But current definition of current (pun not intended) is defined trough force
This isn't true. Electric current is the flow of a electric charge and isn't composed by force or any other magnitude. The Ampere is one of the few SI units which isn't formed by other units. Force/energy is relevant to understand how a current is created, but it doesn't define its essence.
Even though I quoted that part in my previous reply, I didn't read that last bit. Have you insulted me?! Why?! Let's recap (you seem the kind of person who needs lots of recaps, summaries, simple instructions... you know? Not thinking much, just repeating whatever set of simple ideas you are given in that specific moment). So, I am here writing a post sharing my ideas in a reasonably high level of detail about a technical issue. You could agree or not with them (well... I guess that, your case, it would be more a matter or understanding them/not), ignore it or interact with me. You "choose" (I quote it because one of the basic requirements for being in a position to perform a real choice is being able to understand the possible alternatives and voluntarily decide which one is better, what doesn't seem your case) to not agree with me + interact with me.
Because of whatever reason (pure ignorance, true incapability or being intentionally obtuse), you firstly misinterpreted my intention and assumed an idea which seems so ridiculously stupid that I have honestly never met anyone in a position to deliver it ("I guess you fail to understand that this is a simplified example to illustrate the problem")?! This is seriously what the people with whom you usually interact do with examples? They aren't able to understand that it is a restricted representation of the true reality only meant to help understand it? Or are you the one usually doing that? Do you have problems to understand what examples are for? What is the reason for that? Is it some kind of physical/mental limitation or your ignorance/shortsightedness? By thinking about it a bit more carefully, I am starting to feel a bit sorry for you. So, I will try to help you a bit. See. I have been running a set of bots/crawlers for a while now, they are creating a custom-made web-domain ranking. I tried to explain that idea to a relatively old person with no tech knowledge. That person happens to work with small kids (is this perhaps your problem? You aren't used to deal with adults?) and that's why I thought that a clear example for her was the following: "Imagine that you have a bunch of kids who are playing. The game is that you send them to a given address, they go to that address take a small item there and bring it back to you. After bringing that small item, they go back to a new address and so on". See? My bots have nothing to do with kids and they aren't playing and have nothing to do with (postal) addresses. This was an example helping that person to get the real idea. That person should have processed those simpler-for-her ideas, get a good enough global picture and then go back to reality (outside the fictitious example) to apply that new knowledge to what really matters (understanding what my bots do), by being aware about the differences (logically, a piece of software has nothing to do with a kid). Do you get it now? I was commenting about an example to explain a point. Any properly-understanding person should have taken it as a starting step to understand said point. Exactly the same that I understood that the person writing the summary used that simplistic example as an easy way to transmit certain idea (i.e., managed memory vs. non managed memory).
After that petty misinterpretation, you (again not sure if intentionally or forcibly via whatever intrinsic limitation you might have) ignore the technical essence of my point and bring generic, because-I-say-it-so statements on the lines of "Perhaps a GIF/JPG/JSON/XML parser is complicated enough" (?! Do you have the slightest idea about the huge amount of different possibilities from tremendously-simple to very complex which might be included within that statement?) or "C you just created a potential exploit" (?! Seriously, what are you talking about?) or "In safe languages, you just get a stacktrace" (?! I don't even need to analyse the veracity of that sentence, just its point: are you complaining about exploits which I still fail to understan
I guess you fail to understand that this is a simplified example to illustrate the problem. Perhaps a GIF/JPG/JSON/XML parser is complicated enough?
I guess that you fail understand that you can propose an as complex example as you wish and my answer/expectation would always be the same: if you do it properly, it would work fine in any language. If you make a mistake because of your generic incompetence or because of not feeling too comfortable with that specific language or because of whatever other reason, it would be your responsibility even back when you decided that you were able to perform that development/use that language properly. Regarding the example you are proposing, I have created many parsers myself and, in fact, I love doing this kind of things. I don't see these scenarios as particularly difficult, perhaps because of my experience in that.
I do realise that there are many situations which are very complex and, despite knowing that doing everything properly step-by-step and having full control on each single part would certainly drive to an error-free result, I would accept that some errors there could be acceptable. In fact, performing a relatively complex development (mostly defined by size rather than by the exact problem being addressed) in a language like C is certainly very unappealing and even error-prone. Even a big deal of experienced C programmers loving that language would prefer more friendly alternatives under certain conditions. This is the key idea that you and your kind fail to understand: the only ones talking about a binary distinction, it is horrible or perfect, everything works or not is you. Sensible, reasonable and practical people will take advantage of what they have at their disposal without getting involved in ridiculous absolute discussions aiming for what doesn't even exist. Modern, managed-memory languages are very useful for many things and have had a very important impact in how the software world has evolved. Languages like C are also very important for other aspects (low level programming or parts where the speed is the most important issue) and should also be used accordingly. C is much more difficult/unfriendly, mainly for people used to newer platforms, but it doesn't mean that it is bad or unsafe, not in the right hands. Additionally, it is simply irreplaceable, not just because the huge number of systems built on it (historically and currently) but also because of providing what other languages simply can't (precisely because of dedicating much more resources to being programmer-friendly), and consequently having discussions of this sort seems pointless.
The point is, in C you just created a potential exploit, which will lie dormant or perhaps cause some rare unexplained crashes every now and then in testing IF you're lucky... In safe languages, you just get a stacktrace telling you what a dumb fuck you are.
What potential exploit are you talking about? Again: if you create a buggy program, it would be your fault (example: you are crazy and want to kill people for no reason). PERIOD. If you aren't experienced enough, comfortable enough, it is certainly more likely that you would create a buggy program by relying on a less friendly environment, but again it is your fault (example: you are crazy and want to kill people for no reason, but you have or not access to weapons). PERIOD. If you want to start thinking about the differences between having created a buggy program with most of modern languages or a language like C, you should take a look at my previous post which clearly describes what are these differences: practically speaking there is no difference. There might 1 chance (out of billions of billions of billions of billions.... of possible scenarios) where a program might be successfully terminated against the original intention, but this would involve the aforementioned avoidable buggy essence and a combination of events which might be safely assumed to be impossible (example: y
Imagine you had a program with a list of 10 numbers. What should happen if you asked the list for its 11th element?
If you develop a program expecting to deal with a list of 10 numbers and you allow scenarios where the 11th element could be requested, you would have done a horrible job in any programming language. Period.
Let's now assume that you made the aforementioned mistake (your fault, something perfectly avoidable in any scenario by a reasonably competent programmer) and that an error happens. Under the most logical conditions (99.999999 etc. % of cases), the only difference between these two scenarios is that you would get an error message with a slightly specific, but still quite generic label (not being too useful anyway, but indicating that the given environment caught the error) or a meaningless message referring to some problem with the memory. It might be possible (although tremendously improbable) that the non-managed language would access another valid memory location and, consequently, no immediate error would be triggered. But, even in that case, it would be just one step within the millions of them forming even the simplest piece of software. For example, imagine that this extremely-lucky event occurred in step number 1234th, it would move to step 1235th where that value would have to make sense (otherwise, it would crash there) and then to step 1236th, etc. And so on until the end of the program which, in the tremendously improbable scenario of reaching, would output a random result.
