I'd take you for your word, but you shitpost on just about every thread I post in, so gonna need sources proving that there was only 1 case which went against them and it included all those things along with the integration.
If antitrust regulations ensured Microsoft got their asses handed to them over writing software which disproportionately favors their other software then surely Google should get shafted just as hard. Take half their market share with regulations, should make it even (for this one infraction.)
The humans will be too busy looking for a way to survive, while the robots seek ever more exploitative means of amassing wealth, as they were programmed to do.
Don't worry, I am sure the 1% that own them will be understanding how the 99% are starving to death, as they sip their pumpkin spice latte, and review the surveillance data from all the smart cams, smart speakers, and other misc. telescreens keeping tabs on all the 99% so that they cannot effectively organize with pitchforks before the automated robot peace keepers arrive. I am sure that future will be grand and dandy indeed. A true dream. I mean, who WOULDNT want to live that dream?/s
That seems unlikely, if for no other reason than the 1% will have kids who get bored and try to make the AI turn against Humanity in whole because they spent too much time browsing 4chan.
This. "Ambient computing" has a place, people still want at least augmented reality screens so they can focus on shit. Nobody wants to sift through data to do something which has never before been programmed into a computer via their wineglass any more than they can say "Alexa figure this thing out for me," Hell, there's a huge market just in not having everything figured out - that's like the meaning-of-life type of shit, if we got to a point where every problem were a solved one what the fuck would we do other than create some new problems? Fully integrated computing is great in concept, but not when it erodes or completely voids free will by mashing everyone into some idealized component of a system, at that point the best we could ever hope to be is a neuron in the mind of some next-level emergent consciousness composed of the sum of computers operating the world (and frankly, not even that, since the thinking would be done for us.) I for one am not looking to be the equivalent of an electron zipping around a circuit between the source and ground running the gauntlet of some pre-packaged existence for the sake of (what would it even be for at that point?) Honestly, this concept is more terrifying than AI taking over the world and slaughtering everyone, because if "ambient computing" becomes as heavily entrenched in life as projected in this article it will be because there's no AI behind it, but some programmers from a culture a single moment in time who decided what the ideal was for everyone, then lost even their own self-directed life to be mashed into the sum of that ideal (without even strictly choosing what the ideal was, just as an aggregate of different drives to "improve" life.) Once a system reaches homeostasis it can effectively be considered a single particle, no sub-component of that particle can really be considered conscious.
Not to mention the utter lack of watchable plot this season, they dropped the ball in basically every way imaginable. And now we don't even have the hope of a steamy granny sex scene between The Doctor and The Master, the shame.
We've had newspeak for awhile, just look at "regulation" - it means "to ensure a machine is well oiled, tuned, and calibrated." That didn't fit the narrative so in modern terminology it means "to restrict" because that allows gun grabbers to claim "it always meant no assault butter knives, assault butter knives were never intended by the founding fathers." Pretty big distinction from "you should all be armed to the teeth and well trained to use your arms" as they originally intended.
I'd think that maybe they could devote their debugging efforts to more annoying bugs...
Or you know, just stop making Java, it's well beyond the point of being shit at this point. But I guess that's how it works, something gets associated with being shit, has words describing it as shit, then seeks to outlaw the words describing it rather than change itself.
So yeah, actually I do have to perform risk assessment every time we buy in a new service or make a change that may have an impact on our legal duties.
Then you do a shit job of it if you don't factor in the risks.
It's a latin phrase uneducated and heavily brainwashed "I'm super special and my opinion matters because I'm me" retards say to make themselves feel smug.
It's not an exaggeration, you fucking fool. Lifter technology has existed since the dawn of electrodynamics, slapping a pair of wings and a smaller batter doesn't make it "new," it's not even an impressive engineering accomplishment.
They aren't 1,000+ qubit, they are ~500 qubit currently. They have several of those 500+ qubit cores in parallel in the same chips, but the max entanglement is currently around 500 qubit from D-Wave (at least commercially available.) Their next-gen ones are supposed to be in the 600-800 qubit range.
That's wasn't really a "have you?" so much as a "I know you fucking haven't or are purposefully aiming to mislead people by stating this as you absolutely don't due them when assessing risk." I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, assume you aren't outright retarded, and that you are instead misrepresenting how to tackle a risk assessment problem for personal gain. Good job, kept me talking this long.
Slashdot Mirror
Oracle is shit, AWS is shit, Azure is shit; but AWS stinks slightly more than the others.
I'd take you for your word, but you shitpost on just about every thread I post in, so gonna need sources proving that there was only 1 case which went against them and it included all those things along with the integration.
They did a lot shadier shit than that (and still do,) I was citing the thing they got nailed for.
The thing Microsoft got screwed on was integrating IE into Windows Explorer, that's absolutely trivial compared to what Google is doing.
If antitrust regulations ensured Microsoft got their asses handed to them over writing software which disproportionately favors their other software then surely Google should get shafted just as hard. Take half their market share with regulations, should make it even (for this one infraction.)
