Some people commute (as others have mentioned). In San Francisco, a lot of people have lived there a long time under rent control, so their rent is lower (but they are trapped, and can't move!). Other people live with roommates. If you have a girlfriend or boyfriend, that cuts the rent cost in half. And some people live with their parents into their 40s or 50s.
If someone makes $100k and spends $50k on the cost of living, then someone who earns $200k and spends $150k on the cost of living, you are both in the same boat.
You're getting a lot better living for the $150k, you're definitely not in the same boat. That's like the people who say, "Oh, my BMW payments are so high, they're forcing me to cut back on my quality of life." And even in the Bay Area, you can buy a nice house for $150k a year.
The progress on AI in the last 10 years was more than the 290 years before that.
I don't think that's true. The algorithms we are using were mostly invented before 2007. Deep learning merely means taking those algorithms and applying incredible computing power to them.
And Moore's law is far from dead.
That seems to be true. Although CPUs have been largely stagnant, GPUs have been jumping dramatically in performance still. And that's where the processing power comes from.
but as far as I understand AI, it's basically plugging the program to a (insanely huge) database about the subject and help him interpolate the input and it's own data
Alphago is also a huge tree-searching algorithm, with tremendous processing power. The real question is, how do you know your brain does something more advanced than that?
I'm 90% sure that their push to do 'self-driving cars' is primarily an attempt to push up valuation for an IPO (or series X round). The work they've done so far seems more aimed at publicity than basic research (self-driving cars now picking people up!............with two software engineers behind the wheel. And has trouble recognizing pedestrians).
I wonder if carpenters feel the same way about hammers or if developers are just way to opinionated...
Yeah, typical carpenter hammer arguments:
*) Hammer weight (usually 16-24oz for house framing)
*) Handle type (wood? Fiberglass? (fiberglass hammers suck tbh))
*) Is the face of the hammer smooth or textured?
Another way of looking at it: if you have a team with a single, centralized repository, why waste everyone's disk space by distributing to everyone?
I like Git, and prefer its pleasant UI, but I can see there are definitely reasons people would use SVN. (I can even think of reasons a team would use Visual Source Safe, although that's more of a stretch).
That's a fairness problem though, not a problem with maximizing resource utility. True, if you had been born with a million dollars, you might turn out to be better at resource allocation than some people who now actually were born with a million dollars. But if you were really good at investing, you could start out with a small amount and turn it into a fortune.
And the video game companies already lost the legal battle to prohibit people from using their trademarks as an unlock; if you make that the unlock, then you simultaneously give everyone permission to use it for that purpose.
Effective? Capitalism gives resources to those who do well with their resources. If you make a good investment, if you allocate your resources well, then you will make money and have more resources. If you poorly manage resources, your poor investments lose money and eventually you won't be around to allocate resources anymore.
Giving money to poor people is equitable, but it's certainly not effective at resource allocation. Poor people don't make capital expenditures, they consume which is an inefficient long term strategy.
Please say something that at least indicates you understood what I wrote. "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet" that's a pretty clear principle.
Let's take your homeopathy example. Suppose your kid comes to you and says, "Crystals can cure cancer." Start by getting her to think in a scientific way, with questions like, "That's interesting. How would you devise an experiment to test that idea?" You want to at least get them thinking scientifically. If there a little older, you can ask her what experiments have been done to test that idea. This is really easy now with the internet. When I was a teenager my dad taught me to do research at the library, and it was a pain.
As for the 'definition of Pluto,' you can tell her that it's just a definition, and it doesn't fucking matter, you could call it a rose and it wouldn't change the actual physical nature of the object, and arguments over definitions are a waste of time, best left for potheads and morons.
Of course you are right, (we are both right), the question is how many events do you need for it to 'stabilize'? In some places we've only had good weather station coverage for less than a hundred years, so it really depends on the variance, and how many random variables are involved. Obviously with climate, there are quite a number of random variables.
Incidentally, if we just looked at the temperature increase from CO2, without feedbacks, then it is not enough to worry about. Positive feedbacks are necessary before the temperature change will be enough to cause problems.
Slashdot Mirror
progress will continue by exploiting specialized hardware for this particular function
Is someone building specialized hardware for that? Last I checked it was still all just GPUs.
adding that he pays $3000 rent for a two-bedroom house in San Francisco"
That's a pretty good deal for two bedrooms, actually.
Some people commute (as others have mentioned). In San Francisco, a lot of people have lived there a long time under rent control, so their rent is lower (but they are trapped, and can't move!). Other people live with roommates. If you have a girlfriend or boyfriend, that cuts the rent cost in half. And some people live with their parents into their 40s or 50s.