In summary, number of malware attacks provoked by this kind of memory virtually-impossible lottery? Not too many (zero?). Complete responsibility of 100% of all the bugs/malware/vulnerabilities: the given developer (directly or via ridiculous conditions, wrong previous code or similar). Is improving the working conditions something bad? Certainly not. Are managed-memory/newer languages absolutely superior? Certainly not. They have their advantages and drawbacks, are (dis)liked by different kind of people/companies. There is actually lots of hypocrisy on this front as far as escaping from the managed-memory constraints does accelerate things quite a lot and many newer/more popular languages do allow these kind of things (e.g., C# or Go). There is certainly nothing bad with C or C++ or similar for those feeling comfortable with them and doing a proper work. There is something very bad with (probably programming clueless) people thinking that "training wheels" are required for something as demanding and requiring as highly skilled workers as programming. The higher the freedom, the better the final product. The higher the knowledge/experience/awareness, the better the final product. The more clueless the decisions makers, the worse everything.
To sustain enough steam to power the world you would need, not unsurprisingly, the entire world's current supply of oil, gas, nuclear fission, solar, wind, hydro, etc. Because... that's pretty much what we use it to do (I'm excluding all losses here, for simplicity).
One you achieve fusion
Let me stop you there, because I already see two big problems. Firstly, you don't seem to understand the exact intention of my post: I wasn't proposing steam-based whatever (which, BTW, it is one of the most widely used methodologies for power generation under different water-burning/fuel alternatives like nuclear fission or fossil fuels) as opposed to fusion, but as part of the future commercial fusion power plants. I am not saying that there is no other way to convert the fusion heat into electricity, but this is certainly a quite sensible and reliable approach. Additionally, it seems a very descriptive way to understand some of the associated problems (100 C is enough and you get 100 million, what are you planning to do with all what you don't need?).
Secondly, the rest of your post is based on the last quoted sentence which is pure wishful thinking. Rather than giving some reasons supporting why we should expect a commercial fusion plant to be eventually built, you are basically assuming that this will surely happen and imagining all the associated benefits. I don't think that anyone doubts about the potential benefits of having a working fusion power plant; exactly the same that everyone would love having a magical wand or their problems being spontaneously solved. You are linking a money-focused site (forbes.com) and, honestly, I have no idea about how things are done over there. But most of the work of scientists/engineers is usually spent on coming up with actual solutions to solve whatever problems, rather than on thinking about the numerous associated with succeeding.
This is 1 million times more than what is required to produce a usable form of energy (electricity) through a very reliable methodology to perform the conversion heat -> mechanical energy -> electrical energy (water + heat -> steam which moves a turbine -> generator coupled to the turbine creating electricity). It also seems hot enough to be useful for other purposes like running a huge amount of heating systems.
So, I think that we are already pretty covered on the temperature front, what about focusing on other (tiny) aspects like making the heat generation last for a bit longer (perhaps it is just me, but holding it for just a few seconds or even hours seems still quite far away from what is required to reach the intended goals) or doing something on the actual usage front like actually generating a form of energy that people could use (again perhaps it is just me, but 100 million degrees sounds a bit too much for any direct application I can imagine).
On the other hand, you might continue focusing on this or similar competitions because everyone/everything needs a purpose and this might be a realistic one for you. Being the absolute best at something is certainly very difficult and usually attracts people who want to watch/pay you, to even feel inspired to become like you. Who am I to judge anyone's life aspirations? If you don't damage anyone (should getting money from naive rich suckers be considered damaging someone or an acceptable, even desirable, outcome from the tremendously unfair, self-perpetuating wealth distribution?) and you are happy, I personally have no problem with any life approach. Some people run faster than anyone else, others have the longest nails, you have the hottest temperature. Good for you!
All these autonomous entities may seem scary to you - a single central authority seems much more scary to me. If one entity is wrong, I can take the trouble to deal with another one instead. But if a central authority is inefficient or malignant. ..
Don't get me wrong. I am all for independence and individualism and do think that this is usually the most efficient approach in most of scenarios. The problem with internet and its difference with respect to your examples is that what happens in one country might affect all the remaining ones. If country X has a bad mailing system, its citizens will get their mail late or never; what is not exactly a problem for countries Y and Z. But has proven by the current article, it might be possible for (the companies of) a country to affect communications happening between individuals in other countries. This is the reason why I assume that there will be some changes. In any case, I am not scared about that situation or ask for those changes (I assumed that internet is unsafe and all my data/privacy is compromised long time ago); I am just sharing what I think that will be the probable evolution, if not in general, at least at some levels like national security or military.
My knowledge about networks has always been pretty limited and I haven't known much about ASs, BGR, how internet works, etc. until recently. But even now I wasn't truly aware about what having a system intrinsically defined by autonomous entities really means: lots of power in many hands with very different motivations. And what is even worse: lack of true accountability, of a centralised authority in a position to really make sure that everything will be exactly as expected.
On the other hand, if I had thought about all this a bit carefully, I would have also come to the conclusion that it is the most logical outcome from a mixture of sovereign countries + international law (-> promises, not-really-enforceable agreements or, in the most extreme cases, concessions of small chunks of sovereignty which countries voluntarily give) + global network. The difficulty associated with enforcing the application of certain rules in a web-based environment (hosted in country X and used in country Y) seems intuitively clear to me, but curiously not the fact that same ideas also apply to the underlying physical structure. I guess that, similarly to what happens to most of people before having a proper understanding about the given situation, I couldn't see problems which appear to me as evident now. Ignorance does certainly provoke blindness, no matter how much knowledge you might have on other issues. Scary! Luckily for me (+ others who might be affected by my actions), I am quite aware about this fact and never make relevant decisions about any issue until after having made completely sure that I have a proper knowledge about it:)
The expected reliability/accountability of a given system is mostly defined by the authority which rules it; or, in other words and as pointed out in some comments above, it is as strong as its weakest link. An international effort including all the countries will always be conditioned by the intrinsic independence of all of them (e.g., to set up the internal proceedings to assess/monitor the suitability of organisations dealing with the national infrastructures). Theoretically, all the internal regulations are coordinated and there are ways to somehow force disobbeying countries to modify their behaviours. But all these efforts will always happen at a relatively distant, after-problems-arise position. Sovereign countries (and, within them, their companies) will always have the real power and their non-ideal actions might definitively have some temporary negative impact at a global scale.
The traditional standardisation approach (e.g., here you have the rules which you are expected to apply; you would be the only one losing in case of trying to trick the system via having inferior national products) doesn't seem applicable to the current scenario. It is a tough one. Governments and internal law don't seem to provide a reliable enough solution. Companies and the market might certainly allow to reach a stage of much higher control, but at what expense? Letting private interests have the last word in something as important as this? What would be the difference between that scenario and the current one (ASs being probably private companies but obeying certain national legislation)? And what about a mixed (governments + companies) multi-tier, elitist setup driving to the creation of different internets? It doesn't sound too well (all the elitism-based whatever sounds equally bad to me), but seems the most probable medium-term evolution: multi-country organisations ensuring a higher level of control over the activity of its members and having some real decision/monitoring power (e.g., the UE).
resolution of around 4 km. But after 40 minutes or so, any forecasting ability is lost, say Bianchi and co. And with a greater resolution of around 1 km, the forecasting ability drops to less than 15 minutes.
