That's from 2010 (weren't we just talking about 2010?) and the era vibe just makes your skin crawl.
So if Mark hasn't got the Montessori edge, what has he bot?
He transferred to the exclusive private school Phillips Exeter Academy, in New Hampshire, in his junior year, where he won prizes in science (math, astronomy, and physics) and classical studies.
In his youth, he also attended the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth summer camp.
On his college application, Zuckerberg stated that he could read and write French, Hebrew, Latin, and ancient Greek. He was captain of the fencing team.
Guess you don't learn much about privacy reading Hebrew, Latin, or Greek.
Folders have always been an awful way to organise things, they were just easy to implement in filesystems, and so we've been stuck with them for decades.
Yes, hierarchy and recursion are problem domain and implementation domain dead ends.
On my personal wiki, I am equally a consumer (of old notes) / producer (of new notes). I assure you, without hierarchy and recursion, my wiki structure would have become unmanageable long ago. I didn't have much hierarchy for the first six months, and it was chaos, so I devised an {{up}} template, and it's been great ever since.
Search and the lateral link-structure are awesome much of the time, but the hierarchical backbone is what keeps the whole mess sane at the end of the day.
To my ears, you kind of sound like Spiderman dissing the wheel.
At first, Sue finds Dundee less "legendary" than she had been led to believe, being unimpressed by his pleasant-mannered but uncouth behaviour and clumsy advances towards her; however, she is later amazed, when in the Outback, she witnesses "Mick" subduing a water buffalo, taking part in an aboriginal tribal dance ceremony, killing a snake with his bare hands, and scaring away the kangaroo shooters from the pub from their cruel sport.
The next morning, offended by Mick's assertion that as a "sheila" she is incapable of surviving the Outback alone, Sue goes out alone to prove him wrong but takes his rifle with her at his request. Mick follows her to make sure she is okay, but when she stops at a billabong to refill her canteen, she is attacked by a large crocodile and is rescued by Mick.
Overcome with gratitude and seeing Mick's willingness to change his bigotry, Sue finds herself becoming attracted to him.
Crocodile Dundee will henceforth have different associations:
Overcome with distrust and seeing Mick's unwillingness to change its gaping surveillance posture, tourist finds himself/herself highly reluctant to endure such a long flight, irrespective of tasty, in-flight suds.
Interesting. My notes contain Hilary Putnam, Hilary Hahn, Hilary Mantel, and Hilary Swank but only one Hillary. My brain knows better, but my fingers often operate on the straw-poll system.
Providing data is "interfering"? I'm amazed by how many people infantalize the US voter and pretend they were swayed by some junk posted on Facebook.
The iron rule of advertising: people buy advertising because it works, despite the vast majority of advertising effectively being junk.
The problem here is that junk works, and we got ourselves a president to prove it (a divisive populist who is damaging America's standing and competitiveness in the world with every second tweet, whereas Hilary would have been largely an annoying internal problem, with 20% as much brazen in-your-face factor).
You can pry "infantilism" out of my cold, disgusted hands when advertising ceases to work.
What was not to love about Trump Republicans losing in a district that's often referred to as "Northern West Virginia"? Especially after the GOP poured more than $10 million into trying to save the seat. Making the schadenfreude even more delicious, Trump threw himself into the campaign full-bore in its final stages.
Last week, he announced a steep tariff on steel and aluminum — the one issue, more than any other, that might sway this labor-heavy district into the GOP column. "Do you think it could possibly have all been for western Pennsylvania?" Gail Collins asked rhetorically in The New York Times.
Fortunately, advertising only works up to a point. It's less effective at rehabilitating a known commodity gone sour (goodbye, Hilary, and good riddance). But still, it was effective enough to land America into the present, raging immune-response soup pot.
America's electorate is not wall-to-wall infantile: if things get bad enough, they can be roused—briefly—from their drooling stupor.
But Wladimir Palant, the author of the AdBlock Plus extension, says the encryption scheme used by the master password feature is weak and can be easily brute-forced.
To support the article title, the logically necessary claim is that it was easy to brute force nine years ago.
Not that I would expect a security researcher able to improve on SHA1 to be pedantic about these kinds of "minor" details.
