It is prepping the data that is hard. The Machine Learning Algorithms have been established for a long time. The big limiters on it have been processing power and decent data sets.
Given that they have been building cars for a while, they should know how to construct an assembly line. This could just training issues, with having to bring in people who are new to building cars.
There are ways to sell stock that without being directly involved in the decision. For example, scheduling automatic buy/sell shares every quarter at the market price. You have some foreknowledge, but it is not perfect knowledge to make the optimal decision.
Think on this, it just may be companies executives looking to for kudos. They have no intention of completing the deal, more of a show of "hey look what I did, give me a promotion!". After that it will become a problem for someone else and no one will following through on it.
Money is a social convention, like the rule of law people respect because they choose too. You act like money is a limited resource or a physical possession that somehow no one can ever take away.
Lets try another way, lets say we don't take your money but we print out $1 billion dollars for every man,woman and child. Would that satisfy you? Now you don't have worry about any taking your money that you may or may not have earned. Is printing a large amount of money stealing? No, then you should have no problem with it.
All I care about can we have a functional society that we are reasonably comfortable and safe in. If you need to have money to value yourself and accuse people of stealing it through whatever mechanism we come up, that is your problem and in reality society cannot address.
Because money is the medium of economic commerce, and if people cannot get money they cannot acquire goods or service that are necessary to live.
A better question would be, why do people who have more money than they can ever spend in several lifetimes continue on hoarding more of it. Does this dragon fever really drive the economy or make the world a better place?
Capitalism only works to a certain point before it begins to breakdown. The best example would be the Roman Empire, as it is well documented and shows the long-term results of a democracy that gradually shifts to a class based structure that is obsessed with endless growth of wealth striping it from everywhere it can get it.
The issue I have with putting the business logic into database is that error handling is horrible. It will not give you anything useful about what went wrong.
That is why everything has an intermediary layer or service for checking submissions and returning human readable information about what is missing or incorrect.
The day after companies can effectively evaluate technical schools, they can evaluate company culture fit. Otherwise there is always one jerk at the table saying "I don't like him or personality" whenever they feel threatened.
I had 2 phone interviews without any depth to them and over in a few minutes. The reason why? They were stuck on looking for a specific skill and if you did not have it, you were done.
The first failed on AWS, oh you have not worked with AWS? Sorry, we are not going forward. It was not a matter if I understood networking, or servers or administration or any of the 50 tools that AWS promises, no direct experience, interview over. Not only that, they ended up hiring nobody!
The second one was Scrum and Continuous Integration, have not done either, interview is over (over in 2 minutes with pleasantries). They don't even try to evaluate your skills, or your thought process or even if you are capable.
It seems like they cannot even be bothered to try and get someone to be productivity and thejob salaries are not great either, just average. If companies were really desperate they would be more aggressive but I think they are just cruising along, not really competing or losing ground. When they become greedy or desperate that is when you will see change.
Note: In reference to AWS, I took an online course on AWS after the interview. It was powerful, not hard but broad. Certainly not as hard as working with specific hardware that implements the same features.
You mean Google, explains how it adjusts it search rankings based upon what is the on the page. I don't get it, people seem to think Google is a public utility that it needs to treat everyone and everything equally. They are in the business to make money too. Google, is working with Forbes, to sell Ads and they stated that the Google button increases the rankings of those pages.
It is not like Google hasn't integrated or adjusted their search results to promote other web sites. A great example is Wikipedia, if I ask a question like P-38 lightning what is that Wikipedia is not only at the top of the search results, but they have a special summary box at the top of the page and another box to the right. Another example is if you are looking for an actor/actress they not only pop-up their Wiki information but their profiles on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and Myspace. Google has never been perfectly objective or fair.
We live in the age of caveat emptor. People need to be aware of what they are looking at and maybe do a little more work instead of complaining that Google isn't perfect and is not treating everything fairly.
While everyone is up in arms about Google being evil I am a little on the wary side of this. Not because the story is untrue, but rather the implication that only Google is involved with attempting to influence rankings for search results. Everyone has been looking at gaming the system, companies regularly hired people to do just this. I admit that this is blatant but it is not like only Forbes could put the Google button on their page. They appeared to do it with anyone that was willing to participate.
The other issue I have with this piece is that from a story she did 6 years ago, did they change during this time or is still true? In this case I would like to see a little less complaining and a few more facts about the current state of the problem rather than a rehash of an old article.
Smaller or larger government is the size of the entity, not the quality. I guess it is easy to focus on that rather than "how smart the government is!". It is just like any other organization of people. A major difference between a government and a corporation is the government has to interact with a number of people and groups on things it has no knowledge about. That somehow a smaller government, which has broader responsibilities and fewer resources is going to out perform or negotiate someone like Comcast, is just unlikely.
