But a company subtracting the driver, making its own vehicles specifically designed to provide the service, designing those vehicles without desires for future vehicle sales (in fact having motivations that are opposite to that), designing those vehicles without a need for anyone but them (not even dealers) to maintain them and optimizing that maintenance, providing its own energy via its solar arm, self-insuring, etc. could beat the cost of personal and commercial ownership.
It requires a company willing to put itself out of the car sales business in a market, and to put enough vehicles in that market to assure that no customer would ever have to wait for more than a couple of minutes after request for a ride to pull up to them no matter where in the market area they are. Since you don't want cars sitting and waiting, that means the daytime volume has to be enough that a dropoff is likely to happen within the minutes prior to a request or even during that two minutes that is close enough that it could get to the user within a couple of minutes of their request. It isn't quite this bad because most users will be able to indicate that they would tentatively like a car at a certain time or have predictable habits. Nighttime responsiveness would require some staging. You'd have to go out on a limb, figure out how much volume you need to create that level of saturation, build the cars, and depot capability for that volume, and offer it for as low as necessary initially to keep the cars moving instead of sitting.
It would also require real time solution of an extremely complex routing problem - to guide many thousands of vehicles in a single market area through chains of users not known at the outset and end up near a depot owned charging point at the right point in its travels while simultaneously maximizing area coverage to keep wait times down. This argues that whoever does it will need Google as their one partner.
They will also need to somehow assure users that they will be in the market in full force for several years minimum regardless of success. This is because users need to feel confident enough in the service to get rid of their cars in order to realize a true cost reduction in their lives. You could get the low-end of the market without this, but that would negatively effect perception of the service. You need for people who can easily afford their own vehicles but would love to save the money and enjoy a life of not having to worry about whether their car will run tomorrow to jump on board.
The benefits to society would go well beyond the obvious and reach into things like no longer requiring valuable underroof space of homes to be wasted on a personal garage and reducing the size of parking lots because vehicles would just drop people off at a store or game and leave.
Very true. But a fact that can be corrected when we no longer have as strong an incentive to allow either physically or judgmentally compromised people to drive themselves and put others at risk. When self-driven vehicles arrive, it will become reasonable to develop zero tolerance laws that permanently take licenses for things like drunk driving as well as to create real driving tests that dig into precision, reaction times, attentiveness, and awareness and give them repeatedly throughout life. We won't need to make exceptions for driving to work, school, or anything else.
Thank you. It is always a little depressing to find how many people equate freedom to the right to live outside the law and choose to risk the property, health, and/or lives of everybody else for their own convenience.
Ahhh. That is not a reasonable backup. No user should be required to compromise security to use their own backup.
At the least they should provide a means of choosing to backup with encryption in place and a separate means to back up the private key. I would want to put the key in my key vault which is also backed up.
Where the hell do you live that this is even an option? You must cause all kinds of ire. Look buddy. It's illegal to change lanes in an intersection. If your lane is clear, you can turn into that lane safely because no one should be entering into it. You are probably causing all kinds of road rage. Where I live you would likely sit at that intersection for 30-40 minutes before you ever got a chance to turn unless you were stopped at a red light, and not an intersection where you have a stop sign and they do not.
You misunderstood me. I mean pulling into a four lane road from a side street. The lines in the lanes of the four lane road are not solid and people are driving 45+mph relative to you.
Do you ever drive slower than the speed of traffic in the left hand lane? Because that's also against the law and studies have shown that people who do that are more dangerous than people who speed.
All of my driving is city in Florida. These are boulevards with frequent left hand turn lanes, not interstates. There is no fast lane. Besides, Florida doesn't have or enforce a slow traffic stays right policy.
Probably because people are illegally blocking traffic by driving slower than those around them in the left hand lanes. I usually drive to work in the far right hand lane because it's wide open while the left hand lane and carpool lanes often have cars going lower than the speed limit.
No. The incidents I've seen (almost every day) are people driving 70+ through heavy traffic going around 50 on a boulevard - often missing bumpers by inches with a greater than 20 mph differential speed and routinely switching lanes when the gap between the person in front of them and the car to their side that they are pulling in front of is in the single car length range.