... Wikipedia are often abysmal, based on sometimes arbitrary citations used to write the article, and, generally speaking, Wikipedia is not a good starting point to find seminal literature on a topic.
This is true.
But spray a few keywords or central names gleaned from Wikipedia into Semantic Scholar, problem solved (though presently restricted to computer science and biomedicine):
Semantic Scholar is a project developed at the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, released in November 2015. It is designed to be a "smart" search service for journal articles. The project uses a combination of machine learning, natural language processing, machine vision to add a layer of semantic analysis to the traditional methods of citation analysis. In comparison to Google Scholar and PubMed, it is designed to quickly highlight the most important papers and identify the connections between them. As of January 2018, following a 2017 project that added biomedical papers and topic summaries, the corpus now includes more than 40 million papers from computer science and biomedicine.
Cites on Wikipedia are probably chosen less arbitrarily than you think. Ideally the cite has a sufficient distance from the subject matter, and contains simple statements that directly support the point you wish to add to the Wikipedia article. Beyond this, there's little upside in finding a perfect citation. The literature expert who has this all mapped out is probably too close to the subject matter to make a good editor, anyway (though it's nice when such a person supplied the original bones).
It's one of the weirdest things about the pragmatic cult of Wikipedia that it doesn't treat citations as first class objects. Citations are both essential by Wikipedia standards, yet afterthoughts by Wikipedia process.
To some degree, the inherent sentence-by-sentence sweep of the citation method serves as a safeguard against kinds of academic bias that are so deeply rooted that a non-specialist can hardly begin to imagine where the bias begins. (This was true with 1963 Britannica that carpeted my floor through most of my formative years. It was very weak in relating messy second opinions.)
In my view, the largely manual processes at Wikipedia are hardly the right place to construct an authoritative citation graph, or even just the seminal nucleus. Especially with other tools in the wings already beginning to blow this problem out of the water, on full automatic.
That in many cases Wikipedia is the first hit, or the first non-marketing-sponsored hit, for pretty much any noun you type into a search engine. You just end up there by default, like a Starbuck's.
While Wikipedia might be an unreliable street urchin, your grasping alternatives are almost certainly Hotel California pedophiles with glowing, flashing, throbbing kiddy canes (though some are disguised better than others).
No, you don't end on Wikipedia by default. You end up on Wikipedia by wisdom of the prudent mob.
Google observes people choosing to go there by default because, unlike 90% of all major properties on the Internet, Wikipedia doesn't contain eyeball fly paper or tracking beacons. And then Google ranks accordingly. (Yes, it's a circular dance.)
Forewarned is forearmed. And then, if you still want to, you can secure your travel purse, pluck up your courage, and go back out into the wild world to take your chance on the standard fare.
Let it not be forgotten that the primacy of information remains, but the gatekeepers of primary information are becoming increasingly specialized and dispersed throughout the social graph. One of the problems here is not that information is waning, but that the social internet deluge refuses to wane.
In approximately 300 B.C., Euclid brought together much of what was known in mathematics up to that point in 13 volumes. He systematically organized this material, beginning with a short list of first principles and piecing together a body of knowledge as an extended chain.
The Elements became the standard textbook in geometry for the next twenty-two hundred years. It is only in the last one hundred years that it has been discarded as required reading for all educated people.
The expectation used to be that an educated person could somehow manage to cram the essential information working-set into their brain's as a young adult, and that would provide a solid (and shared) operational basis throughout adulthood. In modern mathematics, one often sees Poincare mooted as the last universalist.
No longer do we even cram the essence of one field into our brains all at once.
One approach to this conundrum is just to accept that you're working at second (or third, or fourth) hand most of the time. The other is to dump the knowledge itself, and turn your brain into a glorified index-card compendium: rarely to have the knowledge, but to have the Knowledge about where it lives (which is rarely more than three inspired search keywords and a click or two away).
Actually, "challenge" isn't quite the word for the trial a London cabbie endures to gain his qualification. It has been called the hardest test, of any kind, in the world. Its rigors have been likened to those required to earn a degree in law or medicine.