So a larger government is more likely to outperform a smaller one it is just not a guarantee, like everything else in life.
Why do assume smaller government is the answer? It is usually the smaller communities, with less knowledge and resources which are easier to co-opt than larger entities.
I can sympathize with that few, of it appearing to have too many developers focused upon deployment/testing then actual development.
However, I come at it from the other side, the developers just push new development out and production support is responsible for addressing the mess, it is horrible, there is too much disconnect between developers and their resulting output creating consistent outages.
The most successful teams follow the mantra "Eat your own dog food", developers who support the crap they push out tend to be more involved and more like to understand and address problems. If they are shitty, well you fire them, the good ones start nailing down and preventing problems.
Did Lowe's contact them, submit a ticket complaining about the problem? Unless they spent 3 hours waiting on the phone, I think they jumped the gun calling the police.
Sounds ridiculous? Well that is what Wells Fargo was doing to its customers and it was called an accounting error. Trying calling the police on Wells Fargo when they are making up bank accounts in your name, or forcing you to buy un-requested care insurance.
I consider it more likely that bees that abandon a queen do so because there's a virgin queen in the mix and there's something inherently wrong with the old queen or reproductive workers in bees that flee lay eggs which are used to raise a new queen in a new hive.
If that were true then bee keepers would have known about it, and reacted accordingly. Since the drastic damage to bee hives is new, you would assume that there is something occurring within the environment (whether is pesticides, herbicides, pollution, disease, or combination of them) that is causing it.
The impact of domesticated bees on farming can be quite large,.I would hesitate to go with a simple answer without significant supporting evidence.
Your link has nothing to do with global warming, so right off the bat your trolling.
The problem is the not the science, it what he was pushing and why he was pushing it.
It was a anti-progressive rant, and linked to articles that supported his position. is links might be close to the truth, but his declarations that Google was too progressive was his personal opinion, not scientific study.
I find it ironic, that conservatives, that have ranted and raved against any sort of labor protections and the NLRB, seem to be rejoicing at pushing a NLRB complaint.
If this is not an example of conservative white male privilege, I don't know what is.
Slashdot Mirror
It is prepping the data that is hard. The Machine Learning Algorithms have been established for a long time. The big limiters on it have been processing power and decent data sets.
If you READ the actually data It simply says ARRESTS, not convictions or that they actually committed the crime. don't confuse the two.
That may mean what they initially intend to use it for, it does not preclude them from changing what they do with it later.
Given that they have been building cars for a while, they should know how to construct an assembly line. This could just training issues, with having to bring in people who are new to building cars.
There are ways to sell stock that without being directly involved in the decision. For example, scheduling automatic buy/sell shares every quarter at the market price. You have some foreknowledge, but it is not perfect knowledge to make the optimal decision.
Looking at the title I read it as CEO was caught downloading "Stranger After Hours" as a TV show being leaked online.
Think on this, it just may be companies executives looking to for kudos. They have no intention of completing the deal, more of a show of "hey look what I did, give me a promotion!". After that it will become a problem for someone else and no one will following through on it.
Money is a social convention, like the rule of law people respect because they choose too. You act like money is a limited resource or a physical possession that somehow no one can ever take away.
Lets try another way, lets say we don't take your money but we print out $1 billion dollars for every man,woman and child. Would that satisfy you? Now you don't have worry about any taking your money that you may or may not have earned. Is printing a large amount of money stealing? No, then you should have no problem with it.
All I care about can we have a functional society that we are reasonably comfortable and safe in. If you need to have money to value yourself and accuse people of stealing it through whatever mechanism we come up, that is your problem and in reality society cannot address.
Because money is the medium of economic commerce, and if people cannot get money they cannot acquire goods or service that are necessary to live.
A better question would be, why do people who have more money than they can ever spend in several lifetimes continue on hoarding more of it. Does this dragon fever really drive the economy or make the world a better place?
Capitalism only works to a certain point before it begins to breakdown. The best example would be the Roman Empire, as it is well documented and shows the long-term results of a democracy that gradually shifts to a class based structure that is obsessed with endless growth of wealth striping it from everywhere it can get it.
The issue I have with putting the business logic into database is that error handling is horrible. It will not give you anything useful about what went wrong.
That is why everything has an intermediary layer or service for checking submissions and returning human readable information about what is missing or incorrect.
The day after companies can effectively evaluate technical schools, they can evaluate company culture fit. Otherwise there is always one jerk at the table saying "I don't like him or personality" whenever they feel threatened.
I had 2 phone interviews without any depth to them and over in a few minutes. The reason why? They were stuck on looking for a specific skill and if you did not have it, you were done.
The first failed on AWS, oh you have not worked with AWS? Sorry, we are not going forward. It was not a matter if I understood networking, or servers or administration or any of the 50 tools that AWS promises, no direct experience, interview over. Not only that, they ended up hiring nobody!