In general, many of my complaints are Florida-specific. I've lived in seven states and would not have even thought to mention most of my complaints until living here. Florida, at least in the Orlando area, is the wild west of driving.
Regardless, the accident was clearly her fault. People who are compromised in any way (including simple driving incompetance) will hopefully be amongst the first to decide that self-driving vehicles are for them.
I was taught to never pull out when it isn't my right-of-way and isn't clear - even if someone stops and waves you out. There are people in the world who will wave you out and then floor it to hit you as an insurance scam. Hopefully, self-driving vehicles aren't being taught to take the statistically stupid chances that humans take.
The best defensive thing to do in your case may have been to switch lanes to give yourself more room to react to a possible bad actor.
Because I have to. I will be very happy when door-to-door service that costs less than the 50 cents a mile of owning your own vehicle arrives and I no longer have to.
Self-driving vehicles operating in a Transportation as a Service (TaaS) scenario will be the mass transit solution in America - both for commercial and personal transportation. TaaS will provide many of the benefits of traditional mass transit, including not having to own vehicles, while not requiring us to completely rebuild virtually every city in our nation in the zoning patterns and concentrations required to support traditional mass transportation.
Self-driving TaaS will cause overall transportation costs to plummet because vehicles can be designed to last over 500K miles on average, are owned by the manufacturer to provide the incentive to do so, maintenance becomes centralized and performed by the manufacturer in the depots, energy can be generated by depot-owned solar fields, insurance is self-provided by the manufacturer, etc.
There is no reason to make 500K mile cars to be driven 12500 miles a year on average. 40 years is too long for a car to last for many reasons. But a car being operated in a system that picks someone up immediately after dropping someone off and runs 24/7 could go through 500K miles in just a few years.
As a generally law-abiding driver who drives the speed limit, comes to full stops, waits until both lanes are clear before pulling into traffic because you never know when someone will switch lanes into the one you'd like to enter, etc, I identify with the Waymo. The vast majority of drivers seem to drive with contempt for the law and safety.
I constantly see people crossing solid lines near stop lights, changing lanes during turns, turning right on red when not in the outer lane, weaving through traffic, never leaving the 1 second per ten miles per hour gap to the cars in front of them, not using blinkers, driving while looking at their laps, passing cyclists as close as a couple of feet to them without slowing instead of giving them the rights of an equal vehicle, etc.
Just today I had somebody honk their horn at me when I pulled in front of them to get out of the way of a fire truck and ambulance in my lane. They were driving along as if nothing was happening, apparently in full ignorance that they were supposed to be slowing or pulling over and yielding to any other vehicles that need to move to allow the emergency vehicles by. They should have cameras on the emergency vehicles recording all blatant failures to yield and hold hearings to revoke their driving privileges. Lives are often at stake.
I've said for a while that we should require full instrumentation of every new vehicle with the same sensors as self-driving cars for a few years before we go full bore on the self-driving cars. During those years, we should both use that to collect all of the data and true, reliable statistics on how bad people really drive while evolving a system of full automatic enforcement of the traffic laws. After that, deployment of self-driving technology should be a cinch. Nobody will want to drive themselves if they have to do it legally. It is too boring.
I often back up encrypted files to Google Drive. Why would WhatsApp bother to decrypt, backup, restore, reencrypt?
Perhaps this is an export/import capability, not a backup, and they've named it wrong? They are two completely different things. Backup is intended for restoration to the same system and can use the system's encryption. Export is just that, exporting from the system for the purpose of allowing other apps to utilize the data.
All aspects of civilization that reduce our need to be intelligent to thrive make us dumber as individuals - after normalizing out the increase in total intelligence caused by reduction of stunting due to nutritional deficiencies. This has been long known. Do you teach someone to run by giving them a crutch at birth? or a mobile chair?
But, we are not just individuals. A large portion of our genome actually encodes our society by giving us communication skills, skills to read people, wants, etc. We are an organism as a whole too. The idea that we are no longer evolving is blown apart when you look at the evolution of the larger organism.
Our society is being made smarter and more capable by these advances. The sacrifice in individual intelligence is thus being more than compensated for.
Exactly. I'd like to add that in this case, it doesn't seem like they should have followed the rules.
