Instead of trying the water with their "AI", couldn't they simply let us configure in detail when and whether we want the updates to be installed?
And also, they should focus their resources on eliminating the post-reboot/post-shutdown stage of the update, which is the most annoying. (you turn off the computer in the evening, and next day when you hurry to start working it tells you to wait because it's "preparing updates")
The real question here is which "stack" does one refer to? When average people refer ro the "full stack", they usually think of applications with a Web frontend, and the stack's top layer is there, at the Web UI. And they are right, partially, as the most visible apps are built as Web apps. But software development can be done in various contexts, from programming microcontrollers to creating AI algorithms, to whatever other technology out there.
Moreover, even within the Web-based paradigm, there are a lot of "stacks" available, tons of technologies and platforms that sometimes imply going through steep learning curves to really know. So while you can be an expert in the full stack of technologies you currently use, a company asking for a full stack developer may refer to a completeley different set of technologies, and the learning curve implied will transform you into a beginner. Yes, the concepts are similar, but the details can be quite different and important.
So, unless a clear specification of the actual stack is given, this "full stack" requirement is nothing more than wishful thinking on the employer's side.
That government, so nice of them fighting against hate speech. Sure... the first responsibility of rulers is caring for their subjects, everybody will buy that.
I respect your view. But we have a limited understanding on how nature works, although we obviously know a lot more than -say- one century ago. Otherwise we could have declared science as "complete", stop learning or researching, and focus exclusively on parties.;) I maintain that the human brain is far more complex that our models about it, and that we will probably never understand it fully. That's the great thing about science and its relation to the real world. It always has something new for us, it's always challenging and fun.
Greetings! (and thanks for your appreciation of my ever evolving English:) )
Human brain trains radically different than how artificial NNs "train". We conceptualize, generalize and abstract concepts we understand and have meaning for, we make associations and replace concepts with one another. We do not learn directly the real world, we in fact learn the representations we continuously make ourselves of it. And we definitely do not compute thresholds ad nauseam.:)
Actually, what I meant was a model is a dramatically simplified representation of reality, and you can't expect the reality to actually look like that in any way, not by any stretch. Your comparison has in fact proved that: the atom isn't really a set of balls orbiting each other, and the real way they work is dramatically different. The model is only useful for us to understand a small part (some specific properties) of reality, but you cannot extrapolate the reality looking at the model.
Same way, the human mind doesn't remotely resemble that set of algorithms based on a highly simplified representation called "artificial neural network". Consequently, human thinking and learning are far from being the same with AI "thinking" and "learning", despite the fact we use the same words for them.
[As a side note, remember that Artificial Neural Networks are a mathematical construct (invented more than half a century ago) only vaguely inspired by how actual neurons connect. They are to this day a gross simplification of the natural neural networks. Yes, the AI field (which also deals with ANNs) has known a revival these years, but mainly because of the increase in computational power of our computers, rather than anything else. Granted, artificial neural networks do nice things for an automated tool, but don't be fooled by the terminology the enthusiast researchers use ("learning", "thinking", "training", etc.). They are just words used there for the lack of better ones.]
I don't want to start a polemic, and I am on another timezone anyway -- still I hope I managed to show my point, despite the fact I am obviously not a native English speaker.
You are kidding, right? Comparing human thought with software is like comparing an atom with a set of rubber balls that rotate around each other. Don't mistake the model for reality.
It's just that somebody trained it to correlate a set of tags (including "sheep") with a set of similarly-looking indefinite shapes. It doesn't *know* what it sees, id doesn't know anything at all, it is just a blind algorithm that computes numbers based on approximations, thresholds, propagations and other types of neat techniques made by some smart researchers.
There is no AI. There's only our wonderful preference for personification.
The Central bank of Poland was "accused" of doing the good deed of warning people about fishy investments? Really, that's how accusations go nowadays?
What's with this trend of biased headlines that suggest how we should think about the news, rather than just present the news? Postmodern journalism?
Well, then, you are fortunate you've never met them. I have seen a lot of examples of people like that and unfortunately some still see their "boldness" as a sign of competence. Until of course they fail, and then they disappear, blaming everybody else. Wasted resources imho.
Unfortunately, the mentality of a lone ranger who builds big intellectual marvels by himself is still alive and kicking, especially in the academia. There are a lot of otherwise fairly smart a-holes that still believe they can do big research on their own, win a Nobel, and get famous without sharing any credit. Most fail miserably when confronted with the very real need of a team. Society still rewards such behavior, because common people are still fascinated by the multifunctional genius myth. It may have worked in the dawns of science, but nowadays it's simply another form of stupidity.
