Glass half full version: What if this or a future version of this process enables us to more fully restore said stroke victims so they have fewer or even no deficits?
Let's just say I don't want to be in the beta trial but version 2.0 or 3.0 could be pretty spectacular assuming we survive version 1.3 creating zombies...
Yeah.. for Oracle and SAP and to a lesser degree PayPal these layoffs are rounding errors.. SAP has 97K employees Oracle has 137K.. 446/96498 = 0.46%; 352/137000 = 0.26%. Being laid off is definitely meaningful to the employEE but those are meaningless numbers for the employER in this case. PayPal gets up to a whopping 1% with 183/18700.
The other companies those numbers are WAY more meaningful like.. are they going out of business? If the numbers I'm finding are accurate Instacart is dumping like half of their staff so.. writing's on the wall unless they pivot *hard.
Our industry still has a shortage of engineers in most markets so, with the possible qualification that these people may need to leave the valley, they should have NO trouble finding work.
Cost benefit analysis: If the cost of the new liability outweighs the profits garnered by having a presence in Europe then the big cos like Google will come to the profit's call.
Law goes into effect -> Turn off all Google services in the EU.
Hard to say what those numbers are so one may or may not outweigh the other but this law has the potential to cost Google enough money that such decisions become viable.. we are talking about *really big numbers tho so.. if Google makes Billions off of the EU market then they can afford to spend hundreds of millions dealing with that liability..
The answer of splitting of limited liability companies to shoulder the consequences is probably the right answer.
The return of the Listserv is imminent! Gawdammit.. I administered a bunch of these. There's a reason they faded from existence and it's really fscking annoying how fast people forget the past.
Y'know what a newsletter is? It's a blog that's spammed to my inbox. I read about 0.001% of my friends' blogs as it is.. I don't need that shoved down my throat. The timing of this is kinda funny as a friend of mine recently abandoned all of the social networks and is in the process of starting a newsletter. GFY. Not subscribing...
Check this: I have about 2500 friends on Facebook (all IRL friends)... let's say about 20% of those post regularly so 500. If Facebook went away today and all of those 500 switched to writing newsletters that's 500 emails hitting me at least monthly but likely the chattier ones go weekly or even daily so I start getting (another.. I get about 200 emails a day personal.. about 500 for work) probably a few thousand more emails a month of 'longer' length because "Newsletter!" which is a ton of text content I can spend hours scrolling through or I start filtering a bunch of it which tbh means I won't read most of what gets filtered out of my inbox and my filters will be pretty static so I'll start losing out on a bunch of stuff I might actually be interested in.. Meanwhile 2000 people I used to be able to get a hold of via FB-chat/etc are harder or impossible to reach (I've had the same number since '94.. sadly my friends aren't the same).. SO I code algorithms to try to get the content out of these thousands of emails that I want to actually read and I create a contact system to get a hold of all of my people and... guess what I JUST FSCKING CREATED A PERSONAL SOCIAL NETWORK!!! I don't want to do that.. I have other things to do like see these people in the real world as often as I can SO thankfully Facebook (and the others) did this work for me. Is it perfect? no. Is it for everyone? no. Will it last forever? highly unlikely Does it provide a lot of value for me right now? absolutely.
Long story short: Rose colored glasses are shite. Technology (in sound and in social engineering) is not good or bad it is what you make it. Get off my lawn... I'm about to throw a Jart at you.
This right to repair legislation would apply to the electronics in a Tesla as well but to the jackass OP's point this article had nothing to do with Tesla.. who's giving them a free pass? This article is an editorial from a John Deere founder descendant writing about his dislike of current John Deere company behavior in respects to both their customer interactions and their explicit opposition to proposed right to repair legislation....but he hates Tesla so apparently the fact he didn't mention a company that has no bearing on his personal interests in his own personal editorial is somehow giving them a free pass.