Epic's game and installer is a non-essential add-on. Removing a downloaded exploit is a fine and normal solution to cleaning the device. The users should have been notified immediately to implement the obvious solution.
That is largely the thought I have on it. There are many ways to categorize his followers, but a very interesting one is "bots, human anti-trump, and human pro-trump, and unknown". When I've tried that with a random sampling and just guessing at pro versus anti on the basis of the user's Twitter footprint, the "human anti-trump" group appears to be larger than the "human pro-trump" group - like flies drawn to the bug zapper.
I think it points out a variation of another Twitter issue. The retweet counts are boosted by negative retweets unless you snap a pic of the tweet and include that pic in your own tweet. A similar thing is going on with the followers. I think a "fans and foes" system would help.
It is definite that both viewpoints are heavily fed by the propaganda machine. Trump was the greatest instrument of division and thus received the most support, but the goal, which is division and disruption, is served by feeding extremism on both sides.
Wow, a momentary blip in GDP growth at the end of a recovery that is in many ways the longest sustained one ever, almost all of which occurred under Obama. Things always destabilize when they are about to go bad. During that destabilized period, there are often some manic highs outside of what the longer recovery experienced. That's what you're seeing - the result of destabilization. There will be others before the recession which almost all experts, no matter their party affiliation, expect to kick in within the next 18 months.
In terms of change since arrival in office, Obama turned the direction of the second worst recession in our history around in months after taking office - a massive delta versus the direction it was taking under Bush. At the most, Trump can argue for a tiny delta that was delivered almost entirely to the rich.
If you discount those first few months of Obama's tenure during which jobs were still going down because you can't instantly change directions, Obama created more jobs than any previous President. And he did that while being the first President in modern history to oversee a decrease in overall government employees! This means that his record for jobs created in the private sector is well above any other. Most Presidents have boosted their job numbers by building the number employed by government.
Trump actually cannot achieve Obama's job numbers no matter how good he does. There simply aren't enough people left that will take a job no matter how tempting you make it to put the same numbers up. Obama did too good of a job.
This can be verified very easily by digging into the followers of Trump's Twitter account - even by hand. Pick a few, look at their posts, likes, friends, etc., and you can easily see that a high percentage are fake accounts. The likes are very inconsistent, the friends are also fakes, the comments are generic or inconsistent with what is being commented on, etc. One funny aspect is that it is astonishing how many muslims allegedly follow him:)
I've been watching them for a couple of years now and have been impressed with the technological development of some of them. There is a large mix that makes it obvious that multiple organizations with differing resource levels and sophistication are creating them. The best though are much less detectable by an algorithm now, but they are still easily discerned by a real person.
This is likely an example of the natural effect of criminalizing something that has a demand that can be increased through marketing. Once it is criminalized, risk goes up, price goes up, profits go up, more people look at those profits and decide that it is worth the risk, crime organizations decide it is a profitable business that they can manage at a higher level and recruit marketers/pushers, and on and on and on.
Increase penalties, make it harder to get away with, and both price and volume will increase even more.
From the very start of this saga when Intel jumped the gun on the press release to make sure that it combined their main problem with another problem they shared with AMD in order to make it appear as though they were equally affected, Intel has been playing dirty - bordering on criminal - pool.
I read an interesting article on that a couple of decades ago where they were discussing how it ignited some growth in machine code translation technology that later evolved into some of the first serious run-time machine code translators.
It seems that they just shipped it with faults and researchers would test it, characterize the faults in the chip, and cross translate all of the machine code to eliminate the use of opcodes that had faults in the hardware in favor of equivalent workarounds.
An interesting side effect is that there were many different levels of performance available depending on how many and which opcodes had to be worked around.
Intel flew too close to the Sun and was burned, much more so than AMD which has not as aggressively complicated their design. Now Intel is patching instead of working toward a systemic solution. It seems like denial and doesn't encourage a lot of confidence.
There is definitely partial shift toward AMD underway. Even Intel has publicly predicted a larger move than has yet been completed and they would be many times more likely to minimize that prediction than overestimate it.
