The point is that Trump's supporters have no solid evidence that there was not enough time to review the emails.
Their extreme view of it is that all 650,000 emails were relevant, and that therefore it should have taken 18 months * 650,000 emails / 80,000 emails = 146.5 months to review them.
The other extreme of possibilities is that the FBI filtered the emails by "To/From 'Hillary Clinton', date within period of being secretary of state, not a duplicate of any of the already reviewed emails" and the output of the filter was 0 emails.
The truth is likely to be somewhere between the two, it's also likely to be towards the very low end of the range.
You may be right, but it may not be as obvious as that. It may be a different kind of obvious, with the causation the other way around.
Instead of stress causing illness (which we already know), this could also be explained by people who are ill being anxious about their health. It may well be that people with ailments may well have aches, pains, tiredness, etc that all fly below the radar of a doctor diagnosing a disease, but add up to enough for a person to generally have a feeling that there's something wrong with them, and be anxious about it.
In the bay area, I'd bet heavily that this is not true, even despite the huge cost of land there. A typical worker's desk is about 2 meters wide, and they need a bunch of space behind them to wheel back into, so lets go with 2.4m x 2.0m - this is conveniently the standard "minimum" area a worker should be allowed as defined by the HSE in the UK. Compare that against an office, plenty I've seen have been of the order of 3.5m square for two people sitting in opposite corners. Lets call it 4m square to account for walls and doors etc (probably an overestimation)
So then, we're talking about 4.8 square meters for a worker in open plan, and 8 square meters for a worker in an office. In the bay area, office space leasing costs about $500 per square meter per year, so you're looking at $1,600 per year overhead for putting workers in 2 man offices vs open plan.
A typical bay area engineer salary is of the order of $160,000 a year (plus bonuses etc). For seniors, more than that even. That means you only need to make a worker 1% more efficient by sticking them in an office for it to pay off. The reduction in sick days (if you can cut out 2 sick days a year, you've made them 1% more efficient) alone accounts for that. Add their increased happiness, and productivity, and it's very very likely to be a huge win sticking people in offices.
The point I was making, that if a human can interpret the visual information it's given, then a car with a bigger sensor set can in theory do it too. It's all about software at that point, but there's no limitation on hardware here that a human doesn't have.
i mean, with 18 cameras, the car has more sensors than a human, so I don't see really a specific issue. Sure, for a human, snow driving is really hard. For our computers, currently, probably even harder. But that's not the same as "you'll never be able to drive in snow with 18 cameras and 12 ultrasound sensors".
The claim in the press release is "full class 5 driving", which means fully autonomous. I'll believe it when I see it. It seems like a strong claim to make that "we don't know how to do full class 5 driving yet, but we know this hardware is enough to meet the requirements of the thing we don't know".
I mean, it seems pretty weird to "not give up on Trump" at this point. You really genuinely want a republican president so badly that you're willing to elect a kiddy fiddler?
I mean, it's literally only 120 years since people were saying things like "heavier than air flight is impossible, we know the physics, we know the materials, it's just not feasible"
Europe also solved this problem years ago. I have relatives who are disabled, and too poor to afford a car. The state bought them one, and kitted it out with the relevant equipment to allow them to use it.
Maybe if you said emissions efficiency... from what I understand the higher production efficiency gets eaten up by converting combustion (momentum) to electricity, transport, charging losses, parasitic losses when it's not running and so on. The nice thing is that you could have other energy sources like solar, wind and other renewables but if you're just centralizing the fossil fuel consumption it's not much of a win at all.
You understand wrongly. The transport, charging and parasitic losses are extremely small, and in fact, arguably smaller than with petrol vehicles anyway. Remember - oil needs to be distilled into petrol (a very inefficient process), then transported by road to filling stations (once again by petrol/diesel burning vehicles), also very inefficiently, and then pumped out of the ground by yet another petrol burning motor. Paying attention to electricity's distribution inefficiencies, but not paying any attention to petrol's transmission costs is disingenuous at best.
Have they thought of the implications this has on the trucking industry?
Last I checked, the trucking industry don't use cars, but if you ask Tesla, trucks are ripe for being fully electric and more more cost effective already.
Have they thought what this might do to low-income or fixed-income individuals who can't afford a car and suddenly left without transportation?
Yes - Europe already solved that problem decades ago - it's called public transport.
Where is the electricity or energy to create hydrogen fuel going to come from now that they've banned nuclear and don't want fossil fuels?
