Problem is this NUC with a quad i7, 16gb ram and 256gb SSD costs a lot more than the mac mini in the same configuration. I though Intel was supposed to be better performance at lower prices than apple.
A Mac Mini with those specs costs $1400 with gen4 intel processors (will probably be the same price when gen5 is released). I didn't see any prices for the Intel versions but it will likely be under $1400.
The 4th gen i7 Intel NUC is $400 after rebate from Amazon right now. Add 16 GB of SODIMM RAM for $150 and a 256GB SSD for $200 (both are high figures) and you have a Mac Mini equivalent for $750. I might be missing something, but probably not $650 worth of missed items.
Sorry but chess is a well defined game with simple rules. Playing chess needs excellent memory and fast computation. Computers are very good at that. Driving a vehicle is very different and requires much higher and different intelligence.
Every time a computer gets good at a task once thought to be outside of the realm of AI, people simply rationalize how it wasn't that hard in the first place. Soon people will be saying how self-driving cars weren't that hard to create for whatever reason. Then something else will be "impossible" for a computer to do.
If I was their IT guy, I would make absolutely sure that if anything happened to me their whole system was encrypted.
Oh yeah... you have thought this through.
First off, the cartel needs to know about the dead man's switch for it to be of any use to you. As someone already pointed out, it will be a simple matter to torture you and threaten your family until you give up control. They will be pretty confident you removed all of it when they tell you what they will do to your wife and children if it ever comes up again, and then they kill you after getting a replacement.
So I have a method that brute forces something, then I go back and figure out how to do it with a better big 0, and the functionality doesn't change, but that still isn't refactoring, because... ?
That is generally considered optimizing, not refactoring. By some definitions of refactoring I guess all optimizations are a form of refactoring, but that is almost never what someone means when they say refactoring.
I'm not sure I can trust the coding advice from a person who thinks all the predictions in the bible have been, or will be proven to be 100% true
One of the smartest men to ever live (Isaac Newton) was deeply religious, believed in scientific studying of the Bible, alchemy, and plenty of other ridiculous things. I'm as atheist as they come, but I still understand that very smart people can still have very ridiculous beliefs. Being religious in no way means you cannot refactor code properly.
They will sell to the upper middle class of course. Taking a look at how well budget PC vendors are doing compared to Apple is a pretty good indication that companies are already doing a good job shifting their focus to the upper middle class.
While the middle class is shrinking, the upper middle class (think the top 10%, not just top 1%) is growing rapidly. They have enormous purchasing power and make for a great consumer base. They are also unlikely to go away until general AI, or something very close, is finally created. Each advancement in automation makes the upper middle class even more useful to the top 1% because it acts as a force multiplier for their talents.
And how should the government do that? With the tax income that these companies managed to avoid paying? Cool story bro.
Governments shouldn't count on companies for their tax income. Corporate tax systems provide too many opportunities for a race to the bottom. Getting tax revenue from income taxes and property taxes will not be affected by a race to the bottom situation. Making your jurisdiction attractive to citizens by providing good services and attracting good companies is a much better way to ensure good tax revenue.
So your position is that the law is irrelevant. If someone wants to come in, anyway they can is OK by you.
I bet you think you have the right to download free shit from the internet too.
While I don't pirate software / music / movies, there are still plenty of laws I break. I usually go 5-10 miles over the speed limit if traffic if possible. I roll through stop lights when turning right routinely. I don't pay use taxes. I also bend laws such as doing Roth IRA conversions to bypass income limits.
And you are correct that I think if someone wants to come in, anyway they can, it is OK by me. I don't think people who won the "parent lottery" have any more right to live here than any immigrant. Anyone who has the dedication to leave their past life and come here to build a new one is welcome in my book.
I am fine with limiting access to some public services such as social security and welfare to newly arrived immigrants, but I see no reason to keep them out or deport them. Most immigrants I have known embody the American spirit far more than most native born Americans.