It takes a while for momentum to build and supply chains to adjust. Would you want to upgrade at the end of this year to get some of your performance that you already paid for back or would you rather wait six months and get a fresh new 7nm AMD Epyc design that is a true upgrade in the first half of 2019? (I doubt they'll wait for Intel's 10nm server generation to start up in the first half of 2020)
There is going to at least be some experimentation with both AMD and ARM in the data center. My guess, we'll see more diversified deployments for a while in an effort to mitigate the risk as the chip flaws in this new class continue to be discovered (and they will).
Intel has barely begun to suffer their come to God moment. If they've got any sense at all, there is a more thorough redesign in the works for the 2020 generation. So, turnaround in early 2020, very late 2019 at the earliest - barring success with some major architectural slight of hand like pushing the Optane agenda.
This seems like an effort to stick a bunch of fingers in holes in a dam when the dam has a systemic design flaw. What are the chances that other problems will be discovered after tape-out of the new processors?
These bugs are an indictment of the complexity of the speedup techniques Intel has used. With complexity comes extra design expense, reductions in yield, reductions in reliability, and now, security issues that were not very foreseeable.
Adding more complexity in the form of changes to address all these little problems does not give comfort that the syndrome is fixed.
This was serious enough to warrant going back to the drawing board and designing in changes that eliminate this class of problems, not the individual problems that we know of. This is a disappointing effort.
lol. We have an interesting point in common though a different approach I guess. My 2 y/o loves PBS Kids but watches it either on her own via the PBS Kids app on her Fire for Kids tablet or via Chromecast on the TV. She also loves all of the PBS Kids games on her tablet.
As for TV, I cut the cord due to a combination that the programming is no longer worth paying for and because I felt there was nothing on TV worth exposing myself to even one more television ad. I guess I could Tivo the live TV, but I really don't want to even glimpse an ad long enough to hit the fast forward.
Obviously, these people have cut the cord. I would think that most of them have cut the cord in favor of over-the-internet streamed media and are supplementing with over-the-air TV. But, is seems unlikely that this 20% is purely a combination of those who never went to cable or satellite and those who have already cut the cord and are choosing to supplement with over-the-air TV. Many cord cutters are either not supplementing (as is my case) or are supplementing using the new cable-over-internet operations like Sling, Youtube TV, etc.
Is it possible that a significant number of cord cutters have simply decided that even internet alone is too expensive and have reverted to over-the-air TV sans internet?
If the number reverting to the 1970s mode of watching TV without any streaming is significant, it moves the balance of the reason for cord cutting. It makes it less internet streaming attracted people away and more cable cost drove people away.
I can buy a renting model. It does serve the purpose of providing an incentive to the manufacturer to make devices last longer, sacrifice the space efficiency required to allow a battery to be replaced, etc.
Whether America in general can handle this, I have doubts. For example, I'm all for Transportation as a Service (TaaS). I'd love to see a world with large fleets of autonomous vehicles that can pick me up and take me wherever I need to go at a moments notice. It would be awesome. No spending my time or money to maintain a vehicle. No need to waste valuable under-roof space for a garage. No need for auto insurance. No need to pay for tags or driver's licenses. No need to waste travel time driving. If one breaks down, it would automatically have another there in minutes to pick me up without my having to deal with AAA for hours plus repair bills later. And on and on and on.
From a societal point of view, one of the biggest gains of TaaS would be that million mile cars would become the norm. Without TaaS, there really is no reason for cars to go further than they do now. At 12,500 miles a year, it takes around 15 years to run a modern car into the ground. Most people want new cars sooner. But, put that car on the road for 100K or more miles a year, and the need for greater reliability and maintainability becomes great enough to justify adding a bit of cost to the car. So TaaS could dramatically reduce the overall cost of our transportation in many ways, including requiring far fewer cars to be produced, not just because those cars are shared, but because they also last much longer.
The industry would likely become fully vertically integrated with car manufacturers becoming transportation providers building the vehicles for their own consumption (and their own energy and maintenance to be truly successful). As they are both manufacturer and consumer, all incentive for planned obsolescence disappears.