It doesn't really matter - even if you assume the worst case scenario (basically, just burn coal out your ears), it's still a way way more efficient scenario than every individual car having a shitty efficiency ICE in it.
Uhhh... You realise that VAG promised last year to have 30 models of fully electric vehicle across their line in only 5 years time. They already have the eGolf, they've announced a fully electric Audi Q6 and A3; Porsche is spending $1bn making a fully electric 911; Skoda has a fully electric SUV under development.
To argue that VW/Audi hasn't realised they need to start to switch is naïve at best, and will fully ignorant at worst.
No, Einstein said it is possible, and described its effects. What he said was impossible was to accelerate to the speed of light in a conventional Newtonian way.
More so, if companies like Palantir move out, who do they think is going to buy lunch at all the lovely downtown restaurants? Do they really think their downtown will improve by kicking all the jobs out of it?
No, O visas are for people who are truly the one person in the world who knows how to do something.
O visas are for "there's 1 person in the world who can do this, and they're not American, can we bring them over please" H1B visas are for "there's 1000 people in the world who can do this, and 995 of them are gainfully employed because they have a strong specialisation, we could do with one of the remaining 5, none of whom turn out to be American."
Finding an expert in a niche field is one thing, but this should happen incredibly rarely.
Would it?
How many people do you think have really strong understandings of compilers, low level hardware design, kernel code, and graphics, all at the same time? I'm not talking - took a vague course on it at university, I'm talking, really know these things. I'm sure there's a bunch out there, but probably not as many as the combination of AMD, nVidia, Intel, ARM and Apple need to write graphics drivers.
That's only one example, but for every single area like that, I can completely imagine that finding and hiring the right people who actually understand what they're doing well enough to write a high quality product is extremely difficult, even if you hire globally, let alone if you restrict yourself only to US citizens.
Sure, finding some guy to write some backend code for a web page - that's pretty easy, and that's exactly where H1Bs shouldn't be, but there are tons of really really really specialised jobs in computing that it's non-trivial to find people for.
This is because, in order to hire an H1-B, the employer must first advertise the job to US persons.
Not true - you're thinking of the green card process.
For H1B they must simply have shown that the job requires a specialist, and that they have the capability to pay a rate that's over the market rate for the position.
I fully acknowledge that there's something wrong. Companies like TaTa being able to bring over tech-workers for non-specific, non-highly-skilled generic coding jobs, and then contract them out is very very very wrong. What that does is generates immigration of people with mediocre skill sets, who will likely be net neutral on the economy, but a net negative on the wages of people working in the tech sector.
That's really not good.
On the other hand, what H1B should do (exclusively - it does this anyway, but it should *only* do this) is allow companies to hire people for very very specific jobs, with very very high wages, where it's not possible to find someone else to do it. There absolutely are legitimate H1B workers coming in and doing jobs for Google/Apple/FB/MS etc that no one else in America has the skills to do, and being paid multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. That's good both for tech employment (as it makes products possible that weren't before, and in doing so makes companies more profitable, and hire more people), and for the economy. An all round win.
I can assure you, that if companies like Google/Apple/FB/MS could hire Americans for a role, they would not jump through the hoops of hiring a European for $200,000 a year, plus $150,000 worth of moving them to the US, plus tens of thousands of dollars in paying for visas and green cards. The key is to make sure that all H1Bs are for that kind of role, not the bullshit that TaTa does.
[Disclaimer] I'm an H1B holder working for one of the above companies in a very specialist area.
Being a criminal, does not imply that you are not a victim. It's entirely possible (and in fact common) for the police to victimise someone who is a criminal. Further, it's entirely possible for someone who has been victimised by the police, to feel that the world is out to get them (because it is), and become a criminal.
No, but you can discover new physics. At one point, something heavier than air staying up in the air was considered "impossible", and "breaking the laws of physics" because the physics of aerodynamics was not well understood. In the same way, we may well make breakthroughs that mean that interstellar travel in a reasonable time no longer requires breaking any physical laws. Heck, your 20,000 years estimate is already way off. Hawking already proposed probes that could get there within not just our life time, but within a very sane few years. Now it's "just"* a matter of figuring out how to do that with a larger cargo.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that Trump's supporters have no solid evidence that there was not enough time to review the emails.
Their extreme view of it is that all 650,000 emails were relevant, and that therefore it should have taken 18 months * 650,000 emails / 80,000 emails = 146.5 months to review them.
The other extreme of possibilities is that the FBI filtered the emails by "To/From 'Hillary Clinton', date within period of being secretary of state, not a duplicate of any of the already reviewed emails" and the output of the filter was 0 emails.