Here. Fixed that for you. It is amazing how the concepts of tolerance and freedom of speech have "evolved" these last couple of decades: "What I dislike is fake news, you dimwitted rightwing bastards!"
...this is what this kind of "studies" actually say. And they measure people in a way 100% consistent with this view: the only metric is how many hours the slaves actually sweat at the workplace. Because slaves are little more than animals, they don't think, they do not talk among themseves while working, they do not eat much, all they do is handle the tools in a more or less productive way. I say, there is a solution for this problem: use a a longer whip!
As all private enterprises will, Musk will fail on his ambitious plans of conquering the space. The reason is that private companies will never be able to engage in projects of such magnitude, because they will be stopped sooner or later by their #profit fixation, by shareholders' limited views, and, simply, by basic greed. Large projects are the area of governments, of people enthusiast enough to work for free or sacrifice themselves for a higher purpose. Not for penny-counting companies. Those can only innovate in smaller scales, like patenting rounded corners to provide consumer nirvana and such.
The iOS apps should be trivial - just need a touchscreen.
And what would one do with those apps on a desktop or laptop? Fill a huge screen with wasted space? Most mobile apps are crippled versions of what a desktop already does or could easily do in dedicated applications that use all the advanced controls specific to normal computers, and perform much better. There is no need to artificially force a foreign and limited UI and functional paradigm on the already mature, powerful and flexible environment that is a desktop.
The problem with mobile-based applications is not their reliance on a touch interface, but the fact their functionality is severely crippled compared to their desktop counterparts. This is true for store apps on mac and windows too, and this is why unifying the two concepts is a really bad idea.
They pull such cheap tricks, indeed! They should have instead come up with a civilized advertisment, about a guy saying "I'm an iPhone" and his one condescending friend called "A Galaxy".
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of trying the water with their "AI", couldn't they simply let us configure in detail when and whether we want the updates to be installed?
And also, they should focus their resources on eliminating the post-reboot/post-shutdown stage of the update, which is the most annoying. (you turn off the computer in the evening, and next day when you hurry to start working it tells you to wait because it's "preparing updates")
Seeing the building it incorrectly identified it as the Trump Tower, got emotional and stumbled.
The real question here is which "stack" does one refer to? When average people refer ro the "full stack", they usually think of applications with a Web frontend, and the stack's top layer is there, at the Web UI. And they are right, partially, as the most visible apps are built as Web apps. But software development can be done in various contexts, from programming microcontrollers to creating AI algorithms, to whatever other technology out there.
Moreover, even within the Web-based paradigm, there are a lot of "stacks" available, tons of technologies and platforms that sometimes imply going through steep learning curves to really know. So while you can be an expert in the full stack of technologies you currently use, a company asking for a full stack developer may refer to a completeley different set of technologies, and the learning curve implied will transform you into a beginner. Yes, the concepts are similar, but the details can be quite different and important.
So, unless a clear specification of the actual stack is given, this "full stack" requirement is nothing more than wishful thinking on the employer's side.
That government, so nice of them fighting against hate speech. Sure... the first responsibility of rulers is caring for their subjects, everybody will buy that.
I respect your view. But we have a limited understanding on how nature works, although we obviously know a lot more than -say- one century ago. Otherwise we could have declared science as "complete", stop learning or researching, and focus exclusively on parties. ;) I maintain that the human brain is far more complex that our models about it, and that we will probably never understand it fully. That's the great thing about science and its relation to the real world. It always has something new for us, it's always challenging and fun.
Greetings! (and thanks for your appreciation of my ever evolving English :) )
Human brain trains radically different than how artificial NNs "train". We conceptualize, generalize and abstract concepts we understand and have meaning for, we make associations and replace concepts with one another. We do not learn directly the real world, we in fact learn the representations we continuously make ourselves of it. And we definitely do not compute thresholds ad nauseam. :)
Actually, what I meant was a model is a dramatically simplified representation of reality, and you can't expect the reality to actually look like that in any way, not by any stretch. Your comparison has in fact proved that: the atom isn't really a set of balls orbiting each other, and the real way they work is dramatically different. The model is only useful for us to understand a small part (some specific properties) of reality, but you cannot extrapolate the reality looking at the model.
Same way, the human mind doesn't remotely resemble that set of algorithms based on a highly simplified representation called "artificial neural network". Consequently, human thinking and learning are far from being the same with AI "thinking" and "learning", despite the fact we use the same words for them.