Sadly, almost everyone I talk to about TaaS says they would never give up there car, even if TaaS were a reality and had an effective cost half as much as owning their own vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
But a company subtracting the driver, making its own vehicles specifically designed to provide the service, designing those vehicles without desires for future vehicle sales (in fact having motivations that are opposite to that), designing those vehicles without a need for anyone but them (not even dealers) to maintain them and optimizing that maintenance, providing its own energy via its solar arm, self-insuring, etc. could beat the cost of personal and commercial ownership.
It requires a company willing to put itself out of the car sales business in a market, and to put enough vehicles in that market to assure that no customer would ever have to wait for more than a couple of minutes after request for a ride to pull up to them no matter where in the market area they are. Since you don't want cars sitting and waiting, that means the daytime volume has to be enough that a dropoff is likely to happen within the minutes prior to a request or even during that two minutes that is close enough that it could get to the user within a couple of minutes of their request. It isn't quite this bad because most users will be able to indicate that they would tentatively like a car at a certain time or have predictable habits. Nighttime responsiveness would require some staging. You'd have to go out on a limb, figure out how much volume you need to create that level of saturation, build the cars, and depot capability for that volume, and offer it for as low as necessary initially to keep the cars moving instead of sitting.
It would also require real time solution of an extremely complex routing problem - to guide many thousands of vehicles in a single market area through chains of users not known at the outset and end up near a depot owned charging point at the right point in its travels while simultaneously maximizing area coverage to keep wait times down. This argues that whoever does it will need Google as their one partner.
They will also need to somehow assure users that they will be in the market in full force for several years minimum regardless of success. This is because users need to feel confident enough in the service to get rid of their cars in order to realize a true cost reduction in their lives. You could get the low-end of the market without this, but that would negatively effect perception of the service. You need for people who can easily afford their own vehicles but would love to save the money and enjoy a life of not having to worry about whether their car will run tomorrow to jump on board.
The benefits to society would go well beyond the obvious and reach into things like no longer requiring valuable underroof space of homes to be wasted on a personal garage and reducing the size of parking lots because vehicles would just drop people off at a store or game and leave.
Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger say no.
Very true. But a fact that can be corrected when we no longer have as strong an incentive to allow either physically or judgmentally compromised people to drive themselves and put others at risk. When self-driven vehicles arrive, it will become reasonable to develop zero tolerance laws that permanently take licenses for things like drunk driving as well as to create real driving tests that dig into precision, reaction times, attentiveness, and awareness and give them repeatedly throughout life. We won't need to make exceptions for driving to work, school, or anything else.
Thank you. It is always a little depressing to find how many people equate freedom to the right to live outside the law and choose to risk the property, health, and/or lives of everybody else for their own convenience.
Ahhh. That is not a reasonable backup. No user should be required to compromise security to use their own backup.
At the least they should provide a means of choosing to backup with encryption in place and a separate means to back up the private key. I would want to put the key in my key vault which is also backed up.
Where the hell do you live that this is even an option? You must cause all kinds of ire. Look buddy. It's illegal to change lanes in an intersection. If your lane is clear, you can turn into that lane safely because no one should be entering into it. You are probably causing all kinds of road rage. Where I live you would likely sit at that intersection for 30-40 minutes before you ever got a chance to turn unless you were stopped at a red light, and not an intersection where you have a stop sign and they do not.
You misunderstood me. I mean pulling into a four lane road from a side street. The lines in the lanes of the four lane road are not solid and people are driving 45+mph relative to you.
Do you ever drive slower than the speed of traffic in the left hand lane? Because that's also against the law and studies have shown that people who do that are more dangerous than people who speed.
All of my driving is city in Florida. These are boulevards with frequent left hand turn lanes, not interstates. There is no fast lane. Besides, Florida doesn't have or enforce a slow traffic stays right policy.
Probably because people are illegally blocking traffic by driving slower than those around them in the left hand lanes. I usually drive to work in the far right hand lane because it's wide open while the left hand lane and carpool lanes often have cars going lower than the speed limit.
No. The incidents I've seen (almost every day) are people driving 70+ through heavy traffic going around 50 on a boulevard - often missing bumpers by inches with a greater than 20 mph differential speed and routinely switching lanes when the gap between the person in front of them and the car to their side that they are pulling in front of is in the single car length range.
