I like that, too - but that attacks a slightly different problem than I was trying to address - where you say something polarizing and it gets modded down as much as up. I imagine almost anything said on Reddit involving guns or abortion probably fits into this category.
There are a number of ways to use that metric, but I was thinking in the context of the Slashdot system. If I had my "fractional_bonus" set to 0.5, then in my example the Slashdot moderation system would mod the comment 3 ups - 2 downs + (2 * 0.5) = 2. The normal Slashdot system would simply moderate it 3 ups - 2 downs = 1.
Reddit would be very similar, but it has no limit to up or downvotes, so maybe the fraction would need to be lower - or possible a log scale or something. But the point is you would award a comment for being controversial. I'm sure someone here smarter than me can come up with the downside to this.
I think that if we had trains that were fully automatic, you'd need to justify the expense of a watcher (who, let's face it will just play on their phone) versus spending that considerable amount of money on something else which improves safety even more.
Downvotes could be used to identify controversial ideas - often the most interesting parts of the discussion. A troll will have mostly downvotes. A platitude will be overwhelmingly positive. The real gritty, interesting stuff will have both up and downvotes.
It would be interesting if we could have an option to rate "controversial" posts higher. Something like a fractional bonus awarded to the count of offsetting moderations: 3 up mods and 2 down mods would result in 2 x fractional_bonus points added to the score.
They can also overthink (or underthink) a situation and thwart the computer's superior reaction time and carefully planned fault tree. A train cannot stop suddenly enough to avoid a person or obstacle on the track anyway. Any system capable of warning the human operator in enough time to do something about it can just as easily stop the automated train. The sole major incident experienced in Singapore was when people overrode the software protection on a broken-down train.
It's horrible when the government leaves people alone. Horrible. They really should control every aspect of your life, including how you use your personal property and how you choose to make some extra money.
Context, my pedantic friend, context. In this case, the phrasing is not at all ambiguous because they give us exact growth rates of both companies (168% and 61% growth, respectively). There is no confusion at all.
There probably is a sweet spot where this actually works. Something like suburban delivery routes near a distribution point. And that distribution point could be a truck. The truck could even move so that the landing spot is different than the takeoff spot... it could really be efficient with the driver (if we're still doing manual driving) just setting up the next boxes on the landing pads and then moving to the next rendezvous point.
Get too rural or too urban and it no longer makes sense.
And trains can be 100% automated with no big red button - examples abound, but I'll pick on Singapore to give you something to Google. Then Google NYC subway accidents and look at how many are caused by human error. NYC subways have a driver as well as a conductor to close the doors... for "safety", but really for unions. I'd rather have automated trains with a real cop walking up and down the train if the concern is "safety". And hey, still union. Win-win.
I've never had a problem with a stolen package claim. Yeah, the porch pirates get the occasional, well once they got a roll of duct tape and once they got some socks, but Amazon has always just resent the package.
Seems to me drone delivery would make things even worse
I think things would be a bit better with the drones: 1. It can deliver to the back of your house, making people driving by unlikely to see your package in the first place. People would need to check backyards, making them more likely to get caught. 2. People can't simply follow the big brown truck around, as the drone will be difficult to follow from the ground. You'd need to be lucky enough to spot one landing nearby.
For anything commercial, for this to work, we need to convince commercial developers to go from selling $1000 specialized vertical marker applications to selling $1 mobile applications.
I think they'll use the same OS and programs that they've always used, but the chips will change to whatever is currently offering up the best bang for the buck. Windows can run fine on an ARM now, and in 10 years I believe it will be a lot more common if Intel can't adjust. Autodesk, Microsoft, and Adobe can still sell their big commercial programs compiled for a different architecture. My Sony TV is already an all-in-one computer running Android TV... it's not a big stretch too see it being sold with upgraded storage, a keyboard, mouse, and Windows.
The problem for us (and for Intel) is that niche is a small fraction of what they are sized for. Their multi-billion dollar fabs sitting idle is a financial disaster. Intel is already doing some contract manufacturing, but that's a tough game with many experienced competitors. Yes, I think you are right that there will always be a market for workstations, but I think we're going to see a slow drift towards what is becoming the new standard in commodity hardware. Most of us will use "PCs" with repurposed mobile guts, which is an interesting paradigm shift, and scary as hell if you are Intel.
Virtualization in concentrated data centers can reduce physical hardware needs to a degree but this has a lower bound and doesn't continue indefinitely
I think the worry is that the lower bound is too low to justify the expensive fabs Intel has invested in. There is a threshold below which Intel chips would cease to be a high-volume but lucrative cash cow and begin to be just another medium-volume chip that cannot justify its own fab and high R&D costs. Once any chip architecture comes rolling out of the same fab, where is the performance advantage? What will happen to their margins?
You don't want to enter a cutthroat low-margin market.
In general, yes, I agree.
BUT. Semiconductor manufacturing is a very capital-intensive industry. If there isn't enough volume in the high-margin game to keep your multi-billion dollar factories occupied, you will not be able to justify the construction of another. And then you've lost the game, because your cheap-shit competitor will eventually surpass your manufacturing technology that allowed you to charge a premium in the first place. At that point, your best option is to contract out your manufacturing, a la Apple. In 10 years we could very well be buying high-margin, Intel-branded, x86-derived server chips that were produced in a Samsung or even Global Foundries fab. (More likely whatever company they spin their fabs off into.)
Slashdot Mirror
I like that, too - but that attacks a slightly different problem than I was trying to address - where you say something polarizing and it gets modded down as much as up. I imagine almost anything said on Reddit involving guns or abortion probably fits into this category.