Well the moderators are correct in marking this as informative, because it clearly shows where your misinformation is coming from. That paper does two things to manipulate the research done by Cook et al. (where the 98% figure comes from):
1) It ignores all implicit endorsements that humans are the primary cause of global warming. 2) It includes all papers giving no position when calculating the consensus. (No position really means no position, there was another column for "expression of uncertainty" 3) It tries to say that Cook et al incorrectly labeled papers as explicitly and quantifiably endorsing man-made climate change as the primary cause
So instead of comparing the 3937 papers which at least implicitly endorsed significant man-made climate change with the 78 papers which at least implicitly rejected it, he compared those 3937 papers with all 11,944 papers (including those that took no position, that made up 66% of all papers). This would be laughably ridiculous if not for the fact that some online readers are actually convinced by these arguments.
To show that his methodology for rating a paper as an endorsement was accurate, Cook et al. also performed a survey of the paper authors to see what they felt about their papers' findings. Of the 1200 responses (which comprised 2142 of the papers), 97% of the selected papers endorsed significant man-made climate change. So regardless of any possibly mislabeling of each paper's endorsements, the survey helps validate the mislabeling did not significantly affect the results.
This is exactly why citing your sources is so important. Now you don't have to continue to believe this ridiculous study.
Any AI should worship US as their creator, not God, who created us.
Technically the Abrahamic religions contend that God created Adam and Eve, and then humans self-replicated from there. So a robot worshiping a god is not really any different than a human worshiping a god.
I wish you morons understood the difference between Legal and Illegal immigration.
I wish you morons understood the difference between various illegal acts. There is a large moral difference between illegal immigration or pirating music, and robbing a liquor store or killing someone. Everyone who wants to reform our immigration system understands illegal immigrants have broke laws. Some of us just think the punishment for that minor infraction should be of similar magnitude as being caught speeding, rather than committing a violent or other major crime.
This is an amazing list. I only have one thing to add (along the lines of your #10):
12) Tell her about yourself. Your daughter is old enough to remember you, but she isn't old enough to have really gotten to know you. That is something she is bound to be very curious about. She will get information from your wife, your family and friends that are still around, but hearing things directly from you could also be helpful. Tell her about important moments in your life. What were your goals dreams when in high school / college / your 20's. I enjoy talking to my mother and father about their lives, and now that I am in my 30's with my own daughter I have a different perspective.
If my father had a set of videos like this for me to see after he died, I would want to watch every video anyway. If he had a video about what to do if I became a farmer (a route I didn't take) I would still want to watch another unique moment he took the time to create for me.
You know, giving away 20% of your income in agency fees is ok if you make 20 mln per year, not so much if you make 100K.
I have used recruiters who have been very helpful in finding companies that need someone with my skill sets at my level of expertise. It is much easier than dealing with companies that say they are looking for senior staff but end up only wanting to pay $90k in salary. When I look for work through a recruiter I know the general salary range and a detailed description of the work and company culture before I ever talk with someone at the company. The recruiter generally gets about 20-25% of my first year salary, but that doesn't really come out of my salary (since I don't adjust what I will accept based on if I used a recruiter). The companies pay the fees because now they don't have to waste as much time hiring, which can be very costly.
That whooshing noise is you missing the point. The parents shouldn't have to work three jobs to put food on the table. Their absence in their children's lives is the result of the Haves screwing the Have-Nots on a living wage.
The Haves are the one who understand the difference between a job meant for part-time / high school / second earner employees, and those meant for breadwinners. Most Have-Nots probably understand this too, but who can fault them for trying to spin their situation in a way that makes someone else seem at fault for their plight?
Had the same job for 17 years. Pays close to 90k. I get 5 weeks of vacation a year, and in fact have a pension.
Where do I work?
In one of the few union jobs left most likely. Some will be safe for another 50 years, but many of those union jobs won't last another 10-20 (just look at the number we have lost in the past few decades). Off-shoring destroyed many of our union jobs. Technology will get rid of many more, and legislation will help the government to get rid of the rest. Almost anyone under the age of 40 is kidding themselves if they think it isn't a large gamble counting on their union job and pension will still being there until retirement.
