Python is not a Google product. It never was. Guido worked for Google for a few years, but he started long after Python became popular. And he's been at Dropbox for a long time now. Golang is a Google effort, but there is probably not a single IT department in the world which would consider it an IT product. Kubernetes maybe the closest you can come to a credible claim and if Google came out and said they were going to start certification in Kubernetes, their announcement might sound credible. It would also kill any chance of Kubernetes further adoption because it's already widely considered too cumbersome to be worthwhile as an orchestration solution. Certification would only solidify the belief that it creates more problems than it solves.
Is Google leading in any tech that's administered by a traditional IT department? Why would having a Google certificate be indicative of any knowledge? Are they supposed to be authoritative in certifying qualifications of people in other vendors' tech?
Here's a simpler argument why your argument is dumb:
What if a woman brings her own condom and she pokes a hole in (because she wants to have a child with a man who doesn't want one)? Did she commit rape? This is dumb. Trickery is not rape.
Those who point out the foolishness of your arguments are not less bright than you. They don't misunderstand you. In this particular case, they underline why you are streching the truth.
What do you call someone that has sex with a woman outside of her consenting terms?
Nothing. There is no word for it.
A rapist.
That's a word for someone who forced himself on someone else. At no point did Assange force himself. The women were free to leave the encounter (according to what's alleged). Anyone who is free to leave is, by definition, provided free passage. If you want to argue statutory rape exceptions to the "forced" sex, you would be wrong as well because the women in question were legally capable of consent.
Lying to a women to get sex is not rape. Otherwise, you'd have to start judging what kind of lies are rape and what kind are not. According to your logic someone lying to a woman about being rich (to impress her) would be a rapist. So would someone lying about their name.
This is a very dangerous and, in fact, harmful types of thinking because they diminish (dilute really) the severity of an actual criminal rape envolving force.
I still get into a dangerous road situation, when following GPS, about once every 2-3 trips. That's entirely too often for comfort. If something that coarse can't be done right, how can the same companies be trusted to produce much more finely-tuned driving adjustments associated with fully navigating a car?
Well, that's not clear. He didn't assault any women, but he may have solicited illegal procurement of classified information. As long as that remains unproven, he remains in legal jeopardy (which is not the same as being guilty).
He didn't assault any women. He is not accused of assaulting any women. He is accused of tricking a woman into getting pregnant during consensual sex. The accusation does not assert any physical coercion. The worst he could have done was poke a hole in a condom. The women did have safe passage because the sex was consensual. And they never claimed otherwise.
They can't open diplomatic mail. Or they risk having all of their diplomatic mail becoming subject to inspection by host countries. But there are almost certainly restrictions on how large a package may be and continue to be recognized as mail.
Does NYC prefer that no product of oil companies reach NYC? If they are suing the Oil companies for providing their product, does that mean the NYC politicians are unequivocally against those products being sold in NYC? So if no gasoline was available in NYC, that would see it as an improvement? Yes, I get that they are suing to recoup externalities, but that's already recouped through tax. They can increase the tax if they think it doesn't recoup the externalities fully. If they are suing, that mean they have to allege that something untowardly has taken place. Which means that they would be Ok with having Oil companies exit the NYC market. Are they? Really? Ironically, the aftermath of hurricane Sandy (when most gas stations in NY/NJ area were off line) would be a nice preview of what would happen.
I'll give you a hint: uniform vs non-uniform convergence. Both converge. But only one of them implies the other. If you really don't get how this is relevant, I'll will gladly explain the difference for a measly fee of $500 million (just think of all the startups which don't have to be funded and fail and all the savings). If you do get the implications, you are welcome. I will not explain further though.
The fact that it is searched-for a lot can just as easily indicate that the projects in other languages get completed quicker. That would make it a less useful (and **therefore** more used) language. The fact that more C gets used is about as telling as how many KLOCs of one language (vs another language) gets written. It just substitutes how much time is spent on one language over another for how KLOCs are written. Measuring output of work by the effort put in is always bad measure. It elevates effort over accomplishment.
Put up a topologist's-sine-curve-weighted gradient. If there is an AI which can discern it, it's either not refined enough or it's the next step. I guarantee that no neural net will ever handle it.
It seems like the HR departments are growing in power more and more. With so much normal human behavior becoming criminalized and codified if it occurs in the workplace, HR departments (which write the codes and enforce them) seem to be getting more and more power. Given that they also control all hiring decision and many firing decisions, it's amazing anything gets done at all. HR now has more power over company's day-to-day business than sales. They have more power than lawyers. A simple question would be, if you had to ask an HR worker to put down rules creating a workable ethics framework, would they do a better job than an untrained CEO. My impression would be that most would not.
So any private company in that state writing software must be spies? I mean they could be... But shouldn't that be suggested by some evidence other than their location? I mean, I get it that the oweful summary says Safran bought the code, but doesn't actually say if they bought a license to redistribute or bought the source cod.e Presumably, they can audit the code if they bought the source code. And I find it difficult to believe that Safran would have bought a license to distribute without some fairly severe security sandboxing.
