient to have the higher quality worker work 40 hours
This is only true when there are fixed costs imposed on employers on a per employee basis. Get rid of the payroll tax and a bunch of the regulations and businesses would be happy to allot their work to more employees.
Someone already mentioned the cost of communication between employees making your comment inaccurate. But another cost is lowered level of average competency of your workforce. If you currently have two workers working 40 hours and their workload is cut in half, you have the option of firing the less capable worker and having all of the work done by your more capable employee. If you let each employee work 20 hours, you allowing half of the work to be done by a less capable person. There may not always be a drastic difference in competence between employees, but there often is.
People said that back in the 1950s too. Then along came this thing called greed, and its enabler called power.
The problem isn't greed, it is the belief that the free market will bring about this change on its own. In the free market, companies need to maintain a competitive advantage. This isn't just a requirement to make more profit, it is a requirement to stay in business.
It will never be more efficient to hire one worker for 20 hours and one slightly less competent worker for 20 hours. It will always be more efficient to have the higher quality worker work 40 hours. So companies will always have an incentive to hire less people and work them at least 40-45 hours.
Companies are also likely to find ways to hire more people to find competitive advantages once their current R&D / operations / support processes become more efficient. The more simplistic way is to hire more salesmen. If 60% of their budget goes into providing their service they only have 40% - profit to spend on sales / marketing. If only 30% of their budget goes into their service, they have 70% - profit to spend on sales / marketing. The companies that increase their sales and marketing budgets will probably win out in the market, which again makes the post-work utopia less likely to come about.
So, this prowess in self-promotion led him to having a North Korea style cabinet meeting where his department heads exclaimed what an honor it was to serve him? All that did was make him look like pompous ass he is.
To you it does. But most likely you didn't vote for him. To the people who voted for him it makes him look important. He doesn't need to care what you think about him, he just needs to appeal to the type of people who will buy $200 shoes because it has Jordan's name attached.
In my only 15 years in the industry, what has usually determined success is whether the project sponsors have given authority to the project leads who are competent enough to make decisions that affect multiple departments, or to individual VPs/Directors/Managers in charge of each department. When high ranking management are treated as subject matter experts, but with minimal control over the project, things tend to go well. When high ranking management consistently gets their way and win repeated disagreements with project leads, things spiral out of control real quick.
Competency outside of a very narrow domain is very rare in this world, and I've never seen a company capable of filling its entire management team with people who not only know their domain well but also can think critically and outside of the box during times of transformation. If average managers (no matter how far up the org chart) get too much control over transformational projects you almost always get a mess.
So rich people don't have medical issues while driving that might prevent them from responding to verbal cues?
What do you think happens to a traditional car on the highway when a driver becomes unresponsive, genius? A crash is about to happen, that's what. Self driving cars are not going to remove all accidents in the short term, and probably not even the long term. The goal is to become safer and more efficiently use roads, not to reach some unattainable ideal of being perfectly safe.
Have a heart attack which makes you unable to grip your steering wheel when driving 80 mph on a highway, and then tell me if you would have liked an autonomous car at the time.
Regardless of my feelings about Trump's lack of competence, he is undeniably a master at self promotion and posturing. Tech companies were never going to say no to hundreds of billions in new government IT contracts. But why waste an opportunity to make it seem like he masterfully negotiated the deal? He certainly knew most of his campaign promises would be disastrous, but they spoke to his base (and often independents) and gave him room to maneuver in the undiscerning public eye.
Trump never wanted to be responsible for destroying our economy with protectionist practices; it would make him look bad. Trump's performance as president has arguably shown his lack of competence at actually executing on his agenda, but his competence at self promoting himself even in the absence of accomplishments is unquestionable.
Except for the absence of a "god", Physicalism is religion. Similar variations of the religious meme have existed before, see, e.g. some variants of communism or national socialism. These are religions in all but name and about as well-funded on actual facts.
Without a god or some form of metaphysical beliefs, you cannot classify something as a religion. You can describe it as a philosophy, belief system, etc. but not a religion. Physicalism is by definition not a religion because it does not consist of metaphysical or supernatural claims.