One way to improve these forecasts is to correlate the radar images with rainfall measurements on the ground.
When this assumption is correct, Bianchi and co say, their nowcasts produce accurate forecasts more than 20 minutes into the future at a scale of as little as 500 meters. That’s impressive.
But the assumption of Lagrangian persistence isn’t always true. Sometimes the atmosphere undergoes unexpected changes—sudden heating events that cause convection cells, for example. And when this happens, the accuracy of the forecasts drops dramatically. “In the case of convective events, the performance of the nowcast algorithm decreases rapidly after 15 min
Improving to 6 hours as described in the summary and in the article seems pretty unlikely. At least, in scientific/practical terms and by taking as reference what appears to be the current state of the art as defined by the quotes above. For the marketer/MBA-holder/you-do-the-science-&-I-do-the-thinking-who-will-probably-not-get-this-joke considering that saying 6 hours was the best way to improve their chances to get the next round of funding, it is certainly possible (because what is the difference between 15 mins. and 6 hours? It is just a matter of time! Scale it up! Move to quantum mode! Put more scientific thingies in!). LOL.
Folks, is what the Dunning Kruger effect looks like.
Folks? Who do you think that is caring about your nonsense? Or do you have a multiple-personality disorder? Or is it perhaps your group-, social-media, bubble-based distortion of reality which is playing with you? You aren't able to have a conversation 1-to-1 with another person anymore? You already need to always be able to (anonymously) bash others, be part of a group, get some extra advantage? You think that you aren't alone anymore? That there will always be another pathetic idiot like you repeating, liking, upvoting whatever nonsense you say? Or you could always trick the system a bit, right? Creating different profiles, posting various times anonymously. Seems a bit pathetic, but it feels so good when you see the results! The media/internet supporting you! LOL. As said in my previous message (probably to you too), you are beyond pathetic and just the fact that you think that a piece of shit like you has anything to say to someone like me proves your tremendous disconnection with reality. Not with your reality, with the real reality, the one where all your (fake or not) friends, upvotes, stars have no value. You are a sad joke who should have some minimum survival resources and know with whom you can deal and with whom you cannot.
Even though you don't deserve it, I will share a curious anecdote with you. Some years back, I had a pretty weird interaction with a pretty weird person (or group of them, no idea) who did mention that "Dunning Kruger effect". That person(s) was weirdly obsessed with everyone wanting to use the same approach than them (it was about a methodology to build GUIs; bear in mind that this isn't precisely my strongest suit and that I was clearly transmitting that point, that I was fine with my approach for the limited problems with which I was dealing; but this wasn't enough for them who seem really interested in everyone liking the same that they do!!). Back then, I didn't look the meaning of that expression up, exactly the same that I am not doing it now. I mean... I am the kind of guy who is always learning, but cases like this sound to me similar to urban legends or things that insecure people repeat to impress others (something like saying that you know/saw something when it isn't true). Not saying that it isn't really a medical condition, but probably (because of the two times when I have heard about it) is used in a trendy/ignorant fashion. What do I mean with that? I mean for example how is being Aspergers/autism used within certain "collectives" (groups of idiots). It is the kind of easy understanding on which easy people (I mean idiots) rely to simplify the too-complex-for-them world. Something like a simple chant that they can repeat over and over; approaches that they feel that will always work (-> blindly trusting in the 100% reliability of something seems very important for idiots); ideas making them feel safe like thinking about an abstract enemy/problem/bad guys. You know? The kind of pathetic seeds that generate the worst version of ignorance, eventually converted into fanaticism and hate. I mean... I am not truly familiar with all these "urges" which tremendously insecure and ignorant people (usually violent and invasive too) feel. But I guess that this is a reasonably good estimate. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, by assuming that you have been able to read until here because I am sure that so many words should be really difficult for someone like you. LOL.
?! I wasn't commenting the article, you anonymous piece of shit, but the express reference (direct quote from his author) "The exploit is 100% reliable" and the ridiculously dishonest meaning given to that expression. I took advantage from that to highlight my profound disdain towards the tremendous-ignorance-prone subculture of idiots which internet is creating. You have to be a special kind of idiot to read something like "100% reliable" together with the subsequent explanations and think that it makes any sense. You have to be the kind of credulous, coward/anonymous and pathetic idiot who isn't able to understand a simple post (my previous one), but dares to "participate" in the discussion and naively thinks that using two sentences with two insults saying pretty much nothing about his/her understanding/background makes him/her look intelligent.
Actually, you are so stupid that you aren't even understanding that your post is precisely representing a practical sample of what I was describing in my post. I quote myself:
In fact, I am starting to think that well-reasoned-and-validatable-but-long statements are more likely to be assumed wrong or even untruthful by a big number of (usually noisy) individuals; unlikely not saying anything or using simple, short, ideally-repeated-many-times-&-cool-looking expressions with no real meaning.
You are the kind of pathetic idiot that follows (-> this is what you are, a sheep) people saying short, simple, noisy (and/or arbitrarily insulting, attacking a common enemy, unreasonably appraising what you like, etc.) statements like these. In fact, you might even not be able to understand/write English too well. But you know that those two sentences are right, because you have read them many times from other idiots like you, knowing pretty much the same than you and meaning pretty much the same than your pathetic post means (= nothing). A (not necessarily too bright) parrot should be able to deliver pretty much the same than you have done right now without much effort. You are joke. You are a sample of what no one should ever be. You are the output of pure stupidity. You are so irrelevant and so pathetic that just getting this answer from me might be one of the most relevant things of which you have been part in a while.
It's not a race or something like that, and he's telling you that he hasn't tested if it still works with mismatched binaries - which you normally shouldn't have.
My post was exclusively focused on the funny (indicative, not-too-honest, etc.) reference to 100% reliability. You have found an exploit working under very specific conditions and you list those specific conditions? Everything is fine with me. You could even go a bit further and get some reliable statistics (+ clearly refer to their source -> this is what you should always do when using generic values intended to have an intrinsic meaning, providing some context about their true reliability) about how probable is for certain group of people/software/computers to be in that situation and to estimate a percentage of success of your exploit. It would also be fine. Almost anything would have been fine. Saying that it is 100% reliable is tremendously far away from being fine, clear, honest and, for me, acceptable.
"The exploit is 100% reliable," Zelenyuk said. "It means it either works always or never because of mismatched binaries or other, more subtle reasons I didn't account."
Can I reproduce that exploit? Yes. It will work or not. Funny. It seems the post-truth adaptation of "it works in my machine". Why even caring about saying something appearing to be true anymore, right?
Most of people seem completely incapable of understanding simple concepts. In fact, I am starting to think that well-reasoned-and-validatable-but-long statements are more likely to be assumed wrong or even untruthful by a big number of (usually noisy) individuals; unlikely not saying anything or using simple, short, ideally-repeated-many-times-&-cool-looking expressions with no real meaning.
Although I am not the kind of Schadenfreude guy, I do feel really good with myself and with all what I have (= dignity, honesty, not tolerating arbitrariness, etc.) when I see what the tyranny of the most profound stupidity and fanaticism can bring, mainly online. The saddest part is when those having nothing (from my perspective) aren't aware about that fact and seriously expect their nonsense to prevail when I am around. It is a bit pathetic. But as far as I know that helping/reasoning isn't an option (even if they could understand, they are too ignorant, empty, dishonest and invasive to ever do anything about which I could really care), I will simply focus on enjoying my privileged position.
