TL;DR; I think Clinton could have won if she tried harder,
I don't know if "try harder" is the way to put it. She basically put all her resources into it. You might say she should have allocated resources differently, visited different states, but I don't know if she could have tried any harder.
Condensing statistics (which is what journalists basically do) is a tricky field however, you can make all sorts of conclusions simply based on your world view. If you FEEL that a certain population should be allowed to enter your country, how you represent or highlight an underlying statistic such as a child trekking through a desert without food and water by its parents for 5 days, becomes an issue of framing.
Indeed, but journalists get better results by trying to be objective than by not trying to be objective.
How much wasted energy? You don't know, you have no idea. Your problem is you don't like them, so you imagine reasons for them to be bad. That's why you come up with ridiculous ideas like bottles in landfills are hurting the environment.
Instead of trying to support your ideas, attack them: that is the scientific way.
If it goes into a landfill, the environmental impact is basically zero. It's only a problem if it somehow gets into the ocean and starts floating around. It's not actually going to cause problems for a thousand years.
Getting exact perfect facts may be hard, but someone who is attempting to present the facts will do better than someone who is trying to convince or entertain.
You're missing the dream of ambient computing. "Alexa, edit the image." or "Alexa, crunch this data." Or "Alexa, write the paper or book. I'm going to the pool." That's how good AI will be (winter is coming).
"In 20 years, the idea of picking up a device or sitting down at a computer to actively use it will seem quaintly antiquated. All computing will be ambient — all around us all the time, whispering in our ear, augmenting the real world through our prescription eyeglasses and car windshields, perceiving our emotions and desires and taking action in the background to help us reach our business goals and live a better life."
That's an optimistic assessment of Waymo's technology. All reports are they still aren't able to send cars out without human drivers, unfortunately. It's good in most cases, but getting the last few percent is harder than the first 90 percent.
The world changes. Who would have guessed that the party on the left would become the prudes? Next we'll hear that Republicans want to legalize prostitution.
I thought of that story, too. They are different because that one talks about job applicants, whereas this one is about people who have already been working for a while.
If you are talking about real-world assets verifying a document like a ledger is no different whether that ledger is blockchain based or another other type of online ledger or database or a physical pen and paper ledger.
Yeah, so it's based on trust and subject to errors. So what do you get, then, from using a blockchain, besides inefficiency?
Slashdot Mirror
TL;DR; I think Clinton could have won if she tried harder,
I don't know if "try harder" is the way to put it. She basically put all her resources into it. You might say she should have allocated resources differently, visited different states, but I don't know if she could have tried any harder.
Condensing statistics (which is what journalists basically do) is a tricky field however, you can make all sorts of conclusions simply based on your world view. If you FEEL that a certain population should be allowed to enter your country, how you represent or highlight an underlying statistic such as a child trekking through a desert without food and water by its parents for 5 days, becomes an issue of framing.
Indeed, but journalists get better results by trying to be objective than by not trying to be objective.
tbh they are probably better off without antivirus, though
How much wasted energy? You don't know, you have no idea. Your problem is you don't like them, so you imagine reasons for them to be bad. That's why you come up with ridiculous ideas like bottles in landfills are hurting the environment.
Instead of trying to support your ideas, attack them: that is the scientific way.
First, that the date is 2029 which is a decade away; I wish the time-range for the mandate was shorter.
I think it's because buying that many new buses is expensive, and cities don't have the money.
Ever had a spaghetti bolognese made from minced wagyu?
I think the sauce would cover the flavor of the wagyu and then ruin it. All wagyu needs is a dash of salt and it's the perfect meal.
If it goes into a landfill, the environmental impact is basically zero. It's only a problem if it somehow gets into the ocean and starts floating around. It's not actually going to cause problems for a thousand years.
that causes this mismatch between creators and consumers in the first place.
Oh, what a shame.
I'll bet in 20 years, people will still be using the remote for their tv.
Getting exact perfect facts may be hard, but someone who is attempting to present the facts will do better than someone who is trying to convince or entertain.
I don't really want to hear viewpoints, they're all garbage. As much as possible, I'd like to hear the facts, please
Clearly over 8million people care. They're probably all Trump voters.
Nah, all reports are that Waymo just isn't ready for a driverless taxi system. It's unfortunate but true.
You're missing the dream of ambient computing. "Alexa, edit the image." or "Alexa, crunch this data." Or "Alexa, write the paper or book. I'm going to the pool." That's how good AI will be (winter is coming).
"In 20 years, the idea of picking up a device or sitting down at a computer to actively use it will seem quaintly antiquated. All computing will be ambient — all around us all the time, whispering in our ear, augmenting the real world through our prescription eyeglasses and car windshields, perceiving our emotions and desires and taking action in the background to help us reach our business goals and live a better life."
Good luck with that.
Citing examples of bad code would have made your post 101 times more powerful. You should have done it.
That's an optimistic assessment of Waymo's technology. All reports are they still aren't able to send cars out without human drivers, unfortunately. It's good in most cases, but getting the last few percent is harder than the first 90 percent.
Apparently health services aren't a tax anymore. Well well well, three holes in the ground.
But now the committer can put on their resume "Committed code to OpenJDK."
The world changes. Who would have guessed that the party on the left would become the prudes? Next we'll hear that Republicans want to legalize prostitution.
I thought of that story, too. They are different because that one talks about job applicants, whereas this one is about people who have already been working for a while.
I have also met a few cynical shitheads who contribute nothing
There are two types of people at work: those who get things done, and those who don't. Find the ones who do, and be like them.
However blockchain is another tool in the toolbox and for some cases it will be the better fit
No, there's no case where it's a better fit.
my point above is that errors in warehouse physical inventory is often ledger independent (theft, etc).
Yeah, it's ledger independent. That is, not something that will be helped by a blockchain.
I'll be honest, I think your idea is crap and not helped at all by blockchain. Who ever said, "I want all my transactions to be public"
If you are talking about real-world assets verifying a document like a ledger is no different whether that ledger is blockchain based or another other type of online ledger or database or a physical pen and paper ledger.
Yeah, so it's based on trust and subject to errors. So what do you get, then, from using a blockchain, besides inefficiency?