Rather strong evidence to the contrary is completely ignored (the nature of consciousness is completely unknown, how intelligence works in a smart person is completely unknown and consciousness and real intelligence are _only_ observable together)
Consciousness and intelligence variability provide no evidence for the existence of any force/substance/etc we have not yet been able to measure. The very fact we do not understand the mechanism behind consciousness makes it evidence of nothing. If I don't understand something I surely cannot use it as evidence of something else. How one person can be smarter than another is no more mystical than how one person can be stronger than another, even though we don't yet know how to measure intelligence on a genetic / cellular / etc level. Every time society attributes mysticism to the boundaries of our scientific knowledge they have been wrong so far, so there is no reason to think it will be any different with consciousness.
Right now science describes a world where humans are no different than another other complex system. We could surely find out we are wrong in the future, but nothing we can measure now suggests we are wrong.
Exactly. I seem to recall quite a hype bubble about 3D printing. We were all going to drive 3D printed cars, printed right into the garage of our 3D printed houses.
Um, we have 3D printed cars and 3D printed houses. Considering 3D printing hype arguably started in earnest in 2014 we are a decade or two away from being able to tell if it was all just hype. The 3D printing industry is still growing today and showing no signs of stopping.
Then it was private space. We were going to colonize the Galaxy because "the species", and technology always gets better.
I have not heard anything about companies such as SpaceX or Virgin Galactic pulling back on their commercial space travel ambitions.
Overall you seem to be just complaining about new technologies and industries with nothing to back it up.
(Oh, but the way: You, too, are just an automation; at some point, automation becomes so complex that it is indistinguishable from "sentience".)
You can spread your religion-surrogate crap somewhere else please. There is no scientific basis to your claim.
You appear to have it backwards. Nearly all if not all of our scientific knowledge points to humans being an automation just like any other robot, although much more complex and with fundamentally different hardware. Religion or religion-surrogates are the only source of belief to the contrary.
That thing does not exist. Algorithms are improving glacially slow or not at all at this time.
Your comment is at odds with all of the research I could find on the topic. For instance this paper estimates that between 33%-50% of recent improvements in AI come from algorithmic improvements. In a quick Google search I couldn't find any research papers claiming hardware improvements are the only source of new breakthroughs in AI or any other computation heavy domain.
Even with such tracking how does that help the next customer if their ride shows up to fetch them from work or such and it's in such appalling shape?
Because then they get moved to the top of the queue and get a new car quickly. It isn't like it would be a common occurrence for a car with puke or piss to show up. Repeat offenders would be black balled so a few bad apples don't ruin the experience for everyone else.
People are really stretching with this complaint. Human cab drivers are not the only way to ensure the cars are clean.
Since when did "a significant portion" become "a ratio"???? Ironic in a thread fragment talking about the need to know what ratios are you make one that shows how little ratios are needed beyond the fact that they exist.
Teaching students the difference between quantitative and qualitative measurements and when each are appropriate is also important. Just because sometimes you only have qualitative measurements in no way means you never need to learn how to calculate qualitative measurements.
But what percentage of the population will actually have a use for either?
A significant portion of the best jobs today require algebra and calculus to complete their standard college curriculum. So most people in STEM jobs require both. I would argue they also need the knowledge and the reasoning skills built during the learning process, but even if I'm wrong about that they still need those skills to graduate college.
How my kids turn out doesn't depend on me providing you with statistical proof. Quit being such a nerd!
What a perfect display of prideful ignorance. Not only a disregard for the importance of establishing causality, but actual disdain for those who do. Truly pathetic.
but only a small percentage are idle during rush hour
Rush hour tends to start at around 4pm and last until 6pm, and with an average of 30-45 minute commute time one car could service 2-5 people during rush hour depending on how many people are going each way. And likely less than half of cars are even on the road during rush hour, as not everyone works 9-5 and some don't work outside of the house at all. Even during rush hour I would guess each car is at least 75% idle on average.