There are a number of ways to use that metric, but I was thinking in the context of the Slashdot system. If I had my "fractional_bonus" set to 0.5, then in my example the Slashdot moderation system would mod the comment 3 ups - 2 downs + (2 * 0.5) = 2. The normal Slashdot system would simply moderate it 3 ups - 2 downs = 1.
Reddit would be very similar, but it has no limit to up or downvotes, so maybe the fraction would need to be lower - or possible a log scale or something. But the point is you would award a comment for being controversial. I'm sure someone here smarter than me can come up with the downside to this.
Back when it was in regular use, I had the opportunity to meta-mod someone who had down-modded one of my comments. Hehehe, karma, bitches.
I think that if we had trains that were fully automatic, you'd need to justify the expense of a watcher (who, let's face it will just play on their phone) versus spending that considerable amount of money on something else which improves safety even more.
Downvotes could be used to identify controversial ideas - often the most interesting parts of the discussion. A troll will have mostly downvotes. A platitude will be overwhelmingly positive. The real gritty, interesting stuff will have both up and downvotes.
It would be interesting if we could have an option to rate "controversial" posts higher. Something like a fractional bonus awarded to the count of offsetting moderations: 3 up mods and 2 down mods would result in 2 x fractional_bonus points added to the score.
They can also overthink (or underthink) a situation and thwart the computer's superior reaction time and carefully planned fault tree. A train cannot stop suddenly enough to avoid a person or obstacle on the track anyway. Any system capable of warning the human operator in enough time to do something about it can just as easily stop the automated train. The sole major incident experienced in Singapore was when people overrode the software protection on a broken-down train.
Because I hate pendency more than I hate meaningless grammar errors.
The text clearly conveys what the author intended, so as language it has succeeded.
It's horrible when the government leaves people alone. Horrible. They really should control every aspect of your life, including how you use your personal property and how you choose to make some extra money.
Context, my pedantic friend, context. In this case, the phrasing is not at all ambiguous because they give us exact growth rates of both companies (168% and 61% growth, respectively). There is no confusion at all.
OK, but that's an emotional reaction.
There probably is a sweet spot where this actually works. Something like suburban delivery routes near a distribution point. And that distribution point could be a truck. The truck could even move so that the landing spot is different than the takeoff spot... it could really be efficient with the driver (if we're still doing manual driving) just setting up the next boxes on the landing pads and then moving to the next rendezvous point.
Get too rural or too urban and it no longer makes sense.
Drones aren't for cities.
And trains can be 100% automated with no big red button - examples abound, but I'll pick on Singapore to give you something to Google. Then Google NYC subway accidents and look at how many are caused by human error. NYC subways have a driver as well as a conductor to close the doors... for "safety", but really for unions. I'd rather have automated trains with a real cop walking up and down the train if the concern is "safety". And hey, still union. Win-win.
True, but it's not like roads are a safe space.
. If a delivery truck has a mechanical failure, it's just dead on the road No harm done to the cargo.
Insurance?
I've never had a problem with a stolen package claim. Yeah, the porch pirates get the occasional, well once they got a roll of duct tape and once they got some socks, but Amazon has always just resent the package.
Seems to me drone delivery would make things even worse
I think things would be a bit better with the drones:
1. It can deliver to the back of your house, making people driving by unlikely to see your package in the first place. People would need to check backyards, making them more likely to get caught.
2. People can't simply follow the big brown truck around, as the drone will be difficult to follow from the ground. You'd need to be lucky enough to spot one landing nearby.
It's Amazon's fault that you have a pack of social predators in your backyard.
That's Asian hair. You were just thrown off by the boobs.
For anything commercial, for this to work, we need to convince commercial developers to go from selling $1000 specialized vertical marker applications to selling $1 mobile applications.
I think they'll use the same OS and programs that they've always used, but the chips will change to whatever is currently offering up the best bang for the buck. Windows can run fine on an ARM now, and in 10 years I believe it will be a lot more common if Intel can't adjust. Autodesk, Microsoft, and Adobe can still sell their big commercial programs compiled for a different architecture. My Sony TV is already an all-in-one computer running Android TV... it's not a big stretch too see it being sold with upgraded storage, a keyboard, mouse, and Windows.
Whether you personally do it or not is beside the point - the market has gone that way.
. It's back to its original niche.
The problem for us (and for Intel) is that niche is a small fraction of what they are sized for. Their multi-billion dollar fabs sitting idle is a financial disaster. Intel is already doing some contract manufacturing, but that's a tough game with many experienced competitors. Yes, I think you are right that there will always be a market for workstations, but I think we're going to see a slow drift towards what is becoming the new standard in commodity hardware. Most of us will use "PCs" with repurposed mobile guts, which is an interesting paradigm shift, and scary as hell if you are Intel.
Virtualization in concentrated data centers can reduce physical hardware needs to a degree but this has a lower bound and doesn't continue indefinitely
I think the worry is that the lower bound is too low to justify the expensive fabs Intel has invested in. There is a threshold below which Intel chips would cease to be a high-volume but lucrative cash cow and begin to be just another medium-volume chip that cannot justify its own fab and high R&D costs. Once any chip architecture comes rolling out of the same fab, where is the performance advantage? What will happen to their margins?
You don't want to enter a cutthroat low-margin market.
In general, yes, I agree.
BUT. Semiconductor manufacturing is a very capital-intensive industry. If there isn't enough volume in the high-margin game to keep your multi-billion dollar factories occupied, you will not be able to justify the construction of another. And then you've lost the game, because your cheap-shit competitor will eventually surpass your manufacturing technology that allowed you to charge a premium in the first place. At that point, your best option is to contract out your manufacturing, a la Apple. In 10 years we could very well be buying high-margin, Intel-branded, x86-derived server chips that were produced in a Samsung or even Global Foundries fab. (More likely whatever company they spin their fabs off into.)