I predict in 2 years we'll be buying AI cards in addition to our GPUs. If you're a gamer that is.
You may not need that "for gamers only" qualifier in a few years if AI becomes more ubiquitous in consumer applications. While its possible most if not all of that processing would be done in the cloud, there could certainly be a need for local deep neural network processing to run the personal assistant apps of the near future.
Only hours after the announcement, corporations all over America started hiring lawyers to find new loopholes in the law.
Most of that hiring was done months ago by lobbying groups involved in crafting the executive order. Now those lawyers will be working as consultants for the large corporations.
No looking for loopholes necessary, they were already baked in purposefully. And this is a case where Trump is no different than any other politician so no Trump bashing is really appropriate.
Chattanooga EFB took over $300 million from taxpayers. There are 75,000 households in Chatanooga, so the cost is $4,400 per family even if you don't get the service, with an additional monthly charge if you want the service. When you have to pay $4,400 plus $60-$150 per month, that's not free. That's not anywhere near free.
This is quite inaccurate. EPB only took $111 million from taxpayers. $300 million was the total cost including the amount paid for by Internet, cable, and electricity customers of EPB. That comes to $1628 per household, not $4400. Fiber optic cables are tax depreciated over 15 years, with a presumed service life of 25 years, so that is $15 per month per household in taxes.
And considering these taxes then mean you don't have to deal with companies like Comcast, it seems like quite the bargain.
That was a very interesting article showing real problems with current CNNs. But it doesn't appear that the problem it identifies is that monumental. It seems more likely these problems just aren't a high priority right now.
A multi-step CNN which identifies not just an end result (leopard) but also expected components (head, tail, eyes, etc) could conceptually solve for this problem. Suddenly if the image looks like a large cat but has no head, tail, paws or eyes then it rules out all classifications in which those components are expected and it will probably start leaning towards fur coats or furniture.
It's a complicated problem to solve, for sure, but so was creating CNNs in the first place. Still a great read though, thanks.
I believe it has a lot to do with most people being very results oriented. They are wired to believe successful results are due to good decisions and poor results are due to poor decisions. While this is usually or at least often correct, it is quite commonly a false correlation.
If you look at a large high risk high reward people, obviously some of them will be successful. And they are very likely to be more successful than those who took less risks. Unfortunately no one pays attention to the large number of these individuals who failed because of their high risk nature. The problem is that in most cases their previous success was based on little more than luck, and they are very likely to crash and burn if they keep taking the same risks which worked for them in the past.
Just because it is a tiny part of GDP doesn't mean they don't have an army of lobbyists making sure their billions don't diminish. There are countless special interests fighting for policies that benefit their narrow interests, quite often at the expense of the rest of the country.
You are looking at it logically, which is a rookie mistake!
He said the US is profiting, not just specific US companies are profiting. Nearly anything the US government does is going to benefit some US companies and hurt others, and benefit some citizens and hurt others. If your only criteria for assuming underhanded lobbyist influence is that some tiny sector of the US government (0.05%) could benefit then you can claim conspiracy about literally everything.
US is #1 arms dealer to the planet, if war is happening, US is profiting.
It is kind of ridiculous to think the US profits from war just because it is the #1 arms dealer. It is certainly expected that the country with the #1 GDP would also be #1 in arms dealing. And if you look at the size of US arms exports, this industry makes up 0.05% of US GDP. International instability is a far greater risk to the US economy than any gains it could have from arms exports.
If you include the potential strategic benefits of winning a war then you have at least a rational argument, but as it stands your entire comment is just trolling.
You want something like retirement and healthcare, budget and pay for it like an adult instead of working looking for a nanny. We'd have much less of a mess if that was done across the board.
Our tax code provides additional benefit to those who have these forms of benefits from their employers. You probably cannot deduct as much of your insurance premiums as your employer can, especially since you probably don't itemize deductions if you work for a low paying job which doesn't offer insurance. 401k contribution limits are also over 3x as high as IRA limits, so having a 401k often makes it easier to save enough for retirement.
My current employer didn't offer great benefits, and I was up front about asking for $8k in extra salary to cover for $5k in lost benefits (since I would pay taxes on that $8k). Most people do not have good enough bargaining power to demand that from an employer though.
It isn't the employees' fault the tax code is set up this way. And employers who don't create benefits packages which take advantage of these programs in an effort to cut costs do their employees a great disservice.
Amazon Looks to Hire 30,000 Part-Time Employees in US
In other news, 300,000 US customer service workers lose their jobs because of competition with Amazon. But I'm sure our economy will create new and better jobs for them, so this is good news for them.