It is without question a unique intellectual, psychological and physical ordeal, demanding unnumbered thousands of hours of immersive study... a process which, on average, takes four years to complete, and for some, much longer than that.
PBS's edumentary The Brain with David Eagleman (2015) has a segment on neurological change induced by this learning process (not a small effect, either). The specific subject of this giant, journalistic wall-of-text from turns out to be a crazy man:
He sold his engineering outfit and devoted himself full-time to the Knowledge, living off the savings he'd gained from the sale of his business.
Nevertheless, I relate to his endeavour. Half of the time on the Internet, I feel like a "butter boy" endlessly committing to mind the knowledge graph. Not the knowledge itself, just the graph, with just a little help from my own personal wiki.
Strangely, the key organizational principle in my wiki is a social graph: the names of people who discovered or wrote things. People make for the best landmarks. This was reinforced for me by a remark in a Bryan Cantrill video, where he said "corporations don't innovate, people do". I've borne this maxim in mind ever since. When a corporation talks about corporate innovation, ask yourself who the people are. If you don't know, you're being sold a bill of goods. Why is clang so great? Because it was Chris Lattner, as supported by Apple, and not some generic Apple product team. And usually when the key people leave, the innovation does, too. So my social graph consists of the people
We've always had tribal reputation outsourcing. The main difference is that we now have tribal reputation outsourcing on crack.
In addition, we've always had a rich vocabulary concerning those who outsource their opinions while exercising insufficient personal vigilance: toady, bootlicker, sycophant, fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, and mean-girl wannabee (to commence dining with a preliminary cheese plate).
For the soup course, we have on offer a rich gumbo:
* fear * authoritarian submission * self-righteousness * compartmentalized thinking * hostility * prejudice * ethnocentrism * dogmatism * our "biggest problem" * feeling empowered in groups * insecurity * lack of critical thinking * egregious double standards
The other difference is that you no longer have to attend the meetings, the social media mess tent comes to you.
(My background Scrabble brain spied an opportunity to randomly rearrange the jackboot soup recipe to spell out a vile epithet; verily I remain an adult child.)
How many of those things contaminate an entire apartment building so much the best option is to burn it to the ground without allowing residents to collect their belongings?
Contamination is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
Some of these "contaminants" might have no human (or wildlife) health effects, but could simply be watch-list chemicals for terrorism screening sensors, and the authorities simply don't want to have to navigate false positives for years or decades to come.
Now grab your popcorn and watch the fire insurance companies declare this self-interested DHS bonfire an act of God.
When she returns to a population center larger than Seneca, Nebraska, maybe she won't need the gun so much.
The largest regulating influence on physical confrontation is the social environment. On average, woman slightly outperform men in best exploiting their social environment.
Bottom line: step away from the bathroom scale, and consider some of the other crucial factors.
Whoops, I didn't mean to leave my reference to Little Shop of Horrors quite so oblique. Insert your own Steve Martin / Jeff Bezos gold-filling "maintenance" joke.
And fear of being Amazoned has become such a defining feature of commerce, it's easy to forget the phenomenon has arisen mostly in about three years.
WTF?
The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon (2013) lays this entire saga out bare. Already, by then, many of Amazon's core tactics were old news.
But apparently, a lot of people out there were somehow living in their own personal reality distortion clouds: somehow perceiving Amazon through their "ah, it's so cute!" man-eating baby-broccoli peril-impervious sun shades.
We just saw a profiteer try to punish a publisher for disobedience, and writers threatened by corporate fatwa. And I see a lot of us, the producers, who write the books and make the books, accepting this — letting commodity profiteers sell us like deodorant, and tell us what to publish, what to write.
Since early May Amazon has been locked in a standoff with the French publishing house after Hachette refused to give Amazon pricing control over its ebooks, which would have seen most of their digital titles discounted to less than $10 a book.
Amazon came under criticism for its "aggressive" negotiating tactics, which included preventing customers from being able to pre-order Hachette titles, reducing the discounts it offered on Hachette books and even delaying shipment of some of the publisher's titles for up to a month, all which had a huge impact on sales.