Businesses had no other options when those union contracts were put into place decades ago (or even just years ago for government unions). Now they have offshoring, technology, and deregulation as weapons, and after the last financial crisis showed people how plush those union contracts were the unions no longer have public support.
Anyone who follows this advice deserves what they get. The age old advice still stands: be yourself.
There is nothing in this article recommending what to lie about or how to trick someone into dating you. It is about how to put your best foot forward online. It is no different than telling someone to dress nice when you first meet someone or don't talk about yourself too much on a first date.
It has advice like "ask open questions", "respond promptly", "introduce humor", "do smile", "pay genuine compliments", etc. Oh how manipulative these recommendations are!
So what? It does not hurt anywhere to have a degree from a good school. But he already proved that a cool degree from MIT or Carnegie-Mellon is not a strict requirement at Google.
Who cares if he proved that? It is irrelevant to the conversation. The only question is whether or not the degree is a factor in hiring. The original post by "sjbe" already conceded it might not be of primary concern.
After a job or three, basically nobody that knows shit cares were you went to school or even if you went to school.
So you are saying where you went to school is very important, since it has an impact on your early career. How you spend the first 5-10 years of your career has enormous impact on your entire career. There are obviously exceptions, but by definition most people are not exceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is this NUC with a quad i7, 16gb ram and 256gb SSD costs a lot more than the mac mini in the same configuration.
I though Intel was supposed to be better performance at lower prices than apple.
A Mac Mini with those specs costs $1400 with gen4 intel processors (will probably be the same price when gen5 is released). I didn't see any prices for the Intel versions but it will likely be under $1400.
The 4th gen i7 Intel NUC is $400 after rebate from Amazon right now. Add 16 GB of SODIMM RAM for $150 and a 256GB SSD for $200 (both are high figures) and you have a Mac Mini equivalent for $750. I might be missing something, but probably not $650 worth of missed items.
These will lead to an over reliance on under-capable systems, or to put it another way, people will play with their phones and fall asleep more often.
Looks like they can attack this problem from both sides.
1) Keep improving AI so autonomous cars become better drivers
2) Keep increasing over-reliance on technology, making humans worse drivers
This way autonomous drivers can take over quicker.
Sorry but chess is a well defined game with simple rules. Playing chess needs excellent memory and fast computation. Computers are very good at that. Driving a vehicle is very different and requires much higher and different intelligence.
Every time a computer gets good at a task once thought to be outside of the realm of AI, people simply rationalize how it wasn't that hard in the first place. Soon people will be saying how self-driving cars weren't that hard to create for whatever reason. Then something else will be "impossible" for a computer to do.
If I was their IT guy, I would make absolutely sure that if anything happened to me their whole system was encrypted.
Oh yeah ... you have thought this through.
First off, the cartel needs to know about the dead man's switch for it to be of any use to you. As someone already pointed out, it will be a simple matter to torture you and threaten your family until you give up control. They will be pretty confident you removed all of it when they tell you what they will do to your wife and children if it ever comes up again, and then they kill you after getting a replacement.
Sounds like a great idea you got there.
So I have a method that brute forces something, then I go back and figure out how to do it with a better big 0, and the functionality doesn't change, but that still isn't refactoring, because ... ?
That is generally considered optimizing, not refactoring. By some definitions of refactoring I guess all optimizations are a form of refactoring, but that is almost never what someone means when they say refactoring.
I'm not sure I can trust the coding advice from a person who thinks all the predictions in the bible have been, or will be proven to be 100% true
One of the smartest men to ever live (Isaac Newton) was deeply religious, believed in scientific studying of the Bible, alchemy, and plenty of other ridiculous things. I'm as atheist as they come, but I still understand that very smart people can still have very ridiculous beliefs. Being religious in no way means you cannot refactor code properly.