In general, many of my complaints are Florida-specific. I've lived in seven states and would not have even thought to mention most of my complaints until living here. Florida, at least in the Orlando area, is the wild west of driving.
Regardless, the accident was clearly her fault. People who are compromised in any way (including simple driving incompetance) will hopefully be amongst the first to decide that self-driving vehicles are for them.
I was taught to never pull out when it isn't my right-of-way and isn't clear - even if someone stops and waves you out. There are people in the world who will wave you out and then floor it to hit you as an insurance scam. Hopefully, self-driving vehicles aren't being taught to take the statistically stupid chances that humans take.
The best defensive thing to do in your case may have been to switch lanes to give yourself more room to react to a possible bad actor.
Because I have to. I will be very happy when door-to-door service that costs less than the 50 cents a mile of owning your own vehicle arrives and I no longer have to.
which shouldn't bother you one bit if you're paying attention and following with a 1 second gap per 10 mph as you should.
Self-driving vehicles operating in a Transportation as a Service (TaaS) scenario will be the mass transit solution in America - both for commercial and personal transportation. TaaS will provide many of the benefits of traditional mass transit, including not having to own vehicles, while not requiring us to completely rebuild virtually every city in our nation in the zoning patterns and concentrations required to support traditional mass transportation.
Self-driving TaaS will cause overall transportation costs to plummet because vehicles can be designed to last over 500K miles on average, are owned by the manufacturer to provide the incentive to do so, maintenance becomes centralized and performed by the manufacturer in the depots, energy can be generated by depot-owned solar fields, insurance is self-provided by the manufacturer, etc.
There is no reason to make 500K mile cars to be driven 12500 miles a year on average. 40 years is too long for a car to last for many reasons. But a car being operated in a system that picks someone up immediately after dropping someone off and runs 24/7 could go through 500K miles in just a few years.
As a generally law-abiding driver who drives the speed limit, comes to full stops, waits until both lanes are clear before pulling into traffic because you never know when someone will switch lanes into the one you'd like to enter, etc, I identify with the Waymo. The vast majority of drivers seem to drive with contempt for the law and safety.
I constantly see people crossing solid lines near stop lights, changing lanes during turns, turning right on red when not in the outer lane, weaving through traffic, never leaving the 1 second per ten miles per hour gap to the cars in front of them, not using blinkers, driving while looking at their laps, passing cyclists as close as a couple of feet to them without slowing instead of giving them the rights of an equal vehicle, etc.
Just today I had somebody honk their horn at me when I pulled in front of them to get out of the way of a fire truck and ambulance in my lane. They were driving along as if nothing was happening, apparently in full ignorance that they were supposed to be slowing or pulling over and yielding to any other vehicles that need to move to allow the emergency vehicles by. They should have cameras on the emergency vehicles recording all blatant failures to yield and hold hearings to revoke their driving privileges. Lives are often at stake.
I've said for a while that we should require full instrumentation of every new vehicle with the same sensors as self-driving cars for a few years before we go full bore on the self-driving cars. During those years, we should both use that to collect all of the data and true, reliable statistics on how bad people really drive while evolving a system of full automatic enforcement of the traffic laws. After that, deployment of self-driving technology should be a cinch. Nobody will want to drive themselves if they have to do it legally. It is too boring.
I often back up encrypted files to Google Drive. Why would WhatsApp bother to decrypt, backup, restore, reencrypt?
Perhaps this is an export/import capability, not a backup, and they've named it wrong? They are two completely different things. Backup is intended for restoration to the same system and can use the system's encryption. Export is just that, exporting from the system for the purpose of allowing other apps to utilize the data.
All aspects of civilization that reduce our need to be intelligent to thrive make us dumber as individuals - after normalizing out the increase in total intelligence caused by reduction of stunting due to nutritional deficiencies. This has been long known. Do you teach someone to run by giving them a crutch at birth? or a mobile chair?
But, we are not just individuals. A large portion of our genome actually encodes our society by giving us communication skills, skills to read people, wants, etc. We are an organism as a whole too. The idea that we are no longer evolving is blown apart when you look at the evolution of the larger organism.
Our society is being made smarter and more capable by these advances. The sacrifice in individual intelligence is thus being more than compensated for.
Exactly. I'd like to add that in this case, it doesn't seem like they should have followed the rules.