This or a concept like this has been the main plot point of so many movies I don't see how anyone can stay in a "space they don't control" and truly believe they enjoy any true expectation of privacy. These activities are already illegal and that clearly doesn't stop anyone so my expectation is that it probably happening whether I like it or not.
IMHO close enough to the "I uploaded my stuff to the internet and Oh Noes! someone else got access to it!"
There is no privacy. There is no security. Move along...
The article implied that there were songs that only existed on MySpace and are therefore "lost". I find this to be *extremely unlikely.. I mean this sentence being uttered would be straight up laughable "I uploaded my new song to MySpace and so deleted every other copy I had of the song including the masters" BUT either way that's what OP is referring to.. Any artist who decided relying on MySpace as the one and only repository of their art was a good idea deserves to lose it.
What at least once had value if it still may have would be the likes/followers/listens those songs had piled up over time. I haven't seen anyone in the industry giving a rats ass about your MySpace specs for a while but that doesn't mean it isn't still a thing somewhere.. I would similarly say if your *only popularity data is on MySpace and haven't branched into *any of the more currently relevant platforms in recent years that is still Your bad for not doing your due diligence to get your music out there but at least that had more implied value/commitment than using the site as master sound file storage.
Because writers are lazy and sensationalist and the creators of/. posts even worse.
From the summary this could have just as easily been titled any of the following: "HERE's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!" "Bing's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!" "Uber's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!" "Zillow's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!" "Grubhub's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!" "TripAdvisor's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!" "Redfin's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!"...when it should have been titled: "Bad Data From Shared Provider Corrupted Numerous Mapping Services!"...but who would have read that??
We didn't need more testing when I was a kid.. our teachers could observe our abilities based on their experience and the metrics at hand (as well as you know.. talking to us about it). Those of us who were being bored by the traditional track were moved up to something that actually challenged us.
1) The technology to scan with a fairly high degree of accuracy the faces in a crowd has been pretty solid for a decade or so. The limitations are largely around the resolution of the camera and getting any given person in the crowd to look loosely towards the camera while in frame. The former is a technology problem that's not even that hard to solve the days. The latter they have methods (such as forcing you to walk through a choke point to "encourage".
2) Anyone who has traveled internationally in recent years has most likely already been through this stuff. We're NOT talking about random scanning of a crowd. We're talking about E-Gates where you are walked into a 'pen' of sorts and have to stare directly into the camera for identification before you can pass. That's *really easy.. the issues in #1 are practically eliminated.
3) Yes there are ways to fool face recognition (even the best tech out there..) but most of those methods are detectable in a controlled environment. Making your face hard to detect in a crowd is easy. Making your face unmatchable when standing in front of a camera and be unnoticed with a CBP officer standing by.. not so much.
4) You're comparing to CCTV FRT.. So much of that footage is lacking the resolution for a proper match or a good angle on the subject, etc etc.. once again the story at hand is a high resolution camera at close range with control of the subject's position. Completely different story on accuracy.
My old Subaru Outback (2008 2.5XT) got up to 143MPH when it lifted just enough to hop from 1 lane to another.. The tiny lil spoiler on the hatch was nowhere near enough. Gear/Rev wise there was still enough headroom to easily get into the 150s where it may or may not have rev limited. My current car (2011 Legacy 2.5GT), engine wise, can go in the high150-low160's (assuming no explicit limiting) but gotten nowhere near that.. she rides pretty comfortable in the 120's tho and has been in the 130s. Slightly better spoiler on this car but would still want a bigger one before going much faster than that.