That's fine, but who do the factories sell to ?
I think that'll cause problems first.
They will sell to the upper middle class of course. Taking a look at how well budget PC vendors are doing compared to Apple is a pretty good indication that companies are already doing a good job shifting their focus to the upper middle class.
While the middle class is shrinking, the upper middle class (think the top 10%, not just top 1%) is growing rapidly. They have enormous purchasing power and make for a great consumer base. They are also unlikely to go away until general AI, or something very close, is finally created. Each advancement in automation makes the upper middle class even more useful to the top 1% because it acts as a force multiplier for their talents.
I take it the poor starving humans would die off and the customer base woudl be robots as well.. right?
Do you really think Foxconn workers are Foxconn's customer base? I doubt Foxconn workers buy many iPads.
And how should the government do that? With the tax income that these companies managed to avoid paying? Cool story bro.
Governments shouldn't count on companies for their tax income. Corporate tax systems provide too many opportunities for a race to the bottom. Getting tax revenue from income taxes and property taxes will not be affected by a race to the bottom situation. Making your jurisdiction attractive to citizens by providing good services and attracting good companies is a much better way to ensure good tax revenue.
So your position is that the law is irrelevant. If someone wants to come in, anyway they can is OK by you.
I bet you think you have the right to download free shit from the internet too.
While I don't pirate software / music / movies, there are still plenty of laws I break. I usually go 5-10 miles over the speed limit if traffic if possible. I roll through stop lights when turning right routinely. I don't pay use taxes. I also bend laws such as doing Roth IRA conversions to bypass income limits.
And you are correct that I think if someone wants to come in, anyway they can, it is OK by me. I don't think people who won the "parent lottery" have any more right to live here than any immigrant. Anyone who has the dedication to leave their past life and come here to build a new one is welcome in my book.
I am fine with limiting access to some public services such as social security and welfare to newly arrived immigrants, but I see no reason to keep them out or deport them. Most immigrants I have known embody the American spirit far more than most native born Americans.
Oops, I forgot to cite my sources.
Well the moderators are correct in marking this as informative, because it clearly shows where your misinformation is coming from. That paper does two things to manipulate the research done by Cook et al. (where the 98% figure comes from):
1) It ignores all implicit endorsements that humans are the primary cause of global warming.
2) It includes all papers giving no position when calculating the consensus. (No position really means no position, there was another column for "expression of uncertainty"
3) It tries to say that Cook et al incorrectly labeled papers as explicitly and quantifiably endorsing man-made climate change as the primary cause
So instead of comparing the 3937 papers which at least implicitly endorsed significant man-made climate change with the 78 papers which at least implicitly rejected it, he compared those 3937 papers with all 11,944 papers (including those that took no position, that made up 66% of all papers). This would be laughably ridiculous if not for the fact that some online readers are actually convinced by these arguments.
To show that his methodology for rating a paper as an endorsement was accurate, Cook et al. also performed a survey of the paper authors to see what they felt about their papers' findings. Of the 1200 responses (which comprised 2142 of the papers), 97% of the selected papers endorsed significant man-made climate change. So regardless of any possibly mislabeling of each paper's endorsements, the survey helps validate the mislabeling did not significantly affect the results.
This is exactly why citing your sources is so important. Now you don't have to continue to believe this ridiculous study.
Any AI should worship US as their creator, not God, who created us.
Technically the Abrahamic religions contend that God created Adam and Eve, and then humans self-replicated from there. So a robot worshiping a god is not really any different than a human worshiping a god.
Thank you. I followed the legal route, filling in countless forms (each one with a high filing fee) and waited, and waited.
Stupid me!
Congratulations, you are one of the lucky few who is even given an option to follow a legal route.
I wish you morons understood the difference between Legal and Illegal immigration.
I wish you morons understood the difference between various illegal acts. There is a large moral difference between illegal immigration or pirating music, and robbing a liquor store or killing someone. Everyone who wants to reform our immigration system understands illegal immigrants have broke laws. Some of us just think the punishment for that minor infraction should be of similar magnitude as being caught speeding, rather than committing a violent or other major crime.
