All of this just highlights how primitive current AI really is. I have a lot of experience dealing with drivers who behave in random, unpredictable ways. A self-driving car doesn't. Current AI is a long, long way from being able to handle all the situations that a human driver encounters every day.
Repeated slap on the wrist punishments and no jail time is what is particularly troubling here and continues to be.
And I don't know why we accept this bullshit at our own expense when this is the repeated outcome. What is it going to take to get corporations to act properly and ethically these days?
Guess that will never happen. Instead, we watch our corrupt government to turn a blind eye to anti-monopoly laws and allowed corporations to invent Too Big to Fail instead
Because any politician who supports sending corporate criminals to prison will be accused of supporting "big government" and will be voted out of office.
Dunno but I could have written everything Bennett said in just one sentence:
"If binge on is unlimited, then why can't we just have unlimited at the same speed for all other content?"
Because "binging" on everything is essentially the same as unlimited data, and as we have already seen, every carrier who has ever advertised unlimited data has eventually weaseled out of it.
T-Mobile's BingeOn is nothing more than another bullshit advertising gimmick.
Chome's UI is shit and can't be changed. One of the best features of Firefox has always been the ability to rearrange things exactly how I want, instead of being forced to use what someone else dictates. Of course Firefox eliminated much that a while back in their quest to be more like Chrome.
Firefox suffers from the syndrome known as "Bikeshedding".
They long ago abandoned what should be their core focus -- fix bugs, improve performance and implement new standards as needed (CSS 3, HTML 5) -- and have focused instead on endless tinkering, completely destroying the UI and a parade of useless new "features".
A year ago Yahoo eliminated its test and quality assurance team
The perfect behavior for a company that is worth less than zero. (Subtract their shares of Alibaba from their market cap and you get a negative number).
Bullshit. If you advertise X, then you should assume, right from the very beginning, that *EVERYONE* is going to use the maximum amount of X, and plan accordingly. Otherwise, it demonstrates that you are dishonest and never intended for people to actually use X -- it was just an advertising gimmick designed to draw people in for something that you never intended to deliver.
Google is slipping in its ranking. In fact, you'll notice that many of the highest ranked companies are fairly new and relatively small. And that's not unexpected. As a company gets bigger and older, the chances of hiring asshole managers increases greatly. Notice that Microsoft, who has been in business for nearly 40 years never makes these lists.
>My test is thus: how freaked out does the management get went when the network has an outage at 3:00 in the morning. If they are full on incontinent then you have a tech company.
So every newspaper and magazine qualifies as a "tech company".
you use some inhouse custom built website/app to sell some other product or service then your company isn't a tech company
One could argue that by your definition Google is not a tech company.
They aren't They are an advertising company. More than 90% of their revenue comes from selling ads. Just like newspapers and magazines -- and nobody calls them "tech companies."
... give out prizes to industrial leaders in the race to the absolute rock bottom.
Airbnb allows normal people to earn money by renting out spare rooms, at the expense of big corporate hotel chains. It is silly to say they are a sign of rampant corporate domination. They are the opposite. They are an enabler for the common people.
Bullshit.
The entire business model of companies like Airbnb and Uber are based on exploiting people who are desperate for work.
The real problem is illustrated in the last paragraph:
"Even when they say they're OK with lower reliability, they still want uptime,"
In other words, no matter how many times a customer says they will accept lower reliability in exchange for a lower price, the first time things go down, they are going to be screaming at you for not keeping things running perfectly all the time.
The information that is presented is good, no one has claimed otherwise. But many people, including me, object to slogging through 15 minutes (or more) of inside jokes about people I don't know and other pointless babble in order to get to the actual "good information".
I don't want to see you. I don't want to listen to your ramblings, no matter how good a speaker you are (most people are horrible speakers). And I don't want to see or hear about your cat. Provide a written transcript of the relevant things you have to say.
its his money its his right to do what he wants with it.
if he wanted to get all his money in a pile and burn it, that would be his right. I dont get why people care what others do with their own money
Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle called a limited liability company (LLC) that can invest in for-profit companies, make political donations, and lobby for changes in the law. What's more an LLC can donate appreciated shares to charity, which will generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax. A charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg LLC won't be subject to those rules and won't have any transparency requirements. We don't generally call these types of activities 'charity.'
Contrary to what Zuckerberg claims, the creation of his LLC means he will probably pay no taxes on his $45 Billion.
He can do what he wants. No argument there. The problem is, he's being dishonest about what he's doing and why he's doing it.
That would mean investors are valuing Yahoo's core business at less than zero if the Asian assets were spun out tax-free.
Yahoo should have sold to Microsoft when they were offered an obscene (and insane) amount of money for the company. The fact that they didn't was even dumber than Microsoft actually offering $53 billion for the company. Microsoft shareholders kind of dodged a bullet when that deal fell through.