If someone makes $100k and spends $50k on the cost of living, then someone who earns $200k and spends $150k on the cost of living, you are both in the same boat.
You're getting a lot better living for the $150k, you're definitely not in the same boat. That's like the people who say, "Oh, my BMW payments are so high, they're forcing me to cut back on my quality of life." And even in the Bay Area, you can buy a nice house for $150k a year.
It may turn out that we don't have to figure out how it works if we can 'simply' build a replica of a biological model in silicon
The chances of building a mind without understanding how minds work seems lower than building a functioning rocket without understanding physics.
The progress on AI in the last 10 years was more than the 290 years before that.
I don't think that's true. The algorithms we are using were mostly invented before 2007. Deep learning merely means taking those algorithms and applying incredible computing power to them.
And Moore's law is far from dead.
That seems to be true. Although CPUs have been largely stagnant, GPUs have been jumping dramatically in performance still. And that's where the processing power comes from.
but as far as I understand AI, it's basically plugging the program to a (insanely huge) database about the subject and help him interpolate the input and it's own data
Alphago is also a huge tree-searching algorithm, with tremendous processing power. The real question is, how do you know your brain does something more advanced than that?
Yeah, I still don't see how it applies to the original submission. Are you saying the submission is poorly written?
I'm 90% sure that their push to do 'self-driving cars' is primarily an attempt to push up valuation for an IPO (or series X round). The work they've done so far seems more aimed at publicity than basic research (self-driving cars now picking people up!............with two software engineers behind the wheel. And has trouble recognizing pedestrians).
I wonder if carpenters feel the same way about hammers or if developers are just way to opinionated...
Yeah, typical carpenter hammer arguments:
*) Hammer weight (usually 16-24oz for house framing)
*) Handle type (wood? Fiberglass? (fiberglass hammers suck tbh))
*) Is the face of the hammer smooth or textured?
Another way of looking at it: if you have a team with a single, centralized repository, why waste everyone's disk space by distributing to everyone?
I like Git, and prefer its pleasant UI, but I can see there are definitely reasons people would use SVN. (I can even think of reasons a team would use Visual Source Safe, although that's more of a stretch).
That's a fairness problem though, not a problem with maximizing resource utility. True, if you had been born with a million dollars, you might turn out to be better at resource allocation than some people who now actually were born with a million dollars. But if you were really good at investing, you could start out with a small amount and turn it into a fortune.
And the video game companies already lost the legal battle to prohibit people from using their trademarks as an unlock; if you make that the unlock, then you simultaneously give everyone permission to use it for that purpose.
Specifically, in the case Sega vs Accolade.
Effective? Capitalism gives resources to those who do well with their resources. If you make a good investment, if you allocate your resources well, then you will make money and have more resources. If you poorly manage resources, your poor investments lose money and eventually you won't be around to allocate resources anymore.
Giving money to poor people is equitable, but it's certainly not effective at resource allocation. Poor people don't make capital expenditures, they consume which is an inefficient long term strategy.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Wow, nice, you actually know. I didn't expect that.
Please say something that at least indicates you understood what I wrote. "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet" that's a pretty clear principle.
the second year each has a 50% chance of being the record, the third year every measurement has a 1/3 chance, etc.
No lol, get a book on probability, I recommend this one.
Let's take your homeopathy example. Suppose your kid comes to you and says, "Crystals can cure cancer." Start by getting her to think in a scientific way, with questions like, "That's interesting. How would you devise an experiment to test that idea?" You want to at least get them thinking scientifically. If there a little older, you can ask her what experiments have been done to test that idea. This is really easy now with the internet. When I was a teenager my dad taught me to do research at the library, and it was a pain.
As for the 'definition of Pluto,' you can tell her that it's just a definition, and it doesn't fucking matter, you could call it a rose and it wouldn't change the actual physical nature of the object, and arguments over definitions are a waste of time, best left for potheads and morons.
So.......how much of that is due to smoking and diet, and how much due to healthcare?
The "dear leader" isn't so dear and will be lucky to survive the next five years.
How improbable is it? I'm interested in your analysis. Unless you're saying that based on 'gut feeling' or hearsay.
And what are you teaching them? To distrust current scientific consensus in favour of a feeling?
Hopefully not. Hopefully you'll teach them how to think for themselves. To look at the evidence, and not blindly follow. That way leads to insanity.
Of course you are right, (we are both right), the question is how many events do you need for it to 'stabilize'? In some places we've only had good weather station coverage for less than a hundred years, so it really depends on the variance, and how many random variables are involved. Obviously with climate, there are quite a number of random variables.
Incidentally, if we just looked at the temperature increase from CO2, without feedbacks, then it is not enough to worry about. Positive feedbacks are necessary before the temperature change will be enough to cause problems.