You have to read the actual guidance to get any meaningful details. Both of the articles are light on meaningful details. The first article at least linked to the guidance though.
I am no supporter of Trump and voted for Hillary last November, but I am not blinded by partisan politics; he's doing the right thing here: Protecting hard working Americans.
But if you actually look at the recommendations, you can see it doesn't really do anything. All it takes is a candidate with a diploma mill degree above an associates and they are considered ready for those specialized jobs.
This isn't a real attempt to fix anything. Just an attempt to give them talking points so they can claim to have done something.
After reading the recommendations, computer programmers as a profession are not being limited. Programmers who only have an associates degree will be limited. I'm not sure how many H1-B holders only have associates degrees, but I haven't met any.
how do you distribute that wealth from automation without making it feel like stealing?
Education. Progressive taxation is clearly not theft, but it could certainly feel that way to someone is simply doesn't understand the benefits of a more equitable society.
I would say it is analogous to the stroboscopic effect which can make tires appear to be spinning backwards. The only way to help someone understand why the tire seems to be moving backwards is to educate them about this optical illusion. The same goes for educating the populace about the benefits to society of having wealth better distributed.
There are few things I would rather researchers be working on than simulating tastes and smells of foods. When they can make broccoli taste like pizza I can cancel my gym membership.
The only FAIL here is YOU. The Trumps only know how to WIN, as evidenced by the election last year. Keep being butthurt, though, libtard. Thank God my taxes won't have to cover your doctor bills for much longer.
This seems like someone making fun of Trump voters with a trollish parody post, but I'm just not sure enough to rule out an actual supporter writing something this dumb.
the worst case scenario implies we might swap places with France into 6th place in GDP/world economic status. I think we'll manage just fine.
This glosses over the reality of having your economy fall that far. The UK dropping below France in GDP (caused by British decline not French expansion) would be much worse than the Great Recession. And unlike a recession, which is part of a normal economic cycle, there would not be a bounce back after the effects of Brexit.
Britain has survived far worse. What makes you think leaving the EU will be the death knell?
Who said anything about a death knell. The original post simply said they will be poorer, less powerful, and less influential. When you have 5th largest economy in the world, you can get poorer without becoming poor. The danger is members of the UK having a lower standard of living after Brexit, not that they will completely implode.
This is the only method member states have of telling the EU it's doing it wrong: leaving.
How is this comment modded up? Do you think the only way of telling your own government is to leave? The EU government, like the UK government, is full of elected officials.
Saying the UK has no control over the EU is like saying the West Midlands or Greater Manchester have no control over the UK.
Why would this be a lie? [...] Even when I was junior I was earning the equivalent of about $60,000 USD, but the development I was doing with very little input from anyone else was directly pulling in over half a million USD in sales.
I highlighted the lie he was talking about in your statement. If there was really very little input from anyone else, you really should have went into business for yourself and made that half million dollars directly. But my guess is your work required your company's existing products/services, clients, marketing, client services, business processes, etc to make that $500k. You might not have needed many people on your team, but there was still a huge infrastructure put in place by your employer to attain that revenue.
Your value is more related to your replacement cost, and the extra value you bring in as opposed to your potential replacement. If another programmer making $60k per year could have also wrote software that made your company $500k, then you were worth $60k. It should be noted that this is no different than the value your employer's goods and services have in the marketplace. The value is in comparison to alternatives in the marketplace, not simply the ROI the buyer can make on the purchase.
I think the intersection of people who don't plan to see the movie at the theatre, want to see the movie ahead of the otherwise public home-release date, and will spend $30 to stream something once, is small.
As a parent, I doubt it is that small. I like talking about recent movies with friends and coworkers, but don't like spending $100 on a babysitter. So $30 to watch the latest Marvel movie at home would be golden.
How much did you spend on your much better sound, amortized over the number of movies you watch?
I'm not sure what he spent, but lets say it is a very high quality $4k sound system. If he is a typical American he is watching around 1400 hours of TV per year, but lets say only 500 of that is TV where you would appreciate the sound system (the rest is news and talk shows I guess). So if he keeps the sound system for 10 years, it has cost him about $1.50 per two hours of movie / sports / high budget TV content where he is enjoying the extra sound quality.
Slashdot Mirror
I predict in 2 years we'll be buying AI cards in addition to our GPUs. If you're a gamer that is.
You may not need that "for gamers only" qualifier in a few years if AI becomes more ubiquitous in consumer applications. While its possible most if not all of that processing would be done in the cloud, there could certainly be a need for local deep neural network processing to run the personal assistant apps of the near future.