Epic's game and installer is a non-essential add-on. Removing a downloaded exploit is a fine and normal solution to cleaning the device. The users should have been notified immediately to implement the obvious solution.
That is largely the thought I have on it. There are many ways to categorize his followers, but a very interesting one is "bots, human anti-trump, and human pro-trump, and unknown". When I've tried that with a random sampling and just guessing at pro versus anti on the basis of the user's Twitter footprint, the "human anti-trump" group appears to be larger than the "human pro-trump" group - like flies drawn to the bug zapper.
I think it points out a variation of another Twitter issue. The retweet counts are boosted by negative retweets unless you snap a pic of the tweet and include that pic in your own tweet. A similar thing is going on with the followers. I think a "fans and foes" system would help.
It is definite that both viewpoints are heavily fed by the propaganda machine. Trump was the greatest instrument of division and thus received the most support, but the goal, which is division and disruption, is served by feeding extremism on both sides.
Wow, a momentary blip in GDP growth at the end of a recovery that is in many ways the longest sustained one ever, almost all of which occurred under Obama. Things always destabilize when they are about to go bad. During that destabilized period, there are often some manic highs outside of what the longer recovery experienced. That's what you're seeing - the result of destabilization. There will be others before the recession which almost all experts, no matter their party affiliation, expect to kick in within the next 18 months.
In terms of change since arrival in office, Obama turned the direction of the second worst recession in our history around in months after taking office - a massive delta versus the direction it was taking under Bush. At the most, Trump can argue for a tiny delta that was delivered almost entirely to the rich.
If you discount those first few months of Obama's tenure during which jobs were still going down because you can't instantly change directions, Obama created more jobs than any previous President. And he did that while being the first President in modern history to oversee a decrease in overall government employees! This means that his record for jobs created in the private sector is well above any other. Most Presidents have boosted their job numbers by building the number employed by government.
Trump actually cannot achieve Obama's job numbers no matter how good he does. There simply aren't enough people left that will take a job no matter how tempting you make it to put the same numbers up. Obama did too good of a job.
This can be verified very easily by digging into the followers of Trump's Twitter account - even by hand. Pick a few, look at their posts, likes, friends, etc., and you can easily see that a high percentage are fake accounts. The likes are very inconsistent, the friends are also fakes, the comments are generic or inconsistent with what is being commented on, etc. One funny aspect is that it is astonishing how many muslims allegedly follow him :)
I've been watching them for a couple of years now and have been impressed with the technological development of some of them. There is a large mix that makes it obvious that multiple organizations with differing resource levels and sophistication are creating them. The best though are much less detectable by an algorithm now, but they are still easily discerned by a real person.
This is likely an example of the natural effect of criminalizing something that has a demand that can be increased through marketing. Once it is criminalized, risk goes up, price goes up, profits go up, more people look at those profits and decide that it is worth the risk, crime organizations decide it is a profitable business that they can manage at a higher level and recruit marketers/pushers, and on and on and on.
Increase penalties, make it harder to get away with, and both price and volume will increase even more.
you're crooked dirtbags
From the very start of this saga when Intel jumped the gun on the press release to make sure that it combined their main problem with another problem they shared with AMD in order to make it appear as though they were equally affected, Intel has been playing dirty - bordering on criminal - pool.
I read an interesting article on that a couple of decades ago where they were discussing how it ignited some growth in machine code translation technology that later evolved into some of the first serious run-time machine code translators.
It seems that they just shipped it with faults and researchers would test it, characterize the faults in the chip, and cross translate all of the machine code to eliminate the use of opcodes that had faults in the hardware in favor of equivalent workarounds.
An interesting side effect is that there were many different levels of performance available depending on how many and which opcodes had to be worked around.
Intel flew too close to the Sun and was burned, much more so than AMD which has not as aggressively complicated their design. Now Intel is patching instead of working toward a systemic solution. It seems like denial and doesn't encourage a lot of confidence.
There is definitely partial shift toward AMD underway. Even Intel has publicly predicted a larger move than has yet been completed and they would be many times more likely to minimize that prediction than overestimate it.