The second one was Scrum and Continuous Integration, have not done either, interview is over (over in 2 minutes with pleasantries). They don't even try to evaluate your skills, or your thought process or even if you are capable.
It seems like they cannot even be bothered to try and get someone to be productivity and thejob salaries are not great either, just average. If companies were really desperate they would be more aggressive but I think they are just cruising along, not really competing or losing ground. When they become greedy or desperate that is when you will see change.
Note: In reference to AWS, I took an online course on AWS after the interview. It was powerful, not hard but broad. Certainly not as hard as working with specific hardware that implements the same features.
You mean Google, explains how it adjusts it search rankings based upon what is the on the page. I don't get it, people seem to think Google is a public utility that it needs to treat everyone and everything equally. They are in the business to make money too. Google, is working with Forbes, to sell Ads and they stated that the Google button increases the rankings of those pages.
It is not like Google hasn't integrated or adjusted their search results to promote other web sites. A great example is Wikipedia, if I ask a question like P-38 lightning what is that Wikipedia is not only at the top of the search results, but they have a special summary box at the top of the page and another box to the right. Another example is if you are looking for an actor/actress they not only pop-up their Wiki information but their profiles on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and Myspace. Google has never been perfectly objective or fair.
We live in the age of caveat emptor . People need to be aware of what they are looking at and maybe do a little more work instead of complaining that Google isn't perfect and is not treating everything fairly.
While everyone is up in arms about Google being evil I am a little on the wary side of this. Not because the story is untrue, but rather the implication that only Google is involved with attempting to influence rankings for search results. Everyone has been looking at gaming the system, companies regularly hired people to do just this. I admit that this is blatant but it is not like only Forbes could put the Google button on their page. They appeared to do it with anyone that was willing to participate.
The other issue I have with this piece is that from a story she did 6 years ago, did they change during this time or is still true? In this case I would like to see a little less complaining and a few more facts about the current state of the problem rather than a rehash of an old article.
stashing their loot in robotic AI offshore accounts
Don't you mean ByteCoins so the IRS cannot get to it?
Smaller or larger government is the size of the entity, not the quality. I guess it is easy to focus on that rather than "how smart the government is!". It is just like any other organization of people. A major difference between a government and a corporation is the government has to interact with a number of people and groups on things it has no knowledge about. That somehow a smaller government, which has broader responsibilities and fewer resources is going to out perform or negotiate someone like Comcast, is just unlikely.
So a larger government is more likely to outperform a smaller one it is just not a guarantee, like everything else in life.
Why do assume smaller government is the answer? It is usually the smaller communities, with less knowledge and resources which are easier to co-opt than larger entities.
I can sympathize with that few, of it appearing to have too many developers focused upon deployment/testing then actual development.
However, I come at it from the other side, the developers just push new development out and production support is responsible for addressing the mess, it is horrible, there is too much disconnect between developers and their resulting output creating consistent outages.
The most successful teams follow the mantra "Eat your own dog food", developers who support the crap they push out tend to be more involved and more like to understand and address problems. If they are shitty, well you fire them, the good ones start nailing down and preventing problems.
Did Lowe's contact them, submit a ticket complaining about the problem? Unless they spent 3 hours waiting on the phone, I think they jumped the gun calling the police.
Sounds ridiculous? Well that is what Wells Fargo was doing to its customers and it was called an accounting error. Trying calling the police on Wells Fargo when they are making up bank accounts in your name, or forcing you to buy un-requested care insurance.
I think 98 million arrests out of a population of 300 million people seems extremely high.
I consider it more likely that bees that abandon a queen do so because there's a virgin queen in the mix and there's something inherently wrong with the old queen or reproductive workers in bees that flee lay eggs which are used to raise a new queen in a new hive.
If that were true then bee keepers would have known about it, and reacted accordingly. Since the drastic damage to bee hives is new, you would assume that there is something occurring within the environment (whether is pesticides, herbicides, pollution, disease, or combination of them) that is causing it.
The impact of domesticated bees on farming can be quite large,.I would hesitate to go with a simple answer without significant supporting evidence.
It was a anti-progressive rant, and linked to articles that supported his position. is links might be close to the truth, but his declarations that Google was too progressive was his personal opinion, not scientific study.
As for the NLRB, you want a few links?
Conservatives have always loved playing the victim while trying to undercut those less well off.
I find it ironic, that conservatives, that have ranted and raved against any sort of labor protections and the NLRB, seem to be rejoicing at pushing a NLRB complaint.
If this is not an example of conservative white male privilege, I don't know what is.
The site is breaking the law by facilitating those people that do to their own benefit. The fruit of the poisonous tree is an apt metaphor.
Age is a protected class