Yes, I know that traditionally kilo was assumed to be 1024 when dealing with bits/bytes. Yes, this new version does sound a bit ridiculous. But it is the standard now: "Because the SI prefixes strictly represent powers of 10, they should not be used to represent powers of 2. Thus, one kilobit, or 1 kbit, is 1000 bit and not 2^10 bit = 1024 bit. To alleviate this ambiguity, prefixes for binary multiples have been adopted by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for use in information technology.".
Actually, I only knew about this kilo/kibi weirdness a few years back when doing some research to develop a library dealing with units of measurement. Curiously, I am currently studying a reasonably deep mixture of computer/telecommunication engineering and most of the references there are Kbit/Kbyte. I understand that this is an informal convention to indicate that they mean the 1024 versions (because 1000/kilo should be lower k).
Hi I'm Adam from YouTube Comment Experience and I wanted to thank you for sharing these ideas. Do you prefer seeing X or checkmark? Can you describe what your ideal userflow experience would be like Thanks again for helping us shape YouTube.
Yes, Adam, this is exactly what any company should always do for its clients: making sure that their (user) experience is as good as possible. They should do that spontaneously without users' help like what is happening now. If you are so lucky to have first-hand-knowledge about what you should do to improve and you don't maximise that information, you would be doing a terribly bad work. And your recommendation system does certainly need quite a few tweaks. Just take a look at many other comments in this thread. BTW, you are welcome.
After reading other comments, I realised that you have a (pretty crappy) version of what I was proposing but only for logged users. I am almost never logged in when watching videos and didn't know about it. So, improved version of my suggestion: could you please enable that feature also for not-logged-in users? (You are caring about what I watch anyway). It would also be excellent if you could add that X (honestly, I prefer the checkboxes) to individual videos, additionally to full channels.
Easy-to-implement, user-friendly and even likeable feature helping you to really have a worthy recommendation system: checkboxes allowing users to enable/disable channels/videos. Please, just let me train your system for you! You keep showing me the recommendations as so far (when being logged-in or not, triggered by just one time I watched something which I didn't like or by hundreds of videos really relevant to me), but add 1-click-to-check-uncheck boxes. If I uncheck something, you don't show me that stuff again. Deal?
This is slashdot, kilo changes to 1024 when you add "byte" behind it.
Sorry for being a bit pedantic, but this isn't true. You can also have kilobytes/1000 bytes. The 1024 equivalence of k is Ki. 1 kB (kilobyte) is 1000 bytes and 1 KiB (kibibyte) is 1024 bytes.
I am not sure that I get your point. But what I was basically saying is that a tremendously complex and deep accumulative process is required in order to ever get close to what a human brain can do. There have been many attempts with different levels of complexity and, in principle, most of them might be considered good enough as preliminary steps to ever get a properly-understanding machine. The problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be a real awareness about that preliminary essence. Also that it will always be an iterative, accumulating process involving lots of small steps. They work on a few of these small parts, confirm that the complexity grows exponentially and, eventually, hope for a solution which could eventually avoid that exponential growth. My point was that this expectation will be never fulfilled. This is basically hoping for a miracle or some kind of magical solution. The only way to ever reach there is keeping working as so far for as long and deep as required, what is likely to be very long/deep.
If a company or organisation was willing to do all what is required by its own, I guess that there wouldn't be any problem with proprietary software to get there. But this seems a very unlikely scenario mainly because of the tremendous cost and virtually non-existing profits for very long periods of time. A different story would be companies appearing after a solid enough base is already in place, for example, what has happened with the space program. Actually, this is a quite descriptive example (but its size is still, IMO, a bit modest, even by bearing in mind that cost of associated resources is much higher) to understand what might be required on the machines-properly-understanding front: picturing ourselves at the time before space exploration started and taking what was done back then as a preliminary estimate of what might be the expected requirements (complexity, resources, time, etc.).
All our efforts to build machines of any type have always follow the same rules: accumulation of simple parts performing simple actions. And this doesn't just refer to the way in which machines work, but also to the whole process required to firstly build all of them. Computers, for example, didn't appear suddenly as a result of someone's happy idea, but were the result of centuries of learning of different aspects starting from knowing how to safely manage electricity. This has always been the case and I don't think that many people have ever doubted that reality before: step-by-step, by solving initially unrelated problems and by gradually merging isolated solutions into more comprehensive ones. The abstract idea of a computer as a machine performing calculations was probably easy to understand hundreds of years ago; but the current computers and all what is required to make them run was completely unimaginable. I don't think that people being amazed with the first computers counting up to 1 million in a few minutes were expecting them to eventually move to their current speeds. Or, at least, nobody back then in their right mind should have thought about that eventually being just "one magic leap" away.
Let's make it simple and think about what is required to create a machine able to somehow emulate human memory. In principle, we have already available most of what is required, right? It is just a matter of density, of efficiency, of number of nodes if you wish. When a person understands/remembers something, we all know that it requires a huge amount of actions at a microscopic level about which we don't have a too good understanding. We also know that computers can do virtually everything, but that we need to explain them each single step of the process. You want a computer to distinguish between two pictures? It takes a program of X size. Do you want it to distinguish between two more abstract ideas as defined by a big number of pictures? It takes a program of X^Y size. All this seems quite evident and clear, so why the next logical step seems so difficult to understand? Why expecting a magic setup allowing to easily and immediately come up with a way to restrict that geometrical increase of complexity? On the other hand, if you keep adding layers over and over, step by step until reaching the point where you have converted all our knowledge to a machine-understandable format, it seems pretty clear that we would certainly get a machine able to understand everything as well as the most intelligent person.
In summary, it isn't a matter of how to find the magical way allowing us to avoid the tremendous complexity associated with reliably emulating the human brain, even just a few of its functions. It is a matter of accepting the only thing that you can do to ever be in that scenario. There is no other alternative. Adding simple layers one over the other is all what we know. Perhaps even the human brain works in that way, but much more efficiently. But that issue doesn't even really matter because only know how to do that anyway.
The knowledge you get at the university can rarely be precisely considered the current state of the art. This applies to pretty much any (technical) degree. CS or similar might be a bit exceptional, but I don't think that expecting perfectly updated knowledge is too logical or even required. The whole point of the university is providing a solid background, learning the specifics, really enjoying and getting really good at something is mostly done at work. I don't think that a too deep, detailed theoretical background will be especially helpful for technical fields. It might even be a disadvantage by implicitly providing the wrong impression of completeness, not requiring the essential practice for years.
The knowledge I got at the university was quite outdated, but this was mainly because of my degree (industrial/mechanical engineering). Currently, I am studying computer/telecommunication engineering at university level as part of the requirements for certain position and, although everything is reasonably up-to-date (at least, regarding software versions, names and lists of features), there are still quite a few lacks and the main focus is put on somehow old systems and approaches. What I think that is fine. I am not a big fan of the big deal of theoretics/abstractions and little proportion of practical knowledge though.
Slashdot Mirror
But current definition of current (pun not intended) is defined trough force
This isn't true. Electric current is the flow of a electric charge and isn't composed by force or any other magnitude. The Ampere is one of the few SI units which isn't formed by other units. Force/energy is relevant to understand how a current is created, but it doesn't define its essence.