It takes a while for momentum to build and supply chains to adjust. Would you want to upgrade at the end of this year to get some of your performance that you already paid for back or would you rather wait six months and get a fresh new 7nm AMD Epyc design that is a true upgrade in the first half of 2019? (I doubt they'll wait for Intel's 10nm server generation to start up in the first half of 2020)
There is going to at least be some experimentation with both AMD and ARM in the data center. My guess, we'll see more diversified deployments for a while in an effort to mitigate the risk as the chip flaws in this new class continue to be discovered (and they will).
Intel has barely begun to suffer their come to God moment. If they've got any sense at all, there is a more thorough redesign in the works for the 2020 generation. So, turnaround in early 2020, very late 2019 at the earliest - barring success with some major architectural slight of hand like pushing the Optane agenda.
This seems like an effort to stick a bunch of fingers in holes in a dam when the dam has a systemic design flaw. What are the chances that other problems will be discovered after tape-out of the new processors?
These bugs are an indictment of the complexity of the speedup techniques Intel has used. With complexity comes extra design expense, reductions in yield, reductions in reliability, and now, security issues that were not very foreseeable.
Adding more complexity in the form of changes to address all these little problems does not give comfort that the syndrome is fixed.
This was serious enough to warrant going back to the drawing board and designing in changes that eliminate this class of problems, not the individual problems that we know of. This is a disappointing effort.
lol. We have an interesting point in common though a different approach I guess. My 2 y/o loves PBS Kids but watches it either on her own via the PBS Kids app on her Fire for Kids tablet or via Chromecast on the TV. She also loves all of the PBS Kids games on her tablet.
As for TV, I cut the cord due to a combination that the programming is no longer worth paying for and because I felt there was nothing on TV worth exposing myself to even one more television ad. I guess I could Tivo the live TV, but I really don't want to even glimpse an ad long enough to hit the fast forward.
Obviously, these people have cut the cord. I would think that most of them have cut the cord in favor of over-the-internet streamed media and are supplementing with over-the-air TV. But, is seems unlikely that this 20% is purely a combination of those who never went to cable or satellite and those who have already cut the cord and are choosing to supplement with over-the-air TV. Many cord cutters are either not supplementing (as is my case) or are supplementing using the new cable-over-internet operations like Sling, Youtube TV, etc.
Is it possible that a significant number of cord cutters have simply decided that even internet alone is too expensive and have reverted to over-the-air TV sans internet?
If the number reverting to the 1970s mode of watching TV without any streaming is significant, it moves the balance of the reason for cord cutting. It makes it less internet streaming attracted people away and more cable cost drove people away.
I can buy a renting model. It does serve the purpose of providing an incentive to the manufacturer to make devices last longer, sacrifice the space efficiency required to allow a battery to be replaced, etc.
Whether America in general can handle this, I have doubts. For example, I'm all for Transportation as a Service (TaaS). I'd love to see a world with large fleets of autonomous vehicles that can pick me up and take me wherever I need to go at a moments notice. It would be awesome. No spending my time or money to maintain a vehicle. No need to waste valuable under-roof space for a garage. No need for auto insurance. No need to pay for tags or driver's licenses. No need to waste travel time driving. If one breaks down, it would automatically have another there in minutes to pick me up without my having to deal with AAA for hours plus repair bills later. And on and on and on.
From a societal point of view, one of the biggest gains of TaaS would be that million mile cars would become the norm. Without TaaS, there really is no reason for cars to go further than they do now. At 12,500 miles a year, it takes around 15 years to run a modern car into the ground. Most people want new cars sooner. But, put that car on the road for 100K or more miles a year, and the need for greater reliability and maintainability becomes great enough to justify adding a bit of cost to the car. So TaaS could dramatically reduce the overall cost of our transportation in many ways, including requiring far fewer cars to be produced, not just because those cars are shared, but because they also last much longer.
The industry would likely become fully vertically integrated with car manufacturers becoming transportation providers building the vehicles for their own consumption (and their own energy and maintenance to be truly successful). As they are both manufacturer and consumer, all incentive for planned obsolescence disappears.
Sadly, almost everyone I talk to about TaaS says they would never give up there car, even if TaaS were a reality and had an effective cost half as much as owning their own vehicle.