If they really wanted people to understand the Android user "agreement", it would be short, concise and clear.
If they really wanted people to adjust their tracking and data collection, it would be (1) opt-in, (2) much more visible, and (3) devastating to Google's business.
I doubt that any settings you may be able to adjust have any effect on what they collect and analyze. It may adjust how some of it is presented to *you* though.
You AI nutters thinks neural networks are some sort of magic. It isn't.
Agreed! ANN:s is just an algorithmic tool.
NN have been around for many decades, and it is a dead end.
No, it is a very useful tool for function approximation in some cases.
However, in its current shape, it is most likely a dead end on the road towards AGI.
A NN is nothing like the human brain.
The human brain *is* a neural network. An *artificial* neural network, ANN, on the other hand, has to my knowledge not been implemented even close to similar to a human brain.
Just mentioning it since you enjoy ranting on colloquial abuse of terms on the subject instead of focusing on the contents.
[...] but no-one has any idea how or why it works.
That is severely incorrect. Artificial Neural Networks are very well understood and their properties are mathematically described for the common cases. So are the methods for training them.
The concept of ANN:s being mysterious and not understood is just a myth spread by media because it sells better, just like AI sounds more advanced or scary than algorithmic inference or whatever would be a better term in each case.
In my experience some of this kind of tools may actually improve the productivity. However, the tools themselves tend to be relatively short-lived and/or have terrible data migration. Sometimes it may be that the data structure is too specific to the way the specific tool works. Much of the data stored within tend to get lost when switching to new tools
I believe that using them for day to day workflow *can* be useful as facilitators as long as any long-term useful information is stored elsewhere in common file formats on file systems or in revision control systems.
And of course, on another note, if you rely on SaaS for mission-critical stuff, you probably want a stable company and ToS behind it, not the next month's startup with a hip name and no 24/7 monitoring and support. I would guess that this disqualifies many of the artifacts mentioned in the OP (never heard of any of them).
No, it is Azure. Office 365 is just one of the services (presumably) deployed there. The outage affected systems from other organizations and people as well.
Monday morning I'll be telling my boss that even AMAZON doesn't need Oracle
Ah, but they do. It says so right in TFS. By the end of 2018 they will keep using 12% of their Oracle databases including 3% of its mission-critical databases.
So Amazon can replace most of its database use, but for mission-critical stuff, they still need Oracle. Score another point for Larry.
Slightly different conclusion though: Don't buy *expensive* Android phone models as they are likely to be throwaway devices security-wise in two years.
Problem is, if you pay premium price for a privacy-enabled device but then use it for Facebook, Google or just about anything on the web, or just about any casual app, you get the worst of both worlds: High price and blown privacy.
I don't know which exact frameworks that are used in that communication, but I would believe that none of them are in their first version, unmodified since that. As in, "There, we wrote the framework. Let's weld it shut, start using it, and never change the interface."
I'm thinking that every framework goes through evolution, and I don't just mean for software frameworks. Communication protocols. Electric wall sockets. Air traffic. Economic systems. If they are long-lived it is because they have evolved to what they are now. If they don't evolve, they don't get long-lived.
I could think of, and have used, a bunch of plug-in-based software frameworks, e.g. Eclipse RCP, JBoss, Minecraft servers. None of them have been good enough to not require breaking improvements in order to survive evolution and future use cases.
The most generic plugin framework for software that I can think of is an OS. Just plug in your applications, drivers etc. But those evolve. Well, except for my first computer which had its OS in ROM. But that wasn't very long-lived, so you could say that the framework was not designed well enough.
Could you give a few examples of the frameworks you are thinking of? I'm sincerely curious; perhaps there is something to learn from them.
In the commercial world, I don't think we developers can do very much on our own. The company that pays for our time and want the software to generate revenue are the ones who get to decide when we say "We could spend two people for three weeks implementing this stuff, or we could pull in this 300 MB open source library and have the software deployed by Wednesday.".
I don't see how it could be anyone but the customers who could change this by requesting leaner applications and vote with their money.
It seems to me that the press secretary got it right:
the duly elected President of the United States," she said in a statement. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign," she added.
View them as two different languages and you'll be fine. Python 2 is one language. Python 3 is another. They happen to be named pretty similar and share a lot of syntax, which confuses a lot of people.