Heck my '89 Camry got up to 128mph loaded with people and gear.. (Remember when Montana had no speed limits? That was glorious..) No spoiler but the engine was done at that speed anyway so no worries there (and that car took so long to get to that speed it was rarely worth the trouble for anything but long distances)
Yeah.. I've built a few of these kinds of systems. Fraud detection is a trigger / alert NOT an automatic action unless you have certainty. (Like mathematical 100% accuracy). Can be tiered:
1) Fraud Detected: "If" you have some clear "Yes this is for sure fraud" metrics then this tier can result in automatic action. (That can be a Big "if") 2) Fraud Almost Certain: Trigger an investigation and depending on your definition of "Almost" maybe some "light" action (Protect from further harm if possible) 3) Fraud Possibility: Depending on the order of magnitude and your staff resources this could also be "Trigger an investigation" but if the number is too large more like "flag as suspect" -> repeated indicators elevate this to #2 and maybe the fancy version lower level investigation like the support equivalent of an off-shore call center.
Sounds like they are treating everyone as a #1 and with a success rate of 80% they are SOOOO far from that being acceptable. Note most banks have a version of #2 for bank activity.. Pretty sure most of y'all have gotten the "We've detected questionable activity on your account.. please verify these transactions"... dealing with Gov't benefits that's a different situation entirely but if these mails being sent out were very gentle like "The Department has questions regarding the status of your benefits call this number -> XXX-XXX-XXXX" --> That call center I was talking about that could be acceptable.
FYI these projects can go well... The DMV project was a fiasco but meanwhile MN was migrating every other system off of the Mainframe (so they could shut it off and stop bleeding money).. those other projects manage to not fuck up similarly. I was involved in the Retirement System replacement project and can comfortably say we did our jobs well and the new system works severely better than the old.
I mean really.. this is textbook for your average restaurant. I'd say the job responsibilities of surfing the type of content would encourage more action (read porn all day, have more sex in the office; read hate speech all day have anger issues; read conspiracies and fake news all day develop more of a broken perception of the world) but honestly.. all of those levels are so high in a kitchen we're talking about shades of grey here!
A starting point with apparently a flawed premise and interpretation of what a "successful trial" looks like.
1) When you have a universal safety net you are going to have people who choose to live happily lazily on this net. *This is NOT a bad thing UNLESS your entire society chooses this path. You are providing them with enough money to "live" not necessarily enough money to "have everything they want" which is supposed to be the incentive to get a job to fund your "wants". This is probably facilitated by having fixed rent gov't housing and EBT-style food stamps so if you're living on this standard most of your "basic income" is for sure providing you with food and shelter with some amount of $ left over.
2) 1 year isn't long enough to see people past the "free vacation!" phase (or if these were starting from the other side.. wait I have *any money what should I spend this on??) Unemployment lasts for about a year at least around here so maybe it takes longer for people to find their equilibrium before they can say "What next?" or "Is this really all I want in life?".
3) Has been mentioned but a lot of the "side-effect" benefits of a true safety net do not become apparent with this sample size in this short a period of time. 2000 people with money to spend are not going to rock the economy. 400,000 people spend enough money that new businesses can spring up OR existing ones need to hire more staff. More money spent tends to = more jobs to take that money = more people working.
I really hope they change their thinking because in a world where the wage-slave jobs are becoming increasingly more automated I really think we need to get past the idea that everyone has to "work for money" to survive. Compensate people handsomely for the important jobs that are there for incentive but don't make that a pre-req for existing.
...but of course AI is also going to lead to the singularity so we won't have to wait for those advances we'll (or at least the AI) will have all of those advances at its disposal now!;)
anyway.. The root of the article is presuming there is a "perfect" design that all designs are incrementally progressing towards. IF that were the case then sure you could "calculate" what that perfect design was and leapfrog to it BUT as many others have said in many other ways: What people want changes unpredictably, even irrationally, forwards, backwards, left, right, up, down at will and fad. No matter how amazing a thing you produce today, someone will want it different tomorrow.