I know it's pedantic to have this discussion outside of a classroom environment, but Kilogram is a unit of mass and not a unit of weight.
I see your pedantry and raise you one "I guess that you meant force".
The title of this article reminded me Life of Brian's solidarity, brother.
dumb fuck you are.
Even though I quoted that part in my previous reply, I didn't read that last bit. Have you insulted me?! Why?! Let's recap (you seem the kind of person who needs lots of recaps, summaries, simple instructions... you know? Not thinking much, just repeating whatever set of simple ideas you are given in that specific moment). So, I am here writing a post sharing my ideas in a reasonably high level of detail about a technical issue. You could agree or not with them (well... I guess that, your case, it would be more a matter or understanding them/not), ignore it or interact with me. You "choose" (I quote it because one of the basic requirements for being in a position to perform a real choice is being able to understand the possible alternatives and voluntarily decide which one is better, what doesn't seem your case) to not agree with me + interact with me.
Because of whatever reason (pure ignorance, true incapability or being intentionally obtuse), you firstly misinterpreted my intention and assumed an idea which seems so ridiculously stupid that I have honestly never met anyone in a position to deliver it ("I guess you fail to understand that this is a simplified example to illustrate the problem")?! This is seriously what the people with whom you usually interact do with examples? They aren't able to understand that it is a restricted representation of the true reality only meant to help understand it? Or are you the one usually doing that? Do you have problems to understand what examples are for? What is the reason for that? Is it some kind of physical/mental limitation or your ignorance/shortsightedness? By thinking about it a bit more carefully, I am starting to feel a bit sorry for you. So, I will try to help you a bit. See. I have been running a set of bots/crawlers for a while now, they are creating a custom-made web-domain ranking. I tried to explain that idea to a relatively old person with no tech knowledge. That person happens to work with small kids (is this perhaps your problem? You aren't used to deal with adults?) and that's why I thought that a clear example for her was the following: "Imagine that you have a bunch of kids who are playing. The game is that you send them to a given address, they go to that address take a small item there and bring it back to you. After bringing that small item, they go back to a new address and so on". See? My bots have nothing to do with kids and they aren't playing and have nothing to do with (postal) addresses. This was an example helping that person to get the real idea. That person should have processed those simpler-for-her ideas, get a good enough global picture and then go back to reality (outside the fictitious example) to apply that new knowledge to what really matters (understanding what my bots do), by being aware about the differences (logically, a piece of software has nothing to do with a kid). Do you get it now? I was commenting about an example to explain a point. Any properly-understanding person should have taken it as a starting step to understand said point. Exactly the same that I understood that the person writing the summary used that simplistic example as an easy way to transmit certain idea (i.e., managed memory vs. non managed memory).
After that petty misinterpretation, you (again not sure if intentionally or forcibly via whatever intrinsic limitation you might have) ignore the technical essence of my point and bring generic, because-I-say-it-so statements on the lines of "Perhaps a GIF/JPG/JSON/XML parser is complicated enough" (?! Do you have the slightest idea about the huge amount of different possibilities from tremendously-simple to very complex which might be included within that statement?) or "C you just created a potential exploit" (?! Seriously, what are you talking about?) or "In safe languages, you just get a stacktrace" (?! I don't even need to analyse the veracity of that sentence, just its point: are you complaining about exploits which I still fail to understan
I guess you fail to understand that this is a simplified example to illustrate the problem. Perhaps a GIF/JPG/JSON/XML parser is complicated enough?
I guess that you fail understand that you can propose an as complex example as you wish and my answer/expectation would always be the same: if you do it properly, it would work fine in any language. If you make a mistake because of your generic incompetence or because of not feeling too comfortable with that specific language or because of whatever other reason, it would be your responsibility even back when you decided that you were able to perform that development/use that language properly. Regarding the example you are proposing, I have created many parsers myself and, in fact, I love doing this kind of things. I don't see these scenarios as particularly difficult, perhaps because of my experience in that.
I do realise that there are many situations which are very complex and, despite knowing that doing everything properly step-by-step and having full control on each single part would certainly drive to an error-free result, I would accept that some errors there could be acceptable. In fact, performing a relatively complex development (mostly defined by size rather than by the exact problem being addressed) in a language like C is certainly very unappealing and even error-prone. Even a big deal of experienced C programmers loving that language would prefer more friendly alternatives under certain conditions. This is the key idea that you and your kind fail to understand: the only ones talking about a binary distinction, it is horrible or perfect, everything works or not is you. Sensible, reasonable and practical people will take advantage of what they have at their disposal without getting involved in ridiculous absolute discussions aiming for what doesn't even exist. Modern, managed-memory languages are very useful for many things and have had a very important impact in how the software world has evolved. Languages like C are also very important for other aspects (low level programming or parts where the speed is the most important issue) and should also be used accordingly. C is much more difficult/unfriendly, mainly for people used to newer platforms, but it doesn't mean that it is bad or unsafe, not in the right hands. Additionally, it is simply irreplaceable, not just because the huge number of systems built on it (historically and currently) but also because of providing what other languages simply can't (precisely because of dedicating much more resources to being programmer-friendly), and consequently having discussions of this sort seems pointless.
The point is, in C you just created a potential exploit, which will lie dormant or perhaps cause some rare unexplained crashes every now and then in testing IF you're lucky... In safe languages, you just get a stacktrace telling you what a dumb fuck you are.
What potential exploit are you talking about? Again: if you create a buggy program, it would be your fault (example: you are crazy and want to kill people for no reason). PERIOD. If you aren't experienced enough, comfortable enough, it is certainly more likely that you would create a buggy program by relying on a less friendly environment, but again it is your fault (example: you are crazy and want to kill people for no reason, but you have or not access to weapons). PERIOD. If you want to start thinking about the differences between having created a buggy program with most of modern languages or a language like C, you should take a look at my previous post which clearly describes what are these differences: practically speaking there is no difference. There might 1 chance (out of billions of billions of billions of billions.... of possible scenarios) where a program might be successfully terminated against the original intention, but this would involve the aforementioned avoidable buggy essence and a combination of events which might be safely assumed to be impossible (example: y
Imagine you had a program with a list of 10 numbers. What should happen if you asked the list for its 11th element?
If you develop a program expecting to deal with a list of 10 numbers and you allow scenarios where the 11th element could be requested, you would have done a horrible job in any programming language. Period.
Let's now assume that you made the aforementioned mistake (your fault, something perfectly avoidable in any scenario by a reasonably competent programmer) and that an error happens. Under the most logical conditions (99.999999 etc. % of cases), the only difference between these two scenarios is that you would get an error message with a slightly specific, but still quite generic label (not being too useful anyway, but indicating that the given environment caught the error) or a meaningless message referring to some problem with the memory. It might be possible (although tremendously improbable) that the non-managed language would access another valid memory location and, consequently, no immediate error would be triggered. But, even in that case, it would be just one step within the millions of them forming even the simplest piece of software. For example, imagine that this extremely-lucky event occurred in step number 1234th, it would move to step 1235th where that value would have to make sense (otherwise, it would crash there) and then to step 1236th, etc. And so on until the end of the program which, in the tremendously improbable scenario of reaching, would output a random result.