Only hours after the announcement, corporations all over America started hiring lawyers to find new loopholes in the law.
Most of that hiring was done months ago by lobbying groups involved in crafting the executive order. Now those lawyers will be working as consultants for the large corporations.
No looking for loopholes necessary, they were already baked in purposefully. And this is a case where Trump is no different than any other politician so no Trump bashing is really appropriate.
Chattanooga EFB took over $300 million from taxpayers. There are 75,000 households in Chatanooga, so the cost is $4,400 per family even if you don't get the service, with an additional monthly charge if you want the service. When you have to pay $4,400 plus $60-$150 per month, that's not free. That's not anywhere near free.
This is quite inaccurate. EPB only took $111 million from taxpayers. $300 million was the total cost including the amount paid for by Internet, cable, and electricity customers of EPB. That comes to $1628 per household, not $4400. Fiber optic cables are tax depreciated over 15 years, with a presumed service life of 25 years, so that is $15 per month per household in taxes.
And considering these taxes then mean you don't have to deal with companies like Comcast, it seems like quite the bargain.
Exactly.
They are comparing Facebook to Microsoft's Bing, but you could just as easily compare them to Microsoft's DOS, Windows, or Office.
That was a very interesting article showing real problems with current CNNs. But it doesn't appear that the problem it identifies is that monumental. It seems more likely these problems just aren't a high priority right now.
A multi-step CNN which identifies not just an end result (leopard) but also expected components (head, tail, eyes, etc) could conceptually solve for this problem. Suddenly if the image looks like a large cat but has no head, tail, paws or eyes then it rules out all classifications in which those components are expected and it will probably start leaning towards fur coats or furniture.
It's a complicated problem to solve, for sure, but so was creating CNNs in the first place. Still a great read though, thanks.
You say we are smart, but then go on to say how dumb we are in falling for charismatic narcissists. I don't get your comment.
I believe it has a lot to do with most people being very results oriented. They are wired to believe successful results are due to good decisions and poor results are due to poor decisions. While this is usually or at least often correct, it is quite commonly a false correlation.
If you look at a large high risk high reward people, obviously some of them will be successful. And they are very likely to be more successful than those who took less risks. Unfortunately no one pays attention to the large number of these individuals who failed because of their high risk nature. The problem is that in most cases their previous success was based on little more than luck, and they are very likely to crash and burn if they keep taking the same risks which worked for them in the past.
He said arms dealer, and I used figures from Wikipedia to come up with the value of US arms exports.
Just because it is a tiny part of GDP doesn't mean they don't have an army of lobbyists making sure their billions don't diminish. There are countless special interests fighting for policies that benefit their narrow interests, quite often at the expense of the rest of the country.
You are looking at it logically, which is a rookie mistake!
He said the US is profiting, not just specific US companies are profiting. Nearly anything the US government does is going to benefit some US companies and hurt others, and benefit some citizens and hurt others. If your only criteria for assuming underhanded lobbyist influence is that some tiny sector of the US government (0.05%) could benefit then you can claim conspiracy about literally everything.
US is #1 arms dealer to the planet, if war is happening, US is profiting.
It is kind of ridiculous to think the US profits from war just because it is the #1 arms dealer. It is certainly expected that the country with the #1 GDP would also be #1 in arms dealing. And if you look at the size of US arms exports, this industry makes up 0.05% of US GDP. International instability is a far greater risk to the US economy than any gains it could have from arms exports.
If you include the potential strategic benefits of winning a war then you have at least a rational argument, but as it stands your entire comment is just trolling.
You want something like retirement and healthcare, budget and pay for it like an adult instead of working looking for a nanny. We'd have much less of a mess if that was done across the board.
Our tax code provides additional benefit to those who have these forms of benefits from their employers. You probably cannot deduct as much of your insurance premiums as your employer can, especially since you probably don't itemize deductions if you work for a low paying job which doesn't offer insurance. 401k contribution limits are also over 3x as high as IRA limits, so having a 401k often makes it easier to save enough for retirement.
My current employer didn't offer great benefits, and I was up front about asking for $8k in extra salary to cover for $5k in lost benefits (since I would pay taxes on that $8k). Most people do not have good enough bargaining power to demand that from an employer though.
It isn't the employees' fault the tax code is set up this way. And employers who don't create benefits packages which take advantage of these programs in an effort to cut costs do their employees a great disservice.