In a recent anthology, Words Are My Matter (2016), she talks about how much she anguished over writing that speech, essentially biting the hand that granted her that award. But she decided, in the end, that she meant every last work of it. Amazon actually had themselves their own table at that ceremony, where they sat stiff and thin-lipped during Le Guin's oratory.
People mentioning Pizzagate, Agenda 21, NWO are laughed at, or are warned off as potential trolls, so they don't make others look bad.
The degree to which this lunacy rubs off on other people is proportional to how close their positions are to those listed above.
What I'm hearing you say: Gotta flush some batshit 11s, so that we don't look bad as batshit 10s.
The whole reason that pizzagate became a cross-spectrum meme is because it's a handy batshit 11, where the pizzagate meme-dropper doesn't need to know a damn thing, because it simply can't go seriously sideways (99% of the sober Internet is on your side).
A know-nothing spectral boob trying to mock a batshit 9 in a roomful of true believers soon gets his fingers and toes hacked off. And so we have the safe, cliche uber memes.
Start at about 2m30 (the narrator's preamble is pretty smug).
So he's a Young Earth creationist through and through, but he somehow draws the line over Biblical literalism concerning a flat earth. What does that argue for his mental competence? I can't figure that out, but I do know that people are complicated, and that isn't going to change soon.
Somewhere a Netflix engineer is laughing his ragged ass off.
A sober assessment is that there will soon be a far larger number of articles semi-protected.
If we can somehow figure out how to mass produce the Jordan Peterson mind-meld, Wikipedia might even be able to make constructive use of this influx of outrage and youthful energy.
(That last paragraph wasn't part of the sober assessment, just in case your mental parser is invisibly fond of scope creep.)
TrU was bought a few years ago by an asset stripping private equity group.
If this model works so great, why don't the pirates buy Google, too? Just imagine the size of a Google squeeze.
Obviously, the underlying reason that TrU was targetting in the first place is because it was a vulnerable business, clearly facing into a stiff, online-retail head wind, and the bottom-feeding pirates could clamber aboard at an affordable hoard of highly leveraged ducats.
Why #3: What prevented TrU from defending itself with the appropriate iocane poison pill?
I don't happen to know enough about this to answer that question, but the reason can't be that they had never heard of the Princess Bride.
Now, Intel also did never manage to come up with anything x86 that was suitable for a smartphone.
I went though a short, thirty-year obsession with all things microarchitecture. The appalling stupidity of accepted memes in this space I'll surely carry to my lonely grave.
Crufty x86: here's how it broke down.
First, about 50% of the original cruft drank the shrink-me fluid, and shrank down so small you can barely see it now (e.g. some extra microcode entries in a rarely used, unpopular spiral annex of the instruction decode table for misbegotten 286-era CISC call gates.) Jesus, people, exponential happens.
Second, about 25% of the cruft turned out to not nearly be so crufty as legend would have it. The RISC camp soils itself over the read-modify-write instruction group. But generating a complex address once (yes, x86 does complex address generation within the context of a single instruction) rather than twice alleviates substantial pressure on the address look-aside unit. It's also a very handy and compact addressing mode for minor stack spill (e.g. function variables that don't quite manage to stay in registers all the time). With a 30% instruction encoding density advantage over the original ARM32, you need many fewer transistors in your i-cache to achieve the same i-cache hit ratio. The bigger your caches, the more free transistors to apply elsewhere. x86 is still a bit short on registers despite rmw, but you gain a bunch of this back on lighter context switches, so it's not a complete write-off.
The other 25% is an eternal pain in the ass. Here's how the PITA component breaks down. The majority of it has little impact on peak throughput at all, but it comes at a thermal efficiency cost. The thermal cost is mostly irrelevant if you are sucking juice from a wall socket, and your processor is not hitting the thermal wall. The other side of this is a hideous sunk-cost in the engineering trickery required to pull this off (for a company the size of Intel, however, hideous is mostly peanuts, and nice barrier to entry you've got there, shame if a different device category became prominent).
A minority of the PITA aspects of the instruction set are just permanently a PITA. Deep OOO requires extensive hazard detection, and x86 has hazards up the wazoo (many partial register writes, and seventeen different flavours of flag register update subsets). This costs silicon, this costs power, this costs cycle time, this costs pipeline stages. Lose, lose, lose.