Yahoo turning down Microsoft is like Groupon turning down Google's offer of several billion. There's a lot of due diligence involved in multi-billion dollar transactions and neither deal would have gone through, even if the target company had accepted the offer.
Because -- given the tech talent crunch -- tech companies are competing for talent. One way they do that is by providing more aggressive benefits. This means that as large name-brand companies change their benefits (such as parental leave) for the better, other companies are likely to follow.
It's all public relations bullshit.
If you can take several months off, it just means the company doesn't really need you. Or, it means someone else is will have to work harder (with no extra pay) to make up for your absence
It's the usual "privatize revenue, socialize cost" spiel. Sorry, but no game. Here's the offer: You have to show that you know where to put the waste and you have to lock down enough money to take care of it for at least a century, then you can build that reactor.Deal?
And *THAT* is the real reason why no new reactors have been built for 35 years.
You can guarantee they will do it wrong thinking it will save them 50 cents this quarter even if it causes a meltdown next quarter. That's next quarters problem.
Exactly. The problem is not those wacky environmentalists or all those crybabies who don't want nuclear waste buried in their neighborhood. The problem is 50 years of massive cost over-runs, complete lack of proper maintenance, and general greed, corruption and incompetence. Nuclear power is a great idea, but not if it is run by the existing power companies.
You can put all the regulations you want, all you need is an economic downturn and the government will keep the reactors running past their lifetimes and without maintenance.
That's already happening. Most existing reactors are past their normal life span and have not been properly maintained. So the government ( after extensive lobbying by the nuclear power companies) has repeatedly loosened safety standards so that the reactors can continue to operate.
We also need to internalize the cost of an atomic incident somehow, and let the energy company pay the bill, not the taxpayer.
You obviously don't understand how things work. Businesses don't pay for anything. All costs are passed along to the customer (ie, you). If you tell them that they have to pay $X Billion because of an accident, and they can't pass the cost on to their customers, they'll just go bankrupt and you'll get stuck with the cost of cleaning up the mess.
Slashdot Mirror
All of this just highlights how primitive current AI really is. I have a lot of experience dealing with drivers who behave in random, unpredictable ways. A self-driving car doesn't. Current AI is a long, long way from being able to handle all the situations that a human driver encounters every day.
Look, there are always going to be a lot of gullible people with too much money.
PT Barnum said a fool and his money is parted easily.
If not this, it would be something else. Google up "See Clearly Method".
Homeopathy, magnets, horoscopes, tattoos, lottery tickets, alternative medicines with unlikely claims are the past times of some people.
You can't outlaw stupid.
Yes there are a lot of stupid, gullible people. But that doesn't change the fact that LifeLock is 100% fraudulent.
Repeated slap on the wrist punishments and no jail time is what is particularly troubling here and continues to be.
And I don't know why we accept this bullshit at our own expense when this is the repeated outcome. What is it going to take to get corporations to act properly and ethically these days?
Guess that will never happen. Instead, we watch our corrupt government to turn a blind eye to anti-monopoly laws and allowed corporations to invent Too Big to Fail instead
Because any politician who supports sending corporate criminals to prison will be accused of supporting "big government" and will be voted out of office.
Dunno but I could have written everything Bennett said in just one sentence:
"If binge on is unlimited, then why can't we just have unlimited at the same speed for all other content?"
Because "binging" on everything is essentially the same as unlimited data, and as we have already seen, every carrier who has ever advertised unlimited data has eventually weaseled out of it.
T-Mobile's BingeOn is nothing more than another bullshit advertising gimmick.
Chome's UI is shit and can't be changed. One of the best features of Firefox has always been the ability to rearrange things exactly how I want, instead of being forced to use what someone else dictates. Of course Firefox eliminated much that a while back in their quest to be more like Chrome.
Firefox suffers from the syndrome known as "Bikeshedding".
They long ago abandoned what should be their core focus -- fix bugs, improve performance and implement new standards as needed (CSS 3, HTML 5) -- and have focused instead on endless tinkering, completely destroying the UI and a parade of useless new "features".
Well, time to upgrade.
To what?
But Mozilla doesnâ(TM)t see this as a big problem, and says it is by design.
Yes, the shittyness of Firefox is by design.
A year ago Yahoo eliminated its test and quality assurance team
The perfect behavior for a company that is worth less than zero. (Subtract their shares of Alibaba from their market cap and you get a negative number).
Bullshit. If you advertise X, then you should assume, right from the very beginning, that *EVERYONE* is going to use the maximum amount of X, and plan accordingly. Otherwise, it demonstrates that you are dishonest and never intended for people to actually use X -- it was just an advertising gimmick designed to draw people in for something that you never intended to deliver.