In summary, number of malware attacks provoked by this kind of memory virtually-impossible lottery? Not too many (zero?). Complete responsibility of 100% of all the bugs/malware/vulnerabilities: the given developer (directly or via ridiculous conditions, wrong previous code or similar). Is improving the working conditions something bad? Certainly not. Are managed-memory/newer languages absolutely superior? Certainly not. They have their advantages and drawbacks, are (dis)liked by different kind of people/companies. There is actually lots of hypocrisy on this front as far as escaping from the managed-memory constraints does accelerate things quite a lot and many newer/more popular languages do allow these kind of things (e.g., C# or Go). There is certainly nothing bad with C or C++ or similar for those feeling comfortable with them and doing a proper work. There is something very bad with (probably programming clueless) people thinking that "training wheels" are required for something as demanding and requiring as highly skilled workers as programming. The higher the freedom, the better the final product. The higher the knowledge/experience/awareness, the better the final product. The more clueless the decisions makers, the worse everything.
I meant "the numerous advantages associated with succeeding".
To sustain enough steam to power the world you would need, not unsurprisingly, the entire world's current supply of oil, gas, nuclear fission, solar, wind, hydro, etc. Because... that's pretty much what we use it to do (I'm excluding all losses here, for simplicity).
One you achieve fusion
Let me stop you there, because I already see two big problems. Firstly, you don't seem to understand the exact intention of my post: I wasn't proposing steam-based whatever (which, BTW, it is one of the most widely used methodologies for power generation under different water-burning/fuel alternatives like nuclear fission or fossil fuels) as opposed to fusion, but as part of the future commercial fusion power plants. I am not saying that there is no other way to convert the fusion heat into electricity, but this is certainly a quite sensible and reliable approach. Additionally, it seems a very descriptive way to understand some of the associated problems (100 C is enough and you get 100 million, what are you planning to do with all what you don't need?).
Secondly, the rest of your post is based on the last quoted sentence which is pure wishful thinking. Rather than giving some reasons supporting why we should expect a commercial fusion plant to be eventually built, you are basically assuming that this will surely happen and imagining all the associated benefits. I don't think that anyone doubts about the potential benefits of having a working fusion power plant; exactly the same that everyone would love having a magical wand or their problems being spontaneously solved. You are linking a money-focused site (forbes.com) and, honestly, I have no idea about how things are done over there. But most of the work of scientists/engineers is usually spent on coming up with actual solutions to solve whatever problems, rather than on thinking about the numerous associated with succeeding.
Man you really didn't get this one.
Seriously? OK. Please, illustrate me.
This is 1 million times more than what is required to produce a usable form of energy (electricity) through a very reliable methodology to perform the conversion heat -> mechanical energy -> electrical energy (water + heat -> steam which moves a turbine -> generator coupled to the turbine creating electricity). It also seems hot enough to be useful for other purposes like running a huge amount of heating systems.
So, I think that we are already pretty covered on the temperature front, what about focusing on other (tiny) aspects like making the heat generation last for a bit longer (perhaps it is just me, but holding it for just a few seconds or even hours seems still quite far away from what is required to reach the intended goals) or doing something on the actual usage front like actually generating a form of energy that people could use (again perhaps it is just me, but 100 million degrees sounds a bit too much for any direct application I can imagine).
On the other hand, you might continue focusing on this or similar competitions because everyone/everything needs a purpose and this might be a realistic one for you. Being the absolute best at something is certainly very difficult and usually attracts people who want to watch/pay you, to even feel inspired to become like you. Who am I to judge anyone's life aspirations? If you don't damage anyone (should getting money from naive rich suckers be considered damaging someone or an acceptable, even desirable, outcome from the tremendously unfair, self-perpetuating wealth distribution?) and you are happy, I personally have no problem with any life approach. Some people run faster than anyone else, others have the longest nails, you have the hottest temperature. Good for you!
All these autonomous entities may seem scary to you - a single central authority seems much more scary to me. If one entity is wrong, I can take the trouble to deal with another one instead. But if a central authority is inefficient or malignant. . .
Don't get me wrong. I am all for independence and individualism and do think that this is usually the most efficient approach in most of scenarios. The problem with internet and its difference with respect to your examples is that what happens in one country might affect all the remaining ones. If country X has a bad mailing system, its citizens will get their mail late or never; what is not exactly a problem for countries Y and Z. But has proven by the current article, it might be possible for (the companies of) a country to affect communications happening between individuals in other countries. This is the reason why I assume that there will be some changes. In any case, I am not scared about that situation or ask for those changes (I assumed that internet is unsafe and all my data/privacy is compromised long time ago); I am just sharing what I think that will be the probable evolution, if not in general, at least at some levels like national security or military.
My knowledge about networks has always been pretty limited and I haven't known much about ASs, BGR, how internet works, etc. until recently. But even now I wasn't truly aware about what having a system intrinsically defined by autonomous entities really means: lots of power in many hands with very different motivations. And what is even worse: lack of true accountability, of a centralised authority in a position to really make sure that everything will be exactly as expected.
:)
On the other hand, if I had thought about all this a bit carefully, I would have also come to the conclusion that it is the most logical outcome from a mixture of sovereign countries + international law (-> promises, not-really-enforceable agreements or, in the most extreme cases, concessions of small chunks of sovereignty which countries voluntarily give) + global network. The difficulty associated with enforcing the application of certain rules in a web-based environment (hosted in country X and used in country Y) seems intuitively clear to me, but curiously not the fact that same ideas also apply to the underlying physical structure. I guess that, similarly to what happens to most of people before having a proper understanding about the given situation, I couldn't see problems which appear to me as evident now. Ignorance does certainly provoke blindness, no matter how much knowledge you might have on other issues. Scary! Luckily for me (+ others who might be affected by my actions), I am quite aware about this fact and never make relevant decisions about any issue until after having made completely sure that I have a proper knowledge about it
The expected reliability/accountability of a given system is mostly defined by the authority which rules it; or, in other words and as pointed out in some comments above, it is as strong as its weakest link. An international effort including all the countries will always be conditioned by the intrinsic independence of all of them (e.g., to set up the internal proceedings to assess/monitor the suitability of organisations dealing with the national infrastructures). Theoretically, all the internal regulations are coordinated and there are ways to somehow force disobbeying countries to modify their behaviours. But all these efforts will always happen at a relatively distant, after-problems-arise position. Sovereign countries (and, within them, their companies) will always have the real power and their non-ideal actions might definitively have some temporary negative impact at a global scale.
The traditional standardisation approach (e.g., here you have the rules which you are expected to apply; you would be the only one losing in case of trying to trick the system via having inferior national products) doesn't seem applicable to the current scenario. It is a tough one. Governments and internal law don't seem to provide a reliable enough solution. Companies and the market might certainly allow to reach a stage of much higher control, but at what expense? Letting private interests have the last word in something as important as this? What would be the difference between that scenario and the current one (ASs being probably private companies but obeying certain national legislation)? And what about a mixed (governments + companies) multi-tier, elitist setup driving to the creation of different internets? It doesn't sound too well (all the elitism-based whatever sounds equally bad to me), but seems the most probable medium-term evolution: multi-country organisations ensuring a higher level of control over the activity of its members and having some real decision/monitoring power (e.g., the UE).
resolution of around 4 km. But after 40 minutes or so, any forecasting ability is lost, say Bianchi and co. And with a greater resolution of around 1 km, the forecasting ability drops to less than 15 minutes.