Considering the architecture is now 40-years old, that's not exactly a resounding F on the old report card, by a sane grader.
Because of aspects like instruction decode alignment (with those blasted variable prefix bytes) and extremely complex hazard detection x86 is just always going to produce twice as much heat arriving at the same result 20% faster than any reasonable design that was originally power conscious.
I suspect most of this fixed thermal inefficiency resides in the front end and not the back end. Meaning that an alternative x86 instruction set could be devised (somewhat more drastically different than Thumb-2 vs. Thumb) with vastly more efficient instruction decode (thermally) and vastly fewer implicit scheduling hazards. Caches, register sets, dispatch pipelines, retirement unit, memory ports, execution units, these could all remain the same. Perhaps the only register you'd want to muck with is the flags register, and maybe you'd trash the ability to write to AH (though you'd probably keep partial register writes to AL to handle common byte operations).
[*] Fifteen years ago, the ugly details of this stuff was more in my head, so my examples predate AMD64, but mutatis mutandis.
Maybe by doing so you'd even close the gap enough to compete with ARM. But: a huge redevelopment and validation cost (what, me validate?), another substantially different code generation mode for every major compiler, another by
When I hover over a YouTube recommendation, a vertical "..." control appears, which can be clicked upon to pop up a small menu.
Inside this floating drip, drip, drip menu there are three items: Not interested, Add to Watch later, and Add to playlist.
I've been running experiments on Not interested. First I applied it to every video where the thumbnail contained giant boobs. I like boobs, but there's a time and place, but pressed into my nose all day long—under false pretences, more often than not—is not the time and place.
If it really is machine learning under the hood, in theory YouTube would detect this conspicuous pattern. Miraculously, after dismissing many dozens of these, YouTube rarely offers up thumbnail cleavage any longer. But what did it really conclude? That I don't like boobs? That I don't like videos thumbnailed under false pretences? That I don't like the kinds of subject matter typically bannered under "here be the big boobies"?—for which the "fail" genre servers as the conspicuous anchor tenant. Or did it just run out of booby thumbnails in its primary recommendation rotation? From the outside looking in, it's hard to know.
Then I watched a bunch of chess analysis videos after AlphaZero "destroyed" Stockfish. I decided that I really like agadmator's coverage in general, so I watched some of his classics. By this point, 50% of my recommendation column on nearly every YouTube screen was chess videos. So I started to systematically blow these away with my persistent Not interested assault weapon (more of a musket than a semi-automatic, but you go to war with the army you have). It took about a week, and one- to two-hundred repetitions, but now the chess videos arise in my feed no more.
Then I got interested in the Sam Harris interactions with/about Jordan Peterson (who is not an idiot, and not a puppet of the far right, but very well read, articulate, 50% a clone of my own perspective on life, and 50% the exact opposite of my perspective on life; in short, about the most useful resource presently available to me to drive actual personal growth). It wasn't long before I was viewing Harris's "controversial" interview of Charles Murray. (By merely adding that scarequote disclaimer, a certain faction of the Identity Politics Police have already won.)
You can guess what happened to my recommendation feed after that.
Now, this could have been far worse than it was, because I had long been waging a slow campaign of rooftop assassination of any video containing ALLCAPS somewhere in the video title (especially if the main verb, and most especially the snowclone "x DESTROYS y about z"—if you've already mentally replaced z with "Zionism", YouTube has conditioned you well).
Optimally x and y are selected to maximize brass-knuckle pursuit dynamics. We've all seen this trope on WWE. Back when I grew up in the two-channel 1970s, wrestling was one notch above ultimate pain, variety hours such as Lawrence Welk, Tommy Hunter, Rene Simard, or the The Pig and Whistle, so I endured enough wrestling to internalize all the wrestling tropes for life, while desperately checking back to the other channel every three minutes in prayer, I guess, for the kind of programming miracle—surely on par with the virgin birth (whatever that was)—where an entire show is cancelled and replaced mid-episode (I dreamed this dream week after week for what seemed like years and years).