Was hoping this had already been said.. "Designed to simulate the human brain" and "simulating consciousness" are 2 *very different things. The human brain at its core is an absolutely amazing pattern matcher where pattern space is unlimited. We've come a LONG ways in making computers / software that is "good" at this but we're still a fair ways off from concepts such as intuition or the concept of applying a lifetime's worth of experiential, sensory input and possibly synthetic/imagined patterns to "unlike" situations to reason a favorable outcome to an unfamiliar scenario. Simulating such a capability in machine form implies the ability to advance that capability beyond our brain's "processing capacity" to make advancements/predictions that were previously unattainable.
That all being said if we really attain that goal maybe we find that consciousness isn't that far off... You can spell most of Skynet with SpiNNaker...;)
Not to say Apple hasn't come up with any of their own ideas but their leadership has largely been about taking other people's ideas and making them shiny and easy to use... examples:
Xerox Alto > Apple Macintosh for the mouse driven UI. IXI (prototypes) > AT&T (internal) > SaeHan (public) > many others like Creative Labs NOMAD > Apple iPod for the large capacity portable music player AT&T FlashPAC > others > iTunes for streaming music services IBM Simon > Palm/etc > NTT DoCoMo > others > iPhone Patents from 1914, numerous fiction, several companies shipping products for 3 decades > Apple iPad
Apple's current decline feels very much like their decline to near bankruptcy in the 90's. Jobs' departure (obv for very different reasons) preceding a stagnation in innovation and a loss of marketshare as other companies surpass and provide a more user-friendly (and affordable) ecosystem if not actual products. The big difference this time is Apple has SOOO many more evangelists and so much cash-on-hand that they could be absolutely terrible and still drag on for decades (and they aren't terrible so it's more like treading water than drowning) heck the right CEO could probably even make them shiny again but that's not going to get me to buy back in.. good thing they don't need me as a customer.
Slashdot Mirror
Glass half full version: What if this or a future version of this process enables us to more fully restore said stroke victims so they have fewer or even no deficits?
Let's just say I don't want to be in the beta trial but version 2.0 or 3.0 could be pretty spectacular assuming we survive version 1.3 creating zombies...
Yeah.. for Oracle and SAP and to a lesser degree PayPal these layoffs are rounding errors.. SAP has 97K employees Oracle has 137K.. 446/96498 = 0.46%; 352/137000 = 0.26%. Being laid off is definitely meaningful to the employEE but those are meaningless numbers for the employER in this case. PayPal gets up to a whopping 1% with 183/18700.
The other companies those numbers are WAY more meaningful like.. are they going out of business? If the numbers I'm finding are accurate Instacart is dumping like half of their staff so.. writing's on the wall unless they pivot *hard.
Our industry still has a shortage of engineers in most markets so, with the possible qualification that these people may need to leave the valley, they should have NO trouble finding work.
Cost benefit analysis: If the cost of the new liability outweighs the profits garnered by having a presence in Europe then the big cos like Google will come to the profit's call.
Law goes into effect -> Turn off all Google services in the EU.
Hard to say what those numbers are so one may or may not outweigh the other but this law has the potential to cost Google enough money that such decisions become viable.. we are talking about *really big numbers tho so.. if Google makes Billions off of the EU market then they can afford to spend hundreds of millions dealing with that liability..
The answer of splitting of limited liability companies to shoulder the consequences is probably the right answer.
Yep.
The return of the Listserv is imminent! Gawdammit.. I administered a bunch of these. There's a reason they faded from existence and it's really fscking annoying how fast people forget the past.
Y'know what a newsletter is? It's a blog that's spammed to my inbox. I read about 0.001% of my friends' blogs as it is.. I don't need that shoved down my throat. The timing of this is kinda funny as a friend of mine recently abandoned all of the social networks and is in the process of starting a newsletter. GFY. Not subscribing...