The truth is likely to be somewhere between the two, it's also likely to be towards the very low end of the range.
Yes, oddly enough, a little over 10% a day, over 9 days does in fact add up to 100%
You may be right, but it may not be as obvious as that. It may be a different kind of obvious, with the causation the other way around.
Instead of stress causing illness (which we already know), this could also be explained by people who are ill being anxious about their health. It may well be that people with ailments may well have aches, pains, tiredness, etc that all fly below the radar of a doctor diagnosing a disease, but add up to enough for a person to generally have a feeling that there's something wrong with them, and be anxious about it.
In the bay area, I'd bet heavily that this is not true, even despite the huge cost of land there. A typical worker's desk is about 2 meters wide, and they need a bunch of space behind them to wheel back into, so lets go with 2.4m x 2.0m - this is conveniently the standard "minimum" area a worker should be allowed as defined by the HSE in the UK. Compare that against an office, plenty I've seen have been of the order of 3.5m square for two people sitting in opposite corners. Lets call it 4m square to account for walls and doors etc (probably an overestimation)
So then, we're talking about 4.8 square meters for a worker in open plan, and 8 square meters for a worker in an office. In the bay area, office space leasing costs about $500 per square meter per year, so you're looking at $1,600 per year overhead for putting workers in 2 man offices vs open plan.
A typical bay area engineer salary is of the order of $160,000 a year (plus bonuses etc). For seniors, more than that even. That means you only need to make a worker 1% more efficient by sticking them in an office for it to pay off. The reduction in sick days (if you can cut out 2 sick days a year, you've made them 1% more efficient) alone accounts for that. Add their increased happiness, and productivity, and it's very very likely to be a huge win sticking people in offices.
What we're not familiar with though, is the amount of computing power required to take that sensor input, and drive sane output.
The point I was making, that if a human can interpret the visual information it's given, then a car with a bigger sensor set can in theory do it too. It's all about software at that point, but there's no limitation on hardware here that a human doesn't have.
i mean, with 18 cameras, the car has more sensors than a human, so I don't see really a specific issue. Sure, for a human, snow driving is really hard. For our computers, currently, probably even harder. But that's not the same as "you'll never be able to drive in snow with 18 cameras and 12 ultrasound sensors".
The claim in the press release is "full class 5 driving", which means fully autonomous. I'll believe it when I see it. It seems like a strong claim to make that "we don't know how to do full class 5 driving yet, but we know this hardware is enough to meet the requirements of the thing we don't know".
No, the kiddy fiddler thing is that he's currently the subject of a federal lawsuit alleging that he raped a 13 year old 4 times...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Uhhh, actually, charges were pressed *long* before this... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
I mean, it seems pretty weird to "not give up on Trump" at this point. You really genuinely want a republican president so badly that you're willing to elect a kiddy fiddler?
I mean, it's literally only 120 years since people were saying things like "heavier than air flight is impossible, we know the physics, we know the materials, it's just not feasible"
Europe also solved this problem years ago. I have relatives who are disabled, and too poor to afford a car. The state bought them one, and kitted it out with the relevant equipment to allow them to use it.
Because Tesla X is totally the best choice for pulling a trailer, right?
No one was talking about the model X:
https://www.tesla.com/blog/mas...
Maybe if you said emissions efficiency... from what I understand the higher production efficiency gets eaten up by converting combustion (momentum) to electricity, transport, charging losses, parasitic losses when it's not running and so on. The nice thing is that you could have other energy sources like solar, wind and other renewables but if you're just centralizing the fossil fuel consumption it's not much of a win at all.
You understand wrongly. The transport, charging and parasitic losses are extremely small, and in fact, arguably smaller than with petrol vehicles anyway. Remember - oil needs to be distilled into petrol (a very inefficient process), then transported by road to filling stations (once again by petrol/diesel burning vehicles), also very inefficiently, and then pumped out of the ground by yet another petrol burning motor. Paying attention to electricity's distribution inefficiencies, but not paying any attention to petrol's transmission costs is disingenuous at best.
Have they thought of the implications this has on the trucking industry?
Last I checked, the trucking industry don't use cars, but if you ask Tesla, trucks are ripe for being fully electric and more more cost effective already.
Have they thought what this might do to low-income or fixed-income individuals who can't afford a car and suddenly left without transportation?
Yes - Europe already solved that problem decades ago - it's called public transport.