Brass-knuckle pursuit dynamics is where the black hats have both guys in the ring, while the white-hat's partner distractedly sits the imbalance out (bear in mind, this is Canada in the 1970s, where any given NHL bench-clearing brawl clears the bench right down to the lowest equipment manager, so the 250+ lb muscle-bound white hat going Daisy Daydream while his partner gets two-wayed in the ring already strained the c
There has been no evidence of malicious AI systems, and besides, other countries won't be enacting the same regulation either.
Neither has there been any evidence that waiting for evidence is a survivable strategy.
At root, there's always a decision made before evidence becomes available. This is often a decision to wait for evidence to become available.
Of course, by the iron law of survivorship bias, the wait and see policy can never be wrong. ET, where are you?
I don't happen to agree with Musk that the problem is presently this dire, but his proposal is absolutely worth considering seriously, and better sooner than never, even at some cost.
Slashdot Mirror
So far as I can see, Zuckerberg was born with a short cluestick on certain matters, and this will never change.
Google Founders Talk Montessori
That's from 2010 (weren't we just talking about 2010?) and the era vibe just makes your skin crawl.
So if Mark hasn't got the Montessori edge, what has he bot?
Guess you don't learn much about privacy reading Hebrew, Latin, or Greek.
Yes, hierarchy and recursion are problem domain and implementation domain dead ends.
On my personal wiki, I am equally a consumer (of old notes) / producer (of new notes). I assure you, without hierarchy and recursion, my wiki structure would have become unmanageable long ago. I didn't have much hierarchy for the first six months, and it was chaos, so I devised an {{up}} template, and it's been great ever since.
Search and the lateral link-structure are awesome much of the time, but the hierarchical backbone is what keeps the whole mess sane at the end of the day.
To my ears, you kind of sound like Spiderman dissing the wheel.
As the legend would have it:
Crocodile Dundee will henceforth have different associations:
Personally, based on the summary text, I'd wait for version 2.
Bumping my scrolling mid-flight is instantaneous carotid rupture territory.
Some terminals do that when you're trying to cut and paste.
Good thing my GP didn't get a BP reading during those moments, or I'd be on seven flavours of Lipitor already.
Interesting. My notes contain Hilary Putnam, Hilary Hahn, Hilary Mantel, and Hilary Swank but only one Hillary. My brain knows better, but my fingers often operate on the straw-poll system.
The iron rule of advertising: people buy advertising because it works, despite the vast majority of advertising effectively being junk.
The problem here is that junk works, and we got ourselves a president to prove it (a divisive populist who is damaging America's standing and competitiveness in the world with every second tweet, whereas Hilary would have been largely an annoying internal problem, with 20% as much brazen in-your-face factor).
You can pry "infantilism" out of my cold, disgusted hands when advertising ceases to work.
Why Democrats Should Worry About Conor Lamb's Victory — 14 March 2018
Fortunately, advertising only works up to a point. It's less effective at rehabilitating a known commodity gone sour (goodbye, Hilary, and good riddance). But still, it was effective enough to land America into the present, raging immune-response soup pot.
America's electorate is not wall-to-wall infantile: if things get bad enough, they can be roused—briefly—from their drooling stupor.
Fortunately, there's always Slashdot, where your opposite loudness goes unopposed by the shrill of voice.
To support the article title, the logically necessary claim is that it was easy to brute force nine years ago.
Not that I would expect a security researcher able to improve on SHA1 to be pedantic about these kinds of "minor" details.
This is true.
But spray a few keywords or central names gleaned from Wikipedia into Semantic Scholar, problem solved (though presently restricted to computer science and biomedicine):
Cites on Wikipedia are probably chosen less arbitrarily than you think. Ideally the cite has a sufficient distance from the subject matter, and contains simple statements that directly support the point you wish to add to the Wikipedia article. Beyond this, there's little upside in finding a perfect citation. The literature expert who has this all mapped out is probably too close to the subject matter to make a good editor, anyway (though it's nice when such a person supplied the original bones).
It's one of the weirdest things about the pragmatic cult of Wikipedia that it doesn't treat citations as first class objects. Citations are both essential by Wikipedia standards, yet afterthoughts by Wikipedia process.