By the way, French have a history of (state-sanctioned) industrial espionage, so why isn't it a problem in itself that it is the French company that produced the product?
Nice try. That is not at all what we are discussing here. Not even a little bit. You used a logically fallacious argument and I pointed it out. It's been mentioned that the Aristotle quote may be fake. And, well, garbage in - garbage out.
There is a few counteractive trends at play here. So if any one of them wins out, it does show a magnified imbalance towards the end of the trend. While I don't think the absolute statement is true, it's not that hard to have examples in history which improved by focusing inwards for a while. It turned out to be a bad long-term strategy, but in the short term, it made them more stable. Of course, in the long term, ignoring external developments did prove disastrous. Although concentrating externally did make empires fall as well. But I don't think Aristotle would have been a good student of such trends simply because most of his examples (or study cases) were Greek city-states.
Failing that, maybe you should take a good long look at what you're defending; yet another ass who thinks saying "happy holidays" is an attack on Christianity.
Well, I wasn't defending anyone, but rather attacking you for being illogical. If you have a good argument against what you think is someone being an ass, great! But if you present a dumb argument to counter them, you just buttress their statement.
I don't know if the gp quote is by Aristotle, but the fact that Aristotle was wrong on gravity does not mean that Aristotle was wrong on politics. In fact, Aristotle essentially invented political science.
He was shown to be wrong on gravity by Newton. Newton did not account for relativity in his laws of motion. The fact that Newton didn't account for relativity does not mean that he was wrong on gravity.
The relativity was developed by Einstein. Which showed that Newton was only locally right (and globally wrong). Einstein was wrong about about quantum mechanics. The fact that Einstein was wrong on quantum mechanics does not mean that Einstein was wrong about relativity.
I don't know if the gp quote is by Aristotle, but the fact that Aristotle was wrong on gravity does not mean that Aristotle was wrong on politics. In fact, Aristotle essentially invented political science.
He was shown to be wrong on gravity by Newton. Newton was did not account for relativity in his laws of motion. The fact that Newton didn't account for relativity does not mean that he was wrong on gravity.
The relativity was developed by Einstein. Which showd that Newton was only locally right (and globally wrong). Einstein was wrong about about quantum mechanics. The fact that Einstein was wrong on quantum mechanics does not mean that Einstein was wrong about relativity.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the time that's called "we don't comment on ongoing litigation".
Python is not a Google product. It never was. Guido worked for Google for a few years, but he started long after Python became popular. And he's been at Dropbox for a long time now. Golang is a Google effort, but there is probably not a single IT department in the world which would consider it an IT product. Kubernetes maybe the closest you can come to a credible claim and if Google came out and said they were going to start certification in Kubernetes, their announcement might sound credible. It would also kill any chance of Kubernetes further adoption because it's already widely considered too cumbersome to be worthwhile as an orchestration solution. Certification would only solidify the belief that it creates more problems than it solves.
Not sure that I care now. But that doesn't mean that I won't welcome the changes once they happen.
Well, if you want to maintain an ecosphere of tech-savvy people, whose existence demystifies tech, you do it locally.
Is Google leading in any tech that's administered by a traditional IT department? Why would having a Google certificate be indicative of any knowledge? Are they supposed to be authoritative in certifying qualifications of people in other vendors' tech?
In what you universe is this "news that matters"?
Should I follow the same strategy with "driverless" cars? Just stick the navigation unit in the trunk and power it off?
Here's a simpler argument why your argument is dumb:
What if a woman brings her own condom and she pokes a hole in (because she wants to have a child with a man who doesn't want one)? Did she commit rape? This is dumb. Trickery is not rape.
Those who point out the foolishness of your arguments are not less bright than you. They don't misunderstand you. In this particular case, they underline why you are streching the truth.
What do you call someone that has sex with a woman outside of her consenting terms?
Nothing. There is no word for it.
A rapist.
That's a word for someone who forced himself on someone else. At no point did Assange force himself. The women were free to leave the encounter (according to what's alleged). Anyone who is free to leave is, by definition, provided free passage. If you want to argue statutory rape exceptions to the "forced" sex, you would be wrong as well because the women in question were legally capable of consent.
Lying to a women to get sex is not rape. Otherwise, you'd have to start judging what kind of lies are rape and what kind are not. According to your logic someone lying to a woman about being rich (to impress her) would be a rapist. So would someone lying about their name.
This is a very dangerous and, in fact, harmful types of thinking because they diminish (dilute really) the severity of an actual criminal rape envolving force.
I still get into a dangerous road situation, when following GPS, about once every 2-3 trips. That's entirely too often for comfort. If something that coarse can't be done right, how can the same companies be trusted to produce much more finely-tuned driving adjustments associated with fully navigating a car?
Well, that's not clear. He didn't assault any women, but he may have solicited illegal procurement of classified information. As long as that remains unproven, he remains in legal jeopardy (which is not the same as being guilty).
He didn't assault any women. He is not accused of assaulting any women. He is accused of tricking a woman into getting pregnant during consensual sex. The accusation does not assert any physical coercion. The worst he could have done was poke a hole in a condom. The women did have safe passage because the sex was consensual. And they never claimed otherwise.