Check this: I have about 2500 friends on Facebook (all IRL friends) ... let's say about 20% of those post regularly so 500. If Facebook went away today and all of those 500 switched to writing newsletters that's 500 emails hitting me at least monthly but likely the chattier ones go weekly or even daily so I start getting (another.. I get about 200 emails a day personal.. about 500 for work) probably a few thousand more emails a month of 'longer' length because "Newsletter!" which is a ton of text content I can spend hours scrolling through or I start filtering a bunch of it which tbh means I won't read most of what gets filtered out of my inbox and my filters will be pretty static so I'll start losing out on a bunch of stuff I might actually be interested in.. Meanwhile 2000 people I used to be able to get a hold of via FB-chat/etc are harder or impossible to reach (I've had the same number since '94.. sadly my friends aren't the same).. SO I code algorithms to try to get the content out of these thousands of emails that I want to actually read and I create a contact system to get a hold of all of my people and... guess what I JUST FSCKING CREATED A PERSONAL SOCIAL NETWORK!!! I don't want to do that.. I have other things to do like see these people in the real world as often as I can SO thankfully Facebook (and the others) did this work for me. Is it perfect? no. Is it for everyone? no. Will it last forever? highly unlikely Does it provide a lot of value for me right now? absolutely.
Long story short: Rose colored glasses are shite. Technology (in sound and in social engineering) is not good or bad it is what you make it. Get off my lawn... I'm about to throw a Jart at you.
I think Gopher is making a comeback...
This right to repair legislation would apply to the electronics in a Tesla as well but to the jackass OP's point this article had nothing to do with Tesla.. who's giving them a free pass? This article is an editorial from a John Deere founder descendant writing about his dislike of current John Deere company behavior in respects to both their customer interactions and their explicit opposition to proposed right to repair legislation. ...but he hates Tesla so apparently the fact he didn't mention a company that has no bearing on his personal interests in his own personal editorial is somehow giving them a free pass.
850 scientists and statisticians spouting this idea seems like a large number but compared to their total cohort around the globe I'm sorry but...
They are not statistically significant.
That and they are lazy.
This or a concept like this has been the main plot point of so many movies I don't see how anyone can stay in a "space they don't control" and truly believe they enjoy any true expectation of privacy. These activities are already illegal and that clearly doesn't stop anyone so my expectation is that it probably happening whether I like it or not.
IMHO close enough to the "I uploaded my stuff to the internet and Oh Noes! someone else got access to it!"
There is no privacy. There is no security. Move along...
The article implied that there were songs that only existed on MySpace and are therefore "lost". I find this to be *extremely unlikely.. I mean this sentence being uttered would be straight up laughable "I uploaded my new song to MySpace and so deleted every other copy I had of the song including the masters" BUT either way that's what OP is referring to.. Any artist who decided relying on MySpace as the one and only repository of their art was a good idea deserves to lose it.
What at least once had value if it still may have would be the likes/followers/listens those songs had piled up over time. I haven't seen anyone in the industry giving a rats ass about your MySpace specs for a while but that doesn't mean it isn't still a thing somewhere.. I would similarly say if your *only popularity data is on MySpace and haven't branched into *any of the more currently relevant platforms in recent years that is still Your bad for not doing your due diligence to get your music out there but at least that had more implied value/commitment than using the site as master sound file storage.
Because writers are lazy and sensationalist and the creators of /. posts even worse.
From the summary this could have just as easily been titled any of the following: ...when it should have been titled: "Bad Data From Shared Provider Corrupted Numerous Mapping Services!" ...but who would have read that??
"HERE's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!"
"Bing's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!"
"Uber's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!"
"Zillow's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!"
"Grubhub's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!"
"TripAdvisor's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!"
"Redfin's Bad Data Wiped Another Neighborhood Off the Map!"
We didn't need more testing when I was a kid.. our teachers could observe our abilities based on their experience and the metrics at hand (as well as you know.. talking to us about it). Those of us who were being bored by the traditional track were moved up to something that actually challenged us.
while [ true ]
do
this+=65536
done
Gah.. no. a few FYIs:
1) The technology to scan with a fairly high degree of accuracy the faces in a crowd has been pretty solid for a decade or so. The limitations are largely around the resolution of the camera and getting any given person in the crowd to look loosely towards the camera while in frame. The former is a technology problem that's not even that hard to solve the days. The latter they have methods (such as forcing you to walk through a choke point to "encourage".