It's not a matter of being shown, it's a matter of stubborn refusal.
The humans will be too busy looking for a way to survive, while the robots seek ever more exploitative means of amassing wealth, as they were programmed to do.
Don't worry, I am sure the 1% that own them will be understanding how the 99% are starving to death, as they sip their pumpkin spice latte, and review the surveillance data from all the smart cams, smart speakers, and other misc. telescreens keeping tabs on all the 99% so that they cannot effectively organize with pitchforks before the automated robot peace keepers arrive. I am sure that future will be grand and dandy indeed. A true dream. I mean, who WOULDNT want to live that dream? /s
That seems unlikely, if for no other reason than the 1% will have kids who get bored and try to make the AI turn against Humanity in whole because they spent too much time browsing 4chan.
This. "Ambient computing" has a place, people still want at least augmented reality screens so they can focus on shit. Nobody wants to sift through data to do something which has never before been programmed into a computer via their wineglass any more than they can say "Alexa figure this thing out for me," Hell, there's a huge market just in not having everything figured out - that's like the meaning-of-life type of shit, if we got to a point where every problem were a solved one what the fuck would we do other than create some new problems? Fully integrated computing is great in concept, but not when it erodes or completely voids free will by mashing everyone into some idealized component of a system, at that point the best we could ever hope to be is a neuron in the mind of some next-level emergent consciousness composed of the sum of computers operating the world (and frankly, not even that, since the thinking would be done for us.) I for one am not looking to be the equivalent of an electron zipping around a circuit between the source and ground running the gauntlet of some pre-packaged existence for the sake of (what would it even be for at that point?) Honestly, this concept is more terrifying than AI taking over the world and slaughtering everyone, because if "ambient computing" becomes as heavily entrenched in life as projected in this article it will be because there's no AI behind it, but some programmers from a culture a single moment in time who decided what the ideal was for everyone, then lost even their own self-directed life to be mashed into the sum of that ideal (without even strictly choosing what the ideal was, just as an aggregate of different drives to "improve" life.) Once a system reaches homeostasis it can effectively be considered a single particle, no sub-component of that particle can really be considered conscious.
Not to mention the utter lack of watchable plot this season, they dropped the ball in basically every way imaginable. And now we don't even have the hope of a steamy granny sex scene between The Doctor and The Master, the shame.
Obviously, we are moving more towards NewSpeak.
We've had newspeak for awhile, just look at "regulation" - it means "to ensure a machine is well oiled, tuned, and calibrated." That didn't fit the narrative so in modern terminology it means "to restrict" because that allows gun grabbers to claim "it always meant no assault butter knives, assault butter knives were never intended by the founding fathers." Pretty big distinction from "you should all be armed to the teeth and well trained to use your arms" as they originally intended.
I'd think that maybe they could devote their debugging efforts to more annoying bugs...
Or you know, just stop making Java, it's well beyond the point of being shit at this point. But I guess that's how it works, something gets associated with being shit, has words describing it as shit, then seeks to outlaw the words describing it rather than change itself.
Still speaking on shit you don't even study, at least you were born with enough stamina to make up for your lack of wit.
How is a 256 bit system not susceptible to a 500 bit quantum computer?
Because that's not how Shor's algorithms or its variants work.
In risk management, as this is an example of, it does.
Yet, you are the ONLY person in this thread that thinks this.
Try reading more.
You speak a lot on a diverse range of subjects you don't understand.
That's not how those algorithms work. Also, AES isn't susceptible to attacks by quantum computers.
So yeah, actually I do have to perform risk assessment every time we buy in a new service or make a change that may have an impact on our legal duties.
Then you do a shit job of it if you don't factor in the risks.
The reaction of a truly special snowflake. Immediately offended and goes ballistic when someone points out their lack of knowledge about something.
Try again, I actually know Latin.
It's a latin phrase uneducated and heavily brainwashed "I'm super special and my opinion matters because I'm me" retards say to make themselves feel smug.
When did being a millennial get equated to materialism per se?
It didn't, it's equated with using effeminate language like "per se."
It's not an exaggeration, you fucking fool. Lifter technology has existed since the dawn of electrodynamics, slapping a pair of wings and a smaller batter doesn't make it "new," it's not even an impressive engineering accomplishment.
They aren't 1,000+ qubit, they are ~500 qubit currently. They have several of those 500+ qubit cores in parallel in the same chips, but the max entanglement is currently around 500 qubit from D-Wave (at least commercially available.) Their next-gen ones are supposed to be in the 600-800 qubit range.
News for grandparents, stuff from the 90's.
Sure, I have actually.
That's wasn't really a "have you?" so much as a "I know you fucking haven't or are purposefully aiming to mislead people by stating this as you absolutely don't due them when assessing risk." I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, assume you aren't outright retarded, and that you are instead misrepresenting how to tackle a risk assessment problem for personal gain. Good job, kept me talking this long.