Google is slipping in its ranking. In fact, you'll notice that many of the highest ranked companies are fairly new and relatively small. And that's not unexpected. As a company gets bigger and older, the chances of hiring asshole managers increases greatly. Notice that Microsoft, who has been in business for nearly 40 years never makes these lists.
>My test is thus: how freaked out does the management get went when the network has an outage at 3:00 in the morning. If they are full on incontinent then you have a tech company.
So every newspaper and magazine qualifies as a "tech company".
you use some inhouse custom built website/app to sell some other product or service then your company isn't a tech company
One could argue that by your definition Google is not a tech company.
They aren't They are an advertising company. More than 90% of their revenue comes from selling ads. Just like newspapers and magazines -- and nobody calls them "tech companies."
... give out prizes to industrial leaders in the race to the absolute rock bottom.
Airbnb allows normal people to earn money by renting out spare rooms, at the expense of big corporate hotel chains. It is silly to say they are a sign of rampant corporate domination. They are the opposite. They are an enabler for the common people.
Bullshit.
The entire business model of companies like Airbnb and Uber are based on exploiting people who are desperate for work.
The real problem is illustrated in the last paragraph:
"Even when they say they're OK with lower reliability, they still want uptime,"
In other words, no matter how many times a customer says they will accept lower reliability in exchange for a lower price, the first time things go down, they are going to be screaming at you for not keeping things running perfectly all the time.
The information that is presented is good, no one has claimed otherwise. But many people, including me, object to slogging through 15 minutes (or more) of inside jokes about people I don't know and other pointless babble in order to get to the actual "good information".
Yes.
I don't want to see you. I don't want to listen to your ramblings, no matter how good a speaker you are (most people are horrible speakers). And I don't want to see or hear about your cat. Provide a written transcript of the relevant things you have to say.
its his money its his right to do what he wants with it.
if he wanted to get all his money in a pile and burn it, that would be his right. I dont get why people care what others do with their own money
Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle called a limited liability company (LLC) that can invest in for-profit companies, make political donations, and lobby for changes in the law. What's more an LLC can donate appreciated shares to charity, which will generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax. A charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg LLC won't be subject to those rules and won't have any transparency requirements. We don't generally call these types of activities 'charity.'
Contrary to what Zuckerberg claims, the creation of his LLC means he will probably pay no taxes on his $45 Billion.
He can do what he wants. No argument there. The problem is, he's being dishonest about what he's doing and why he's doing it.
That would mean investors are valuing Yahoo's core business at less than zero if the Asian assets were spun out tax-free.
Yahoo should have sold to Microsoft when they were offered an obscene (and insane) amount of money for the company. The fact that they didn't was even dumber than Microsoft actually offering $53 billion for the company. Microsoft shareholders kind of dodged a bullet when that deal fell through.
Yahoo turning down Microsoft is like Groupon turning down Google's offer of several billion. There's a lot of due diligence involved in multi-billion dollar transactions and neither deal would have gone through, even if the target company had accepted the offer.
Because -- given the tech talent crunch -- tech companies are competing for talent. One way they do that is by providing more aggressive benefits. This means that as large name-brand companies change their benefits (such as parental leave) for the better, other companies are likely to follow.
It's all public relations bullshit.
If you can take several months off, it just means the company doesn't really need you. Or, it means someone else is will have to work harder (with no extra pay) to make up for your absence
It's the usual "privatize revenue, socialize cost" spiel. Sorry, but no game. Here's the offer: You have to show that you know where to put the waste and you have to lock down enough money to take care of it for at least a century, then you can build that reactor.Deal?
And *THAT* is the real reason why no new reactors have been built for 35 years.
You can guarantee they will do it wrong thinking it will save them 50 cents this quarter even if it causes a meltdown next quarter. That's next quarters problem.
Exactly. The problem is not those wacky environmentalists or all those crybabies who don't want nuclear waste buried in their neighborhood. The problem is 50 years of massive cost over-runs, complete lack of proper maintenance, and general greed, corruption and incompetence. Nuclear power is a great idea, but not if it is run by the existing power companies.
You can put all the regulations you want, all you need is an economic downturn and the government will keep the reactors running past their lifetimes and without maintenance.
That's already happening. Most existing reactors are past their normal life span and have not been properly maintained. So the government ( after extensive lobbying by the nuclear power companies) has repeatedly loosened safety standards so that the reactors can continue to operate.
We also need to internalize the cost of an atomic incident somehow, and let the energy company pay the bill, not the taxpayer.
You obviously don't understand how things work. Businesses don't pay for anything. All costs are passed along to the customer (ie, you). If you tell them that they have to pay $X Billion because of an accident, and they can't pass the cost on to their customers, they'll just go bankrupt and you'll get stuck with the cost of cleaning up the mess.
If Reuters no longer accepts images in a particular format, it's their business.
Exactly. So send them JPEGs and STFU.