2) Anyone who has traveled internationally in recent years has most likely already been through this stuff. We're NOT talking about random scanning of a crowd. We're talking about E-Gates where you are walked into a 'pen' of sorts and have to stare directly into the camera for identification before you can pass. That's *really easy.. the issues in #1 are practically eliminated.
3) Yes there are ways to fool face recognition (even the best tech out there..) but most of those methods are detectable in a controlled environment. Making your face hard to detect in a crowd is easy. Making your face unmatchable when standing in front of a camera and be unnoticed with a CBP officer standing by.. not so much.
4) You're comparing to CCTV FRT.. So much of that footage is lacking the resolution for a proper match or a good angle on the subject, etc etc.. once again the story at hand is a high resolution camera at close range with control of the subject's position. Completely different story on accuracy.
My old Subaru Outback (2008 2.5XT) got up to 143MPH when it lifted just enough to hop from 1 lane to another.. The tiny lil spoiler on the hatch was nowhere near enough. Gear/Rev wise there was still enough headroom to easily get into the 150s where it may or may not have rev limited. My current car (2011 Legacy 2.5GT), engine wise, can go in the high150-low160's (assuming no explicit limiting) but gotten nowhere near that.. she rides pretty comfortable in the 120's tho and has been in the 130s. Slightly better spoiler on this car but would still want a bigger one before going much faster than that.
Heck my '89 Camry got up to 128mph loaded with people and gear.. (Remember when Montana had no speed limits? That was glorious..) No spoiler but the engine was done at that speed anyway so no worries there (and that car took so long to get to that speed it was rarely worth the trouble for anything but long distances)
Yeah.. I've built a few of these kinds of systems. Fraud detection is a trigger / alert NOT an automatic action unless you have certainty. (Like mathematical 100% accuracy). Can be tiered:
1) Fraud Detected: "If" you have some clear "Yes this is for sure fraud" metrics then this tier can result in automatic action. (That can be a Big "if")
2) Fraud Almost Certain: Trigger an investigation and depending on your definition of "Almost" maybe some "light" action (Protect from further harm if possible)
3) Fraud Possibility: Depending on the order of magnitude and your staff resources this could also be "Trigger an investigation" but if the number is too large more like "flag as suspect" -> repeated indicators elevate this to #2 and maybe the fancy version lower level investigation like the support equivalent of an off-shore call center.
Sounds like they are treating everyone as a #1 and with a success rate of 80% they are SOOOO far from that being acceptable. Note most banks have a version of #2 for bank activity.. Pretty sure most of y'all have gotten the "We've detected questionable activity on your account.. please verify these transactions" ... dealing with Gov't benefits that's a different situation entirely but if these mails being sent out were very gentle like "The Department has questions regarding the status of your benefits call this number -> XXX-XXX-XXXX" --> That call center I was talking about that could be acceptable.
FYI these projects can go well... The DMV project was a fiasco but meanwhile MN was migrating every other system off of the Mainframe (so they could shut it off and stop bleeding money) .. those other projects manage to not fuck up similarly.
I was involved in the Retirement System replacement project and can comfortably say we did our jobs well and the new system works severely better than the old.
...but how then are they going to Slashvertise their next funding round??
I mean really.. this is textbook for your average restaurant. I'd say the job responsibilities of surfing the type of content would encourage more action (read porn all day, have more sex in the office; read hate speech all day have anger issues; read conspiracies and fake news all day develop more of a broken perception of the world) but honestly.. all of those levels are so high in a kitchen we're talking about shades of grey here!
Exactly.
A starting point with apparently a flawed premise and interpretation of what a "successful trial" looks like.