[As a side note, remember that Artificial Neural Networks are a mathematical construct (invented more than half a century ago) only vaguely inspired by how actual neurons connect. They are to this day a gross simplification of the natural neural networks. Yes, the AI field (which also deals with ANNs) has known a revival these years, but mainly because of the increase in computational power of our computers, rather than anything else. Granted, artificial neural networks do nice things for an automated tool, but don't be fooled by the terminology the enthusiast researchers use ("learning", "thinking", "training", etc.). They are just words used there for the lack of better ones.]
I don't want to start a polemic, and I am on another timezone anyway -- still I hope I managed to show my point, despite the fact I am obviously not a native English speaker.
You are kidding, right? Comparing human thought with software is like comparing an atom with a set of rubber balls that rotate around each other. Don't mistake the model for reality.
It's just that somebody trained it to correlate a set of tags (including "sheep") with a set of similarly-looking indefinite shapes. It doesn't *know* what it sees, id doesn't know anything at all, it is just a blind algorithm that computes numbers based on approximations, thresholds, propagations and other types of neat techniques made by some smart researchers. There is no AI. There's only our wonderful preference for personification.
Is this for real? Are these scientist bored, too old, or have read too much scifi?
The Central bank of Poland was "accused" of doing the good deed of warning people about fishy investments? Really, that's how accusations go nowadays? What's with this trend of biased headlines that suggest how we should think about the news, rather than just present the news? Postmodern journalism?
Well, then, you are fortunate you've never met them. I have seen a lot of examples of people like that and unfortunately some still see their "boldness" as a sign of competence. Until of course they fail, and then they disappear, blaming everybody else. Wasted resources imho.
Unfortunately, the mentality of a lone ranger who builds big intellectual marvels by himself is still alive and kicking, especially in the academia. There are a lot of otherwise fairly smart a-holes that still believe they can do big research on their own, win a Nobel, and get famous without sharing any credit. Most fail miserably when confronted with the very real need of a team. Society still rewards such behavior, because common people are still fascinated by the multifunctional genius myth. It may have worked in the dawns of science, but nowadays it's simply another form of stupidity.
Here. Fixed that for you. It is amazing how the concepts of tolerance and freedom of speech have "evolved" these last couple of decades: "What I dislike is fake news, you dimwitted rightwing bastards!"
Why?
Isn't "NETwork" an English word? Waw, this comission for enriching French language is made of traitors!
...this is what this kind of "studies" actually say. And they measure people in a way 100% consistent with this view: the only metric is how many hours the slaves actually sweat at the workplace. Because slaves are little more than animals, they don't think, they do not talk among themseves while working, they do not eat much, all they do is handle the tools in a more or less productive way. I say, there is a solution for this problem: use a a longer whip!
Seems that way, the term being abused to the extreme. Soon: "Look, mum, I am writing my school essay using this AI called Microsot Word!".
As all private enterprises will, Musk will fail on his ambitious plans of conquering the space. The reason is that private companies will never be able to engage in projects of such magnitude, because they will be stopped sooner or later by their #profit fixation, by shareholders' limited views, and, simply, by basic greed. Large projects are the area of governments, of people enthusiast enough to work for free or sacrifice themselves for a higher purpose. Not for penny-counting companies. Those can only innovate in smaller scales, like patenting rounded corners to provide consumer nirvana and such.
The iOS apps should be trivial - just need a touchscreen.
And what would one do with those apps on a desktop or laptop? Fill a huge screen with wasted space? Most mobile apps are crippled versions of what a desktop already does or could easily do in dedicated applications that use all the advanced controls specific to normal computers, and perform much better. There is no need to artificially force a foreign and limited UI and functional paradigm on the already mature, powerful and flexible environment that is a desktop.
The problem with mobile-based applications is not their reliance on a touch interface, but the fact their functionality is severely crippled compared to their desktop counterparts. This is true for store apps on mac and windows too, and this is why unifying the two concepts is a really bad idea.
If Microsoft's products were better then people would use them, instead of them hacking to resort to anti competitive practices
You clearly don't know the history of Microsoft and its friendly, patented way of dealing with competitors.
This should be the title, really.
They pull such cheap tricks, indeed! They should have instead come up with a civilized advertisment, about a guy saying "I'm an iPhone" and his one condescending friend called "A Galaxy".
...so they made one themselves.
They should analyze the Millenials. 1000 is greater than 100.