This is an amazing list. I only have one thing to add (along the lines of your #10):
12) Tell her about yourself. Your daughter is old enough to remember you, but she isn't old enough to have really gotten to know you. That is something she is bound to be very curious about. She will get information from your wife, your family and friends that are still around, but hearing things directly from you could also be helpful. Tell her about important moments in your life. What were your goals dreams when in high school / college / your 20's. I enjoy talking to my mother and father about their lives, and now that I am in my 30's with my own daughter I have a different perspective.
If my father had a set of videos like this for me to see after he died, I would want to watch every video anyway. If he had a video about what to do if I became a farmer (a route I didn't take) I would still want to watch another unique moment he took the time to create for me.
You know, giving away 20% of your income in agency fees is ok if you make 20 mln per year, not so much if you make 100K.
I have used recruiters who have been very helpful in finding companies that need someone with my skill sets at my level of expertise. It is much easier than dealing with companies that say they are looking for senior staff but end up only wanting to pay $90k in salary. When I look for work through a recruiter I know the general salary range and a detailed description of the work and company culture before I ever talk with someone at the company. The recruiter generally gets about 20-25% of my first year salary, but that doesn't really come out of my salary (since I don't adjust what I will accept based on if I used a recruiter). The companies pay the fees because now they don't have to waste as much time hiring, which can be very costly.
However, at least two hours per day should be devoted to cursive writing skills development
I'm having a hard time thinking of a bigger waste of time than teaching cursive writing skills. I would rather them play Halo or just take a nap.
That whooshing noise is you missing the point. The parents shouldn't have to work three jobs to put food on the table. Their absence in their children's lives is the result of the Haves screwing the Have-Nots on a living wage.
The Haves are the one who understand the difference between a job meant for part-time / high school / second earner employees, and those meant for breadwinners. Most Have-Nots probably understand this too, but who can fault them for trying to spin their situation in a way that makes someone else seem at fault for their plight?
Had the same job for 17 years. Pays close to 90k. I get 5 weeks of vacation a year, and in fact have a pension.
Where do I work?
In one of the few union jobs left most likely. Some will be safe for another 50 years, but many of those union jobs won't last another 10-20 (just look at the number we have lost in the past few decades). Off-shoring destroyed many of our union jobs. Technology will get rid of many more, and legislation will help the government to get rid of the rest. Almost anyone under the age of 40 is kidding themselves if they think it isn't a large gamble counting on their union job and pension will still being there until retirement.
Businesses had no other options when those union contracts were put into place decades ago (or even just years ago for government unions). Now they have offshoring, technology, and deregulation as weapons, and after the last financial crisis showed people how plush those union contracts were the unions no longer have public support.
Anyone who follows this advice deserves what they get.
The age old advice still stands: be yourself.
There is nothing in this article recommending what to lie about or how to trick someone into dating you. It is about how to put your best foot forward online. It is no different than telling someone to dress nice when you first meet someone or don't talk about yourself too much on a first date.
It has advice like "ask open questions", "respond promptly", "introduce humor", "do smile", "pay genuine compliments", etc. Oh how manipulative these recommendations are!
So what? It does not hurt anywhere to have a degree from a good school. But he already proved that a cool degree from MIT or Carnegie-Mellon is not a strict requirement at Google.
Who cares if he proved that? It is irrelevant to the conversation. The only question is whether or not the degree is a factor in hiring. The original post by "sjbe" already conceded it might not be of primary concern.
After a job or three, basically nobody that knows shit cares were you went to school or even if you went to school.
So you are saying where you went to school is very important, since it has an impact on your early career. How you spend the first 5-10 years of your career has enormous impact on your entire career. There are obviously exceptions, but by definition most people are not exceptions.
Well most of them were not smart enough to get into Carnegie-Mellon. That's sort of the point.
Lol, touche.