No, limit means "buy at X price or lower." The front-runner drives the price up a few pennies, so without the front-runner you would have bought it at price Y < X, with the front runner you get it at a price Y + $.03 < X. So you're still losing pennies. It's a small enough amount that most people really don't care, but it's frustrating to get ripped off like that.
To add to what you say: it's amazing how many problems can be solved when energy is cheap and plentiful. Water purification from the ocean suddenly becomes economical. At a higher energy level, transmuting lead to gold becomes economical. That's a lot of energy, but if you can transform between elements, a lot of the problems of living on Mars go away.
Before proposing silly "solutions", could you please explain what problem are you trying to solve?
I don't know what problem he is trying to solve, but the problem that annoys me is front-running: listening for an order, then quickly buying the stock first (because you have faster connections), immediately turning around and selling it to the person who was going to buy it in the first place, but at a higher price. This does absolutely nothing to help the market as far as I can tell.
Real estate gets to be be the more complicated situation. If your ambitions for your business are modest, then you may not derive value over having the ability to place in datacenters all around the world. If you are a pure 'software/information' play with multi-national ambitions, then it's probably cheaper to get reach through a cloud provider. If however you deal with physical goods, then you get sufficiently embroiled in all sorts of complexities in dealing with geographies anyway, that cloud provider might not be sparing you from much.
I think most websites hosted on AWS don't use more than one region anyway, because it's really kind of a pain. I think most don't even use more than one availability zone, and that won't protect you when a region goes down (and it will).
I don't understand the fixation on the terminology, while ignoring the interesting aspects of what it does.
Because it's misleading. This is weak AI, but the researchers never say that when talking to the media (they don't need to). The media misunderstands, and thinks it's strong AI, because that's the only thing they know. Then people read it and think, "Oh no, this AI is going to conquer humanity and enslave us."
Of course, this AI is not going to do that, it's just weak AI. It has no possibility of evolving into strong AI. So it's worth mentioning it, because many people are misled.
I mean sure the reliability would be vastly improved over anything we have now, it would be blisteringly fast from decades of optimisation, security would be better, and all of the settings would still be neatly filed away in control panel rather than vomitted all over the damn place
This is a good thing......but ironically, if you do that, if you have careful design that focuses on making things better and not just.....random, then it would be easier to have this:
shiny, synergistic, dynamic, reactive, proactive, leading edge, bleeding edge
You can make a button shiny and look good without reorganizing the interface.
Last time I installed Windows, I was too lazy to type in the code. I had it right there on my desk, but laziness knows no bounds. The watermark stayed there for years until Win 7 ended.
Think of it like this: someone wins the lottery. It's irrational, and that individual person shouldn't have bought a lottery ticket, but they did, and it turned out to be the most lucrative decision of their entire life. If we are alone in the universe, then we are like that lottery winner.
Rather, I would look for a more LIKELY explanation, namely that somebody put a fucking zebra in my office and I would start looking for the rich joker who could manage that, probably a TV production company for some candid camera thing.
Either we are a natural part of the patterns of the universe and natural laws, or some weird magical power put us here.
This is a false dichotomy, someone gave you some bad logic. There are a lot of other possibilities, here is one:
Basically, of everyone in the universe, someone has to be first. Maybe we won the lottery. Sometimes that happens. It seems improbable, but by the anthropic principle, if we're here to observe it, then it happened to us.
Your first three paragraphs are great, but the next two are pure bias. I agree with your conlusions, but if you're open minded you need to be open to things that annoy you. "We are alone" in no way implies there is a god. That's a weird bias you picked up.
Like Meltdown and Spectre, this 'exploit' requires a lot of things to be 'just right' for an exploit or data leak to occur.
Look up "heap spraying" to see the kind of extreme techniques that can exist. Although you can't think of something now, people think of bizarre methods.
A typical technique would be to target a particular popular piece of software, like, openSSL, which is used by basically everything. Then use a shotgun approach, and try the exploit on a thousand (or a million) different computers. Even if only 1% of servers are exploitable, then you can grab a lot of private keys. This is the technique hackers use every time a new vulnerability is found (for example) in Wordpress. Just try the exploit on every server on the internet. Most of them will fail, and updated Wordpress instances will fail, but enough will succeed to make it worth while.
Secondly, imagine this is running as Javascript on your computer. Some people never run Javascript, but most of us do. An example hack: listening for the Facebook ID cookie, so you can log in to their account (or the gmail cookie, or whatever).
Slashdot Mirror
No, limit means "buy at X price or lower." The front-runner drives the price up a few pennies, so without the front-runner you would have bought it at price Y < X, with the front runner you get it at a price Y + $.03 < X. So you're still losing pennies. It's a small enough amount that most people really don't care, but it's frustrating to get ripped off like that.
Wow, if you had a car capable of half the speed of light, would you complain? I'm not a track driver, but I would definitely take that to the track.
Damming rivers is an environmental disaster.
A lot of rivers will always have dams because the flooding that comes if you don't can be a literal disaster.
To add to what you say: it's amazing how many problems can be solved when energy is cheap and plentiful. Water purification from the ocean suddenly becomes economical. At a higher energy level, transmuting lead to gold becomes economical. That's a lot of energy, but if you can transform between elements, a lot of the problems of living on Mars go away.
take glass steagall. For 50 years it did a decent job of preventing the kinds of economic crashes we had in 2008
FWIW the counter-argument to this is that Canada never had Glass-Steagall, and they didn't suffer nearly the economic crash that America did.