Start the runnable files with:
#!/usr/bin/env python2
or
#!/usr/bin/env python3... and don't worry too much about it.
Yeah, it is not always as simple as that, but I sincerely believe that much of the frustration comes from treating them as the same language when they are not.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I failed to convey in my post.
Anecdotes and thought experiments show that humans show a degree of creativity and empathy that are more or less required in many situations. The current batch of algorithms are not designed to model this, since we haven't invented such yet. Thus, I don't believe that driving with generic human-level flexibility can be fully accomplished with the current style of "dumb" algorithms.
Human-similar AI could provide those features. But then again, it could also provide features like indecisiveness, road rage, pettiness,... And what about when your car falls in love with that red convertible over there?
If you entertain the thought that Human-equivalent AI will someday be implemented (I do), you could expect it to be able to drive a car just as well as a human. You could probably even expect it to drive as well as the best human driver. With cars having the equivalent of the human sensors, and then some more (radar, lidar, vehicle-to-vehicle communication,...) , I think that they have a good chance of becoming a decent improvement in traffic.
But given the state of AI today, in my view the software in autonomous vehicles are not even up to toy standard. It's more of a party trick.
It's more like *if* our goal is to minimize the number of traffic injuries, *then* we should probably aim to ban most human driving.
But minimizing the number of injuries may not be the only goal. Individual freedom, flexibility, and whatnot, may be other goals that may be in conflict with autonomous vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, those were the days!
Of course, we on the Amiga side always won when the arguments were technical. When arguing using fists, the ST people outnumbered us. :)
to ensure its use is aligned with our principles and values
Which are those?
If they really wanted people to understand the Android user "agreement", it would be short, concise and clear.
If they really wanted people to adjust their tracking and data collection, it would be (1) opt-in, (2) much more visible, and (3) devastating to Google's business.
I doubt that any settings you may be able to adjust have any effect on what they collect and analyze. It may adjust how some of it is presented to *you* though.
Did you say Docker?
You AI nutters thinks neural networks are some sort of magic. It isn't.
Agreed! ANN:s is just an algorithmic tool.
NN have been around for many decades, and it is a dead end.
No, it is a very useful tool for function approximation in some cases.
However, in its current shape, it is most likely a dead end on the road towards AGI.
A NN is nothing like the human brain.
The human brain *is* a neural network. An *artificial* neural network, ANN, on the other hand, has to my knowledge not been implemented even close to similar to a human brain.
Just mentioning it since you enjoy ranting on colloquial abuse of terms on the subject instead of focusing on the contents.
[...] but no-one has any idea how or why it works.
That is severely incorrect. Artificial Neural Networks are very well understood and their properties are mathematically described for the common cases. So are the methods for training them.
The concept of ANN:s being mysterious and not understood is just a myth spread by media because it sells better, just like AI sounds more advanced or scary than algorithmic inference or whatever would be a better term in each case.
I don't see freedom faring any better in the big gun country.
In my experience some of this kind of tools may actually improve the productivity. However, the tools themselves tend to be relatively short-lived and/or have terrible data migration. Sometimes it may be that the data structure is too specific to the way the specific tool works. Much of the data stored within tend to get lost when switching to new tools
I believe that using them for day to day workflow *can* be useful as facilitators as long as any long-term useful information is stored elsewhere in common file formats on file systems or in revision control systems.
And of course, on another note, if you rely on SaaS for mission-critical stuff, you probably want a stable company and ToS behind it, not the next month's startup with a hip name and no 24/7 monitoring and support. I would guess that this disqualifies many of the artifacts mentioned in the OP (never heard of any of them).
No, it is Azure. Office 365 is just one of the services (presumably) deployed there. The outage affected systems from other organizations and people as well.
With the saved money I can drive taxi 20 times per month.
You would need a car to drive taxi.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said Monday the "follower count" metric on the social platform is meaningless.
Well, he if anybody should be able to have it removed then.
Then we will see if it really is meaningless to others than himself.
Monday morning I'll be telling my boss that even AMAZON doesn't need Oracle
Ah, but they do. It says so right in TFS. By the end of 2018 they will keep using 12% of their Oracle databases including 3% of its mission-critical databases.