Where is the electricity or energy to create hydrogen fuel going to come from now that they've banned nuclear and don't want fossil fuels?
It doesn't really matter - even if you assume the worst case scenario (basically, just burn coal out your ears), it's still a way way more efficient scenario than every individual car having a shitty efficiency ICE in it.
Uhhh... You realise that VAG promised last year to have 30 models of fully electric vehicle across their line in only 5 years time. They already have the eGolf, they've announced a fully electric Audi Q6 and A3; Porsche is spending $1bn making a fully electric 911; Skoda has a fully electric SUV under development.
To argue that VW/Audi hasn't realised they need to start to switch is naïve at best, and will fully ignorant at worst.
The point is, that if he's filing tax returns saying he's making massive massive losses, he's clearly not a successful businessman.
No, Einstein said it is possible, and described its effects. What he said was impossible was to accelerate to the speed of light in a conventional Newtonian way.
More so, if companies like Palantir move out, who do they think is going to buy lunch at all the lovely downtown restaurants? Do they really think their downtown will improve by kicking all the jobs out of it?
No, O visas are for people who are truly the one person in the world who knows how to do something.
O visas are for "there's 1 person in the world who can do this, and they're not American, can we bring them over please"
H1B visas are for "there's 1000 people in the world who can do this, and 995 of them are gainfully employed because they have a strong specialisation, we could do with one of the remaining 5, none of whom turn out to be American."
Finding an expert in a niche field is one thing, but this should happen incredibly rarely.
Would it?
How many people do you think have really strong understandings of compilers, low level hardware design, kernel code, and graphics, all at the same time? I'm not talking - took a vague course on it at university, I'm talking, really know these things. I'm sure there's a bunch out there, but probably not as many as the combination of AMD, nVidia, Intel, ARM and Apple need to write graphics drivers.
That's only one example, but for every single area like that, I can completely imagine that finding and hiring the right people who actually understand what they're doing well enough to write a high quality product is extremely difficult, even if you hire globally, let alone if you restrict yourself only to US citizens.
Sure, finding some guy to write some backend code for a web page - that's pretty easy, and that's exactly where H1Bs shouldn't be, but there are tons of really really really specialised jobs in computing that it's non-trivial to find people for.
This is because, in order to hire an H1-B, the employer must first advertise the job to US persons.
Not true - you're thinking of the green card process.
For H1B they must simply have shown that the job requires a specialist, and that they have the capability to pay a rate that's over the market rate for the position.
Actually, as a pro-H1B supporter, you're wrong.
I fully acknowledge that there's something wrong. Companies like TaTa being able to bring over tech-workers for non-specific, non-highly-skilled generic coding jobs, and then contract them out is very very very wrong. What that does is generates immigration of people with mediocre skill sets, who will likely be net neutral on the economy, but a net negative on the wages of people working in the tech sector.
That's really not good.
On the other hand, what H1B should do (exclusively - it does this anyway, but it should *only* do this) is allow companies to hire people for very very specific jobs, with very very high wages, where it's not possible to find someone else to do it. There absolutely are legitimate H1B workers coming in and doing jobs for Google/Apple/FB/MS etc that no one else in America has the skills to do, and being paid multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. That's good both for tech employment (as it makes products possible that weren't before, and in doing so makes companies more profitable, and hire more people), and for the economy. An all round win.
I can assure you, that if companies like Google/Apple/FB/MS could hire Americans for a role, they would not jump through the hoops of hiring a European for $200,000 a year, plus $150,000 worth of moving them to the US, plus tens of thousands of dollars in paying for visas and green cards. The key is to make sure that all H1Bs are for that kind of role, not the bullshit that TaTa does.
[Disclaimer] I'm an H1B holder working for one of the above companies in a very specialist area.
The problem is in your first statement.
Being a criminal, does not imply that you are not a victim. It's entirely possible (and in fact common) for the police to victimise someone who is a criminal. Further, it's entirely possible for someone who has been victimised by the police, to feel that the world is out to get them (because it is), and become a criminal.
No, but you can discover new physics. At one point, something heavier than air staying up in the air was considered "impossible", and "breaking the laws of physics" because the physics of aerodynamics was not well understood. In the same way, we may well make breakthroughs that mean that interstellar travel in a reasonable time no longer requires breaking any physical laws. Heck, your 20,000 years estimate is already way off. Hawking already proposed probes that could get there within not just our life time, but within a very sane few years. Now it's "just"* a matter of figuring out how to do that with a larger cargo.
* this is actually the hard bit.