They can't open diplomatic mail. Or they risk having all of their diplomatic mail becoming subject to inspection by host countries. But there are almost certainly restrictions on how large a package may be and continue to be recognized as mail.
Does NYC prefer that no product of oil companies reach NYC? If they are suing the Oil companies for providing their product, does that mean the NYC politicians are unequivocally against those products being sold in NYC? So if no gasoline was available in NYC, that would see it as an improvement? Yes, I get that they are suing to recoup externalities, but that's already recouped through tax. They can increase the tax if they think it doesn't recoup the externalities fully. If they are suing, that mean they have to allege that something untowardly has taken place. Which means that they would be Ok with having Oil companies exit the NYC market. Are they? Really? Ironically, the aftermath of hurricane Sandy (when most gas stations in NY/NJ area were off line) would be a nice preview of what would happen.
I'll give you a hint: uniform vs non-uniform convergence. Both converge. But only one of them implies the other. If you really don't get how this is relevant, I'll will gladly explain the difference for a measly fee of $500 million (just think of all the startups which don't have to be funded and fail and all the savings). If you do get the implications, you are welcome. I will not explain further though.
The fact that it is searched-for a lot can just as easily indicate that the projects in other languages get completed quicker. That would make it a less useful (and **therefore** more used) language. The fact that more C gets used is about as telling as how many KLOCs of one language (vs another language) gets written. It just substitutes how much time is spent on one language over another for how KLOCs are written. Measuring output of work by the effort put in is always bad measure. It elevates effort over accomplishment.
Not if the learning models are based on neural nets. They have a fundamental limitation (in how they are very different from actual neurons).
Put up a topologist's-sine-curve-weighted gradient. If there is an AI which can discern it, it's either not refined enough or it's the next step. I guarantee that no neural net will ever handle it.
It seems like the HR departments are growing in power more and more. With so much normal human behavior becoming criminalized and codified if it occurs in the workplace, HR departments (which write the codes and enforce them) seem to be getting more and more power. Given that they also control all hiring decision and many firing decisions, it's amazing anything gets done at all. HR now has more power over company's day-to-day business than sales. They have more power than lawyers. A simple question would be, if you had to ask an HR worker to put down rules creating a workable ethics framework, would they do a better job than an untrained CEO. My impression would be that most would not.
So any private company in that state writing software must be spies? I mean they could be... But shouldn't that be suggested by some evidence other than their location? I mean, I get it that the oweful summary says Safran bought the code, but doesn't actually say if they bought a license to redistribute or bought the source cod.e Presumably, they can audit the code if they bought the source code. And I find it difficult to believe that Safran would have bought a license to distribute without some fairly severe security sandboxing.
By the way, French have a history of (state-sanctioned) industrial espionage, so why isn't it a problem in itself that it is the French company that produced the product?
because that is what we're discussing here
Nice try. That is not at all what we are discussing here. Not even a little bit. You used a logically fallacious argument and I pointed it out. It's been mentioned that the Aristotle quote may be fake. And, well, garbage in - garbage out.
There is a few counteractive trends at play here. So if any one of them wins out, it does show a magnified imbalance towards the end of the trend. While I don't think the absolute statement is true, it's not that hard to have examples in history which improved by focusing inwards for a while. It turned out to be a bad long-term strategy, but in the short term, it made them more stable. Of course, in the long term, ignoring external developments did prove disastrous. Although concentrating externally did make empires fall as well. But I don't think Aristotle would have been a good student of such trends simply because most of his examples (or study cases) were Greek city-states.
Failing that, maybe you should take a good long look at what you're defending; yet another ass who thinks saying "happy holidays" is an attack on Christianity.
Well, I wasn't defending anyone, but rather attacking you for being illogical. If you have a good argument against what you think is someone being an ass, great! But if you present a dumb argument to counter them, you just buttress their statement.
I don't know if the gp quote is by Aristotle, but the fact that Aristotle was wrong on gravity does not mean that Aristotle was wrong on politics. In fact, Aristotle essentially invented political science.
He was shown to be wrong on gravity by Newton. Newton did not account for relativity in his laws of motion. The fact that Newton didn't account for relativity does not mean that he was wrong on gravity.
The relativity was developed by Einstein. Which showed that Newton was only locally right (and globally wrong). Einstein was wrong about about quantum mechanics. The fact that Einstein was wrong on quantum mechanics does not mean that Einstein was wrong about relativity.
I don't know if the gp quote is by Aristotle, but the fact that Aristotle was wrong on gravity does not mean that Aristotle was wrong on politics. In fact, Aristotle essentially invented political science.
He was shown to be wrong on gravity by Newton. Newton was did not account for relativity in his laws of motion. The fact that Newton didn't account for relativity does not mean that he was wrong on gravity.
The relativity was developed by Einstein. Which showd that Newton was only locally right (and globally wrong). Einstein was wrong about about quantum mechanics. The fact that Einstein was wrong on quantum mechanics does not mean that Einstein was wrong about relativity.
No, but it does make you often right.