One way to improve these forecasts is to correlate the radar images with rainfall measurements on the ground.
When this assumption is correct, Bianchi and co say, their nowcasts produce accurate forecasts more than 20 minutes into the future at a scale of as little as 500 meters. That’s impressive.
But the assumption of Lagrangian persistence isn’t always true. Sometimes the atmosphere undergoes unexpected changes—sudden heating events that cause convection cells, for example. And when this happens, the accuracy of the forecasts drops dramatically. “In the case of convective events, the performance of the nowcast algorithm decreases rapidly after 15 min
Improving to 6 hours as described in the summary and in the article seems pretty unlikely. At least, in scientific/practical terms and by taking as reference what appears to be the current state of the art as defined by the quotes above. For the marketer/MBA-holder/you-do-the-science-&-I-do-the-thinking-who-will-probably-not-get-this-joke considering that saying 6 hours was the best way to improve their chances to get the next round of funding, it is certainly possible (because what is the difference between 15 mins. and 6 hours? It is just a matter of time! Scale it up! Move to quantum mode! Put more scientific thingies in!). LOL.
Folks, is what the Dunning Kruger effect looks like.
Folks? Who do you think that is caring about your nonsense? Or do you have a multiple-personality disorder? Or is it perhaps your group-, social-media, bubble-based distortion of reality which is playing with you? You aren't able to have a conversation 1-to-1 with another person anymore? You already need to always be able to (anonymously) bash others, be part of a group, get some extra advantage? You think that you aren't alone anymore? That there will always be another pathetic idiot like you repeating, liking, upvoting whatever nonsense you say? Or you could always trick the system a bit, right? Creating different profiles, posting various times anonymously. Seems a bit pathetic, but it feels so good when you see the results! The media/internet supporting you! LOL. As said in my previous message (probably to you too), you are beyond pathetic and just the fact that you think that a piece of shit like you has anything to say to someone like me proves your tremendous disconnection with reality. Not with your reality, with the real reality, the one where all your (fake or not) friends, upvotes, stars have no value. You are a sad joke who should have some minimum survival resources and know with whom you can deal and with whom you cannot.
Even though you don't deserve it, I will share a curious anecdote with you. Some years back, I had a pretty weird interaction with a pretty weird person (or group of them, no idea) who did mention that "Dunning Kruger effect". That person(s) was weirdly obsessed with everyone wanting to use the same approach than them (it was about a methodology to build GUIs; bear in mind that this isn't precisely my strongest suit and that I was clearly transmitting that point, that I was fine with my approach for the limited problems with which I was dealing; but this wasn't enough for them who seem really interested in everyone liking the same that they do!!). Back then, I didn't look the meaning of that expression up, exactly the same that I am not doing it now. I mean... I am the kind of guy who is always learning, but cases like this sound to me similar to urban legends or things that insecure people repeat to impress others (something like saying that you know/saw something when it isn't true). Not saying that it isn't really a medical condition, but probably (because of the two times when I have heard about it) is used in a trendy/ignorant fashion. What do I mean with that? I mean for example how is being Aspergers/autism used within certain "collectives" (groups of idiots). It is the kind of easy understanding on which easy people (I mean idiots) rely to simplify the too-complex-for-them world. Something like a simple chant that they can repeat over and over; approaches that they feel that will always work (-> blindly trusting in the 100% reliability of something seems very important for idiots); ideas making them feel safe like thinking about an abstract enemy/problem/bad guys. You know? The kind of pathetic seeds that generate the worst version of ignorance, eventually converted into fanaticism and hate. I mean... I am not truly familiar with all these "urges" which tremendously insecure and ignorant people (usually violent and invasive too) feel. But I guess that this is a reasonably good estimate. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, by assuming that you have been able to read until here because I am sure that so many words should be really difficult for someone like you. LOL.
Wow, you are a pretentious prick.
Read the article you cuck.
?! I wasn't commenting the article, you anonymous piece of shit, but the express reference (direct quote from his author) "The exploit is 100% reliable" and the ridiculously dishonest meaning given to that expression. I took advantage from that to highlight my profound disdain towards the tremendous-ignorance-prone subculture of idiots which internet is creating. You have to be a special kind of idiot to read something like "100% reliable" together with the subsequent explanations and think that it makes any sense. You have to be the kind of credulous, coward/anonymous and pathetic idiot who isn't able to understand a simple post (my previous one), but dares to "participate" in the discussion and naively thinks that using two sentences with two insults saying pretty much nothing about his/her understanding/background makes him/her look intelligent.
Actually, you are so stupid that you aren't even understanding that your post is precisely representing a practical sample of what I was describing in my post. I quote myself:
In fact, I am starting to think that well-reasoned-and-validatable-but-long statements are more likely to be assumed wrong or even untruthful by a big number of (usually noisy) individuals; unlikely not saying anything or using simple, short, ideally-repeated-many-times-&-cool-looking expressions with no real meaning.
You are the kind of pathetic idiot that follows (-> this is what you are, a sheep) people saying short, simple, noisy (and/or arbitrarily insulting, attacking a common enemy, unreasonably appraising what you like, etc.) statements like these. In fact, you might even not be able to understand/write English too well. But you know that those two sentences are right, because you have read them many times from other idiots like you, knowing pretty much the same than you and meaning pretty much the same than your pathetic post means (= nothing). A (not necessarily too bright) parrot should be able to deliver pretty much the same than you have done right now without much effort. You are joke. You are a sample of what no one should ever be. You are the output of pure stupidity. You are so irrelevant and so pathetic that just getting this answer from me might be one of the most relevant things of which you have been part in a while.
It's not a race or something like that, and he's telling you that he hasn't tested if it still works with mismatched binaries - which you normally shouldn't have.
My post was exclusively focused on the funny (indicative, not-too-honest, etc.) reference to 100% reliability. You have found an exploit working under very specific conditions and you list those specific conditions? Everything is fine with me. You could even go a bit further and get some reliable statistics (+ clearly refer to their source -> this is what you should always do when using generic values intended to have an intrinsic meaning, providing some context about their true reliability) about how probable is for certain group of people/software/computers to be in that situation and to estimate a percentage of success of your exploit. It would also be fine. Almost anything would have been fine. Saying that it is 100% reliable is tremendously far away from being fine, clear, honest and, for me, acceptable.
"The exploit is 100% reliable," Zelenyuk said. "It means it either works always or never because of mismatched binaries or other, more subtle reasons I didn't account."
Can I reproduce that exploit? Yes. It will work or not. Funny. It seems the post-truth adaptation of "it works in my machine". Why even caring about saying something appearing to be true anymore, right?
Most of people seem completely incapable of understanding simple concepts. In fact, I am starting to think that well-reasoned-and-validatable-but-long statements are more likely to be assumed wrong or even untruthful by a big number of (usually noisy) individuals; unlikely not saying anything or using simple, short, ideally-repeated-many-times-&-cool-looking expressions with no real meaning.