So Amazon can replace most of its database use, but for mission-critical stuff, they still need Oracle. Score another point for Larry.
...and other nuisance calls received by American consumers.
Maybe that's where the problem is. You are not US citizens or residents. You are US consumers.
Same expectation and experience with the Nexus 5.
Slightly different conclusion though: Don't buy *expensive* Android phone models as they are likely to be throwaway devices security-wise in two years.
This is literally just IRC with some graphics, and additional easy-to-use integrations.
"[5% of ] this is literally just IRC with [the remaining 95% being] some graphics, and additional easy-to-use integrations."
Apparently there is a great demand for some graphics and easy-to-use integration.
Problem is, if you pay premium price for a privacy-enabled device but then use it for Facebook, Google or just about anything on the web, or just about any casual app, you get the worst of both worlds: High price and blown privacy.
I don't know which exact frameworks that are used in that communication, but I would believe that none of them are in their first version, unmodified since that. As in, "There, we wrote the framework. Let's weld it shut, start using it, and never change the interface."
I'm thinking that every framework goes through evolution, and I don't just mean for software frameworks. Communication protocols. Electric wall sockets. Air traffic. Economic systems. If they are long-lived it is because they have evolved to what they are now. If they don't evolve, they don't get long-lived.
I could think of, and have used, a bunch of plug-in-based software frameworks, e.g. Eclipse RCP, JBoss, Minecraft servers. None of them have been good enough to not require breaking improvements in order to survive evolution and future use cases.
The most generic plugin framework for software that I can think of is an OS. Just plug in your applications, drivers etc. But those evolve. Well, except for my first computer which had its OS in ROM. But that wasn't very long-lived, so you could say that the framework was not designed well enough.
Could you give a few examples of the frameworks you are thinking of? I'm sincerely curious; perhaps there is something to learn from them.
I think as developers one thing we can all do
In the commercial world, I don't think we developers can do very much on our own. The company that pays for our time and want the software to generate revenue are the ones who get to decide when we say "We could spend two people for three weeks implementing this stuff, or we could pull in this 300 MB open source library and have the software deployed by Wednesday.".
I don't see how it could be anyone but the customers who could change this by requesting leaner applications and vote with their money.
Never need to touch the framework, if it's designed well.
I can't come up with one single instance in any field that has demonstrated a well designed framework that never needed to be modified.
Or maybe I got wooshed and you were being sarcastic?
It seems to me that the press secretary got it right:
the duly elected President of the United States," she said in a statement. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign," she added.
View them as two different languages and you'll be fine. Python 2 is one language. Python 3 is another. They happen to be named pretty similar and share a lot of syntax, which confuses a lot of people.
Start the runnable files with:
#! /usr/bin/env python2
or
#! /usr/bin/env python3 ... and don't worry too much about it.
Yeah, it is not always as simple as that, but I sincerely believe that much of the frustration comes from treating them as the same language when they are not.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I failed to convey in my post.
Anecdotes and thought experiments show that humans show a degree of creativity and empathy that are more or less required in many situations. The current batch of algorithms are not designed to model this, since we haven't invented such yet. Thus, I don't believe that driving with generic human-level flexibility can be fully accomplished with the current style of "dumb" algorithms.
Human-similar AI could provide those features. But then again, it could also provide features like indecisiveness, road rage, pettiness, ... And what about when your car falls in love with that red convertible over there?
If you entertain the thought that Human-equivalent AI will someday be implemented (I do), you could expect it to be able to drive a car just as well as a human. You could probably even expect it to drive as well as the best human driver. With cars having the equivalent of the human sensors, and then some more (radar, lidar, vehicle-to-vehicle communication, ...) , I think that they have a good chance of becoming a decent improvement in traffic.
But given the state of AI today, in my view the software in autonomous vehicles are not even up to toy standard. It's more of a party trick.
Our goal should be to ban all human drivers
Not quite.
It's more like *if* our goal is to minimize the number of traffic injuries, *then* we should probably aim to ban most human driving.
But minimizing the number of injuries may not be the only goal. Individual freedom, flexibility, and whatnot, may be other goals that may be in conflict with autonomous vehicles.
A Melbourne private schoolboy who repeatedly broke into Apple's secure computer systems
he had downloaded 90GB of secure files
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.