1) When you have a universal safety net you are going to have people who choose to live happily lazily on this net. *This is NOT a bad thing UNLESS your entire society chooses this path. You are providing them with enough money to "live" not necessarily enough money to "have everything they want" which is supposed to be the incentive to get a job to fund your "wants". This is probably facilitated by having fixed rent gov't housing and EBT-style food stamps so if you're living on this standard most of your "basic income" is for sure providing you with food and shelter with some amount of $ left over.
2) 1 year isn't long enough to see people past the "free vacation!" phase (or if these were starting from the other side.. wait I have *any money what should I spend this on??) Unemployment lasts for about a year at least around here so maybe it takes longer for people to find their equilibrium before they can say "What next?" or "Is this really all I want in life?".
3) Has been mentioned but a lot of the "side-effect" benefits of a true safety net do not become apparent with this sample size in this short a period of time. 2000 people with money to spend are not going to rock the economy. 400,000 people spend enough money that new businesses can spring up OR existing ones need to hire more staff. More money spent tends to = more jobs to take that money = more people working.
I really hope they change their thinking because in a world where the wage-slave jobs are becoming increasingly more automated I really think we need to get past the idea that everyone has to "work for money" to survive. Compensate people handsomely for the important jobs that are there for incentive but don't make that a pre-req for existing.
...but of course AI is also going to lead to the singularity so we won't have to wait for those advances we'll (or at least the AI) will have all of those advances at its disposal now! ;)
anyway.. The root of the article is presuming there is a "perfect" design that all designs are incrementally progressing towards. IF that were the case then sure you could "calculate" what that perfect design was and leapfrog to it BUT as many others have said in many other ways: What people want changes unpredictably, even irrationally, forwards, backwards, left, right, up, down at will and fad. No matter how amazing a thing you produce today, someone will want it different tomorrow.
...this season! It was a pretty good one too.
#WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong
So you're saying that Rap is Homeopathic? :)
Thank You!
Was hoping this had already been said.. "Designed to simulate the human brain" and "simulating consciousness" are 2 *very different things. The human brain at its core is an absolutely amazing pattern matcher where pattern space is unlimited. We've come a LONG ways in making computers / software that is "good" at this but we're still a fair ways off from concepts such as intuition or the concept of applying a lifetime's worth of experiential, sensory input and possibly synthetic/imagined patterns to "unlike" situations to reason a favorable outcome to an unfamiliar scenario. Simulating such a capability in machine form implies the ability to advance that capability beyond our brain's "processing capacity" to make advancements/predictions that were previously unattainable.
That all being said if we really attain that goal maybe we find that consciousness isn't that far off... You can spell most of Skynet with SpiNNaker... ;)
^This.
Not to say Apple hasn't come up with any of their own ideas but their leadership has largely been about taking other people's ideas and making them shiny and easy to use... examples:
Xerox Alto > Apple Macintosh for the mouse driven UI.
IXI (prototypes) > AT&T (internal) > SaeHan (public) > many others like Creative Labs NOMAD > Apple iPod for the large capacity portable music player
AT&T FlashPAC > others > iTunes for streaming music services
IBM Simon > Palm/etc > NTT DoCoMo > others > iPhone
Patents from 1914, numerous fiction, several companies shipping products for 3 decades > Apple iPad
Apple's current decline feels very much like their decline to near bankruptcy in the 90's. Jobs' departure (obv for very different reasons) preceding a stagnation in innovation and a loss of marketshare as other companies surpass and provide a more user-friendly (and affordable) ecosystem if not actual products. The big difference this time is Apple has SOOO many more evangelists and so much cash-on-hand that they could be absolutely terrible and still drag on for decades (and they aren't terrible so it's more like treading water than drowning) heck the right CEO could probably even make them shiny again but that's not going to get me to buy back in.. good thing they don't need me as a customer.