As long as I'm here I would like to add that I don't care if banks crash, as long as they don't take me with them.
Before proposing silly "solutions", could you please explain what problem are you trying to solve?
I don't know what problem he is trying to solve, but the problem that annoys me is front-running: listening for an order, then quickly buying the stock first (because you have faster connections), immediately turning around and selling it to the person who was going to buy it in the first place, but at a higher price. This does absolutely nothing to help the market as far as I can tell.
Real estate gets to be be the more complicated situation. If your ambitions for your business are modest, then you may not derive value over having the ability to place in datacenters all around the world. If you are a pure 'software/information' play with multi-national ambitions, then it's probably cheaper to get reach through a cloud provider. If however you deal with physical goods, then you get sufficiently embroiled in all sorts of complexities in dealing with geographies anyway, that cloud provider might not be sparing you from much.
I think most websites hosted on AWS don't use more than one region anyway, because it's really kind of a pain. I think most don't even use more than one availability zone, and that won't protect you when a region goes down (and it will).
Yeah, but it's not broken in the way I want it to break.
I don't understand the fixation on the terminology, while ignoring the interesting aspects of what it does.
Because it's misleading. This is weak AI, but the researchers never say that when talking to the media (they don't need to). The media misunderstands, and thinks it's strong AI, because that's the only thing they know. Then people read it and think, "Oh no, this AI is going to conquer humanity and enslave us."
Of course, this AI is not going to do that, it's just weak AI. It has no possibility of evolving into strong AI. So it's worth mentioning it, because many people are misled.
So a 50% chance of dying every year? Wow, that's just the comfort I needed on these long, cold, dark nights.
Yeah, I should do that more. You aare right, every time I do, I find something I didn't expect.
At least your hands are big. Sorry.
I mean sure the reliability would be vastly improved over anything we have now, it would be blisteringly fast from decades of optimisation, security would be better, and all of the settings would still be neatly filed away in control panel rather than vomitted all over the damn place
This is a good thing......but ironically, if you do that, if you have careful design that focuses on making things better and not just.....random, then it would be easier to have this:
shiny, synergistic, dynamic, reactive, proactive, leading edge, bleeding edge
You can make a button shiny and look good without reorganizing the interface.
I check my Wireshark logs a lot too. Probably 1 out of every 500 users will do that sort of thing.
I would bet that's closer to one in every 500,000 users. Even security researchers don't do that (of course some do).
I mentioned before backups must be tested regularly. Backups that haven't been recently tested have a failure rate of about 50%, in my experience.
What kinds of failures do you see? In the days of tape, 50% (or probably higher) was pretty common, but most people are using the 'cloud' now.
Last time I installed Windows, I was too lazy to type in the code. I had it right there on my desk, but laziness knows no bounds. The watermark stayed there for years until Win 7 ended.
Yet another reason to not waste your money on "virus protection." Use the free Windows Defender if you must, and make sure you have good backups.
Fuck her, she's old an stupid the only thing good about her is that she's at least not a republican
haha, spoken like a true San Franciscan
"I saw a woman on the beach with binoculars." (Was she holding them? Or was I looking through binoculars?)
These problems are almost as old as AI itself, nearly half a century old, and we haven't made any real improvement in solving them.
Rather, I would look for a more LIKELY explanation, namely that somebody put a fucking zebra in my office and I would start looking for the rich joker who could manage that, probably a TV production company for some candid camera thing.
That's a rational approach.
I doubt they'll believe Trump promises again.
I don't think they believed them the first time.
If they could, they would get rid of bitcoin, just like the did to e-gold.
Either we are a natural part of the patterns of the universe and natural laws, or some weird magical power put us here.
This is a false dichotomy, someone gave you some bad logic. There are a lot of other possibilities, here is one:
Basically, of everyone in the universe, someone has to be first. Maybe we won the lottery. Sometimes that happens. It seems improbable, but by the anthropic principle, if we're here to observe it, then it happened to us.
Your first three paragraphs are great, but the next two are pure bias. I agree with your conlusions, but if you're open minded you need to be open to things that annoy you. "We are alone" in no way implies there is a god. That's a weird bias you picked up.
Like Meltdown and Spectre, this 'exploit' requires a lot of things to be 'just right' for an exploit or data leak to occur.
Look up "heap spraying" to see the kind of extreme techniques that can exist. Although you can't think of something now, people think of bizarre methods.
A typical technique would be to target a particular popular piece of software, like, openSSL, which is used by basically everything. Then use a shotgun approach, and try the exploit on a thousand (or a million) different computers. Even if only 1% of servers are exploitable, then you can grab a lot of private keys. This is the technique hackers use every time a new vulnerability is found (for example) in Wordpress. Just try the exploit on every server on the internet. Most of them will fail, and updated Wordpress instances will fail, but enough will succeed to make it worth while.
Secondly, imagine this is running as Javascript on your computer. Some people never run Javascript, but most of us do. An example hack: listening for the Facebook ID cookie, so you can log in to their account (or the gmail cookie, or whatever).