Although I am not the kind of Schadenfreude guy, I do feel really good with myself and with all what I have (= dignity, honesty, not tolerating arbitrariness, etc.) when I see what the tyranny of the most profound stupidity and fanaticism can bring, mainly online. The saddest part is when those having nothing (from my perspective) aren't aware about that fact and seriously expect their nonsense to prevail when I am around. It is a bit pathetic. But as far as I know that helping/reasoning isn't an option (even if they could understand, they are too ignorant, empty, dishonest and invasive to ever do anything about which I could really care), I will simply focus on enjoying my privileged position.
Yes, I know that traditionally kilo was assumed to be 1024 when dealing with bits/bytes. Yes, this new version does sound a bit ridiculous. But it is the standard now: "Because the SI prefixes strictly represent powers of 10, they should not be used to represent powers of 2. Thus, one kilobit, or 1 kbit, is 1000 bit and not 2^10 bit = 1024 bit. To alleviate this ambiguity, prefixes for binary multiples have been adopted by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for use in information technology.".
Actually, I only knew about this kilo/kibi weirdness a few years back when doing some research to develop a library dealing with units of measurement. Curiously, I am currently studying a reasonably deep mixture of computer/telecommunication engineering and most of the references there are Kbit/Kbyte. I understand that this is an informal convention to indicate that they mean the 1024 versions (because 1000/kilo should be lower k).
Hi I'm Adam from YouTube Comment Experience and I wanted to thank you for sharing these ideas. Do you prefer seeing X or checkmark? Can you describe what your ideal userflow experience would be like Thanks again for helping us shape YouTube.
Yes, Adam, this is exactly what any company should always do for its clients: making sure that their (user) experience is as good as possible. They should do that spontaneously without users' help like what is happening now. If you are so lucky to have first-hand-knowledge about what you should do to improve and you don't maximise that information, you would be doing a terribly bad work. And your recommendation system does certainly need quite a few tweaks. Just take a look at many other comments in this thread. BTW, you are welcome.
After reading other comments, I realised that you have a (pretty crappy) version of what I was proposing but only for logged users. I am almost never logged in when watching videos and didn't know about it. So, improved version of my suggestion: could you please enable that feature also for not-logged-in users? (You are caring about what I watch anyway). It would also be excellent if you could add that X (honestly, I prefer the checkboxes) to individual videos, additionally to full channels.
Easy-to-implement, user-friendly and even likeable feature helping you to really have a worthy recommendation system: checkboxes allowing users to enable/disable channels/videos. Please, just let me train your system for you! You keep showing me the recommendations as so far (when being logged-in or not, triggered by just one time I watched something which I didn't like or by hundreds of videos really relevant to me), but add 1-click-to-check-uncheck boxes. If I uncheck something, you don't show me that stuff again. Deal?
This is slashdot, kilo changes to 1024 when you add "byte" behind it.
Sorry for being a bit pedantic, but this isn't true. You can also have kilobytes/1000 bytes. The 1024 equivalence of k is Ki. 1 kB (kilobyte) is 1000 bytes and 1 KiB (kibibyte) is 1024 bytes.
I am not sure that I get your point. But what I was basically saying is that a tremendously complex and deep accumulative process is required in order to ever get close to what a human brain can do. There have been many attempts with different levels of complexity and, in principle, most of them might be considered good enough as preliminary steps to ever get a properly-understanding machine. The problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be a real awareness about that preliminary essence. Also that it will always be an iterative, accumulating process involving lots of small steps. They work on a few of these small parts, confirm that the complexity grows exponentially and, eventually, hope for a solution which could eventually avoid that exponential growth. My point was that this expectation will be never fulfilled. This is basically hoping for a miracle or some kind of magical solution. The only way to ever reach there is keeping working as so far for as long and deep as required, what is likely to be very long/deep.
If a company or organisation was willing to do all what is required by its own, I guess that there wouldn't be any problem with proprietary software to get there. But this seems a very unlikely scenario mainly because of the tremendous cost and virtually non-existing profits for very long periods of time. A different story would be companies appearing after a solid enough base is already in place, for example, what has happened with the space program. Actually, this is a quite descriptive example (but its size is still, IMO, a bit modest, even by bearing in mind that cost of associated resources is much higher) to understand what might be required on the machines-properly-understanding front: picturing ourselves at the time before space exploration started and taking what was done back then as a preliminary estimate of what might be the expected requirements (complexity, resources, time, etc.).
All our efforts to build machines of any type have always follow the same rules: accumulation of simple parts performing simple actions. And this doesn't just refer to the way in which machines work, but also to the whole process required to firstly build all of them. Computers, for example, didn't appear suddenly as a result of someone's happy idea, but were the result of centuries of learning of different aspects starting from knowing how to safely manage electricity. This has always been the case and I don't think that many people have ever doubted that reality before: step-by-step, by solving initially unrelated problems and by gradually merging isolated solutions into more comprehensive ones. The abstract idea of a computer as a machine performing calculations was probably easy to understand hundreds of years ago; but the current computers and all what is required to make them run was completely unimaginable. I don't think that people being amazed with the first computers counting up to 1 million in a few minutes were expecting them to eventually move to their current speeds. Or, at least, nobody back then in their right mind should have thought about that eventually being just "one magic leap" away.
Let's make it simple and think about what is required to create a machine able to somehow emulate human memory. In principle, we have already available most of what is required, right? It is just a matter of density, of efficiency, of number of nodes if you wish. When a person understands/remembers something, we all know that it requires a huge amount of actions at a microscopic level about which we don't have a too good understanding. We also know that computers can do virtually everything, but that we need to explain them each single step of the process. You want a computer to distinguish between two pictures? It takes a program of X size. Do you want it to distinguish between two more abstract ideas as defined by a big number of pictures? It takes a program of X^Y size. All this seems quite evident and clear, so why the next logical step seems so difficult to understand? Why expecting a magic setup allowing to easily and immediately come up with a way to restrict that geometrical increase of complexity? On the other hand, if you keep adding layers over and over, step by step until reaching the point where you have converted all our knowledge to a machine-understandable format, it seems pretty clear that we would certainly get a machine able to understand everything as well as the most intelligent person.
In summary, it isn't a matter of how to find the magical way allowing us to avoid the tremendous complexity associated with reliably emulating the human brain, even just a few of its functions. It is a matter of accepting the only thing that you can do to ever be in that scenario. There is no other alternative. Adding simple layers one over the other is all what we know. Perhaps even the human brain works in that way, but much more efficiently. But that issue doesn't even really matter because only know how to do that anyway.
The knowledge you get at the university can rarely be precisely considered the current state of the art. This applies to pretty much any (technical) degree. CS or similar might be a bit exceptional, but I don't think that expecting perfectly updated knowledge is too logical or even required. The whole point of the university is providing a solid background, learning the specifics, really enjoying and getting really good at something is mostly done at work. I don't think that a too deep, detailed theoretical background will be especially helpful for technical fields. It might even be a disadvantage by implicitly providing the wrong impression of completeness, not requiring the essential practice for years.
The knowledge I got at the university was quite outdated, but this was mainly because of my degree (industrial/mechanical engineering). Currently, I am studying computer/telecommunication engineering at university level as part of the requirements for certain position and, although everything is reasonably up-to-date (at least, regarding software versions, names and lists of features), there are still quite a few lacks and the main focus is put on somehow old systems and approaches. What I think that is fine. I am not a big fan of the big deal of theoretics/abstractions and little proportion of practical knowledge though.