Amazon Looks to Hire 30,000 Part-Time Employees in US
In other news, 300,000 US customer service workers lose their jobs because of competition with Amazon. But I'm sure our economy will create new and better jobs for them, so this is good news for them.
There is a shortage of skilled labor but there are plenty of idiots who think they're skilled labor.
Anyone who down voted this comment has never had to hire a significant number of IT workers.
You have to read the actual guidance to get any meaningful details. Both of the articles are light on meaningful details. The first article at least linked to the guidance though.
I am no supporter of Trump and voted for Hillary last November, but I am not blinded by partisan politics; he's doing the right thing here: Protecting hard working Americans.
But if you actually look at the recommendations, you can see it doesn't really do anything. All it takes is a candidate with a diploma mill degree above an associates and they are considered ready for those specialized jobs.
This isn't a real attempt to fix anything. Just an attempt to give them talking points so they can claim to have done something.
After reading the recommendations, computer programmers as a profession are not being limited. Programmers who only have an associates degree will be limited. I'm not sure how many H1-B holders only have associates degrees, but I haven't met any.
how do you distribute that wealth from automation without making it feel like stealing?
Education. Progressive taxation is clearly not theft, but it could certainly feel that way to someone is simply doesn't understand the benefits of a more equitable society.
I would say it is analogous to the stroboscopic effect which can make tires appear to be spinning backwards. The only way to help someone understand why the tire seems to be moving backwards is to educate them about this optical illusion. The same goes for educating the populace about the benefits to society of having wealth better distributed.
There are few things I would rather researchers be working on than simulating tastes and smells of foods. When they can make broccoli taste like pizza I can cancel my gym membership.
The only FAIL here is YOU. The Trumps only know how to WIN, as evidenced by the election last year. Keep being butthurt, though, libtard. Thank God my taxes won't have to cover your doctor bills for much longer.
This seems like someone making fun of Trump voters with a trollish parody post, but I'm just not sure enough to rule out an actual supporter writing something this dumb.
the worst case scenario implies we might swap places with France into 6th place in GDP/world economic status.
I think we'll manage just fine.
This glosses over the reality of having your economy fall that far. The UK dropping below France in GDP (caused by British decline not French expansion) would be much worse than the Great Recession. And unlike a recession, which is part of a normal economic cycle, there would not be a bounce back after the effects of Brexit.
Britain has survived far worse. What makes you think leaving the EU will be the death knell?
Who said anything about a death knell. The original post simply said they will be poorer, less powerful, and less influential. When you have 5th largest economy in the world, you can get poorer without becoming poor. The danger is members of the UK having a lower standard of living after Brexit, not that they will completely implode.
This is the only method member states have of telling the EU it's doing it wrong: leaving.
How is this comment modded up? Do you think the only way of telling your own government is to leave? The EU government, like the UK government, is full of elected officials.
Saying the UK has no control over the EU is like saying the West Midlands or Greater Manchester have no control over the UK.
Why would this be a lie? [...] Even when I was junior I was earning the equivalent of about $60,000 USD, but the development I was doing with very little input from anyone else was directly pulling in over half a million USD in sales.
I highlighted the lie he was talking about in your statement. If there was really very little input from anyone else, you really should have went into business for yourself and made that half million dollars directly. But my guess is your work required your company's existing products/services, clients, marketing, client services, business processes, etc to make that $500k. You might not have needed many people on your team, but there was still a huge infrastructure put in place by your employer to attain that revenue.
Your value is more related to your replacement cost, and the extra value you bring in as opposed to your potential replacement. If another programmer making $60k per year could have also wrote software that made your company $500k, then you were worth $60k. It should be noted that this is no different than the value your employer's goods and services have in the marketplace. The value is in comparison to alternatives in the marketplace, not simply the ROI the buyer can make on the purchase.
I think the intersection of people who don't plan to see the movie at the theatre, want to see the movie ahead of the otherwise public home-release date, and will spend $30 to stream something once, is small.
As a parent, I doubt it is that small. I like talking about recent movies with friends and coworkers, but don't like spending $100 on a babysitter. So $30 to watch the latest Marvel movie at home would be golden.
How much did you spend on your much better sound, amortized over the number of movies you watch?
I'm not sure what he spent, but lets say it is a very high quality $4k sound system. If he is a typical American he is watching around 1400 hours of TV per year, but lets say only 500 of that is TV where you would appreciate the sound system (the rest is news and talk shows I guess). So if he keeps the sound system for 10 years, it has cost him about $1.50 per two hours of movie / sports / high budget TV content where he is enjoying the extra sound quality.