To some degree, the inherent sentence-by-sentence sweep of the citation method serves as a safeguard against kinds of academic bias that are so deeply rooted that a non-specialist can hardly begin to imagine where the bias begins. (This was true with 1963 Britannica that carpeted my floor through most of my formative years. It was very weak in relating messy second opinions.)
In my view, the largely manual processes at Wikipedia are hardly the right place to construct an authoritative citation graph, or even just the seminal nucleus. Especially with other tools in the wings already beginning to blow this problem out of the water, on full automatic.
While Wikipedia might be an unreliable street urchin, your grasping alternatives are almost certainly Hotel California pedophiles with glowing, flashing, throbbing kiddy canes (though some are disguised better than others).
No, you don't end on Wikipedia by default. You end up on Wikipedia by wisdom of the prudent mob.
Google observes people choosing to go there by default because, unlike 90% of all major properties on the Internet, Wikipedia doesn't contain eyeball fly paper or tracking beacons. And then Google ranks accordingly. (Yes, it's a circular dance.)
Forewarned is forearmed. And then, if you still want to, you can secure your travel purse, pluck up your courage, and go back out into the wild world to take your chance on the standard fare.
Let it not be forgotten that the primacy of information remains, but the gatekeepers of primary information are becoming increasingly specialized and dispersed throughout the social graph. One of the problems here is not that information is waning, but that the social internet deluge refuses to wane.
The Purpose of Mathematics in a Classical Education — 1 March 2017 by Thomas Treloar
The expectation used to be that an educated person could somehow manage to cram the essential information working-set into their brain's as a young adult, and that would provide a solid (and shared) operational basis throughout adulthood. In modern mathematics, one often sees Poincare mooted as the last universalist.
No longer do we even cram the essence of one field into our brains all at once.
One approach to this conundrum is just to accept that you're working at second (or third, or fourth) hand most of the time. The other is to dump the knowledge itself, and turn your brain into a glorified index-card compendium: rarely to have the knowledge, but to have the Knowledge about where it lives (which is rarely more than three inspired search keywords and a click or two away).
The Knowledge, London's Legendary Taxi-Driver Test, Puts Up a Fight in the Age of GPS — November 2014
PBS's edumentary The Brain with David Eagleman (2015) has a segment on neurological change induced by this learning process (not a small effect, either). The specific subject of this giant, journalistic wall-of-text from turns out to be a crazy man:
Nevertheless, I relate to his endeavour. Half of the time on the Internet, I feel like a "butter boy" endlessly committing to mind the knowledge graph. Not the knowledge itself, just the graph, with just a little help from my own personal wiki.
Strangely, the key organizational principle in my wiki is a social graph: the names of people who discovered or wrote things. People make for the best landmarks. This was reinforced for me by a remark in a Bryan Cantrill video, where he said "corporations don't innovate, people do". I've borne this maxim in mind ever since. When a corporation talks about corporate innovation, ask yourself who the people are. If you don't know, you're being sold a bill of goods. Why is clang so great? Because it was Chris Lattner, as supported by Apple, and not some generic Apple product team. And usually when the key people leave, the innovation does, too. So my social graph consists of the people
We've always had tribal reputation outsourcing. The main difference is that we now have tribal reputation outsourcing on crack.
In addition, we've always had a rich vocabulary concerning those who outsource their opinions while exercising insufficient personal vigilance: toady, bootlicker, sycophant, fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, and mean-girl wannabee (to commence dining with a preliminary cheese plate).
For the soup course, we have on offer a rich gumbo:
* fear
* authoritarian submission
* self-righteousness
* compartmentalized thinking
* hostility
* prejudice
* ethnocentrism
* dogmatism
* our "biggest problem"
* feeling empowered in groups
* insecurity
* lack of critical thinking
* egregious double standards
The other difference is that you no longer have to attend the meetings, the social media mess tent comes to you.
(My background Scrabble brain spied an opportunity to randomly rearrange the jackboot soup recipe to spell out a vile epithet; verily I remain an adult child.)
Contamination is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
Some of these "contaminants" might have no human (or wildlife) health effects, but could simply be watch-list chemicals for terrorism screening sensors, and the authorities simply don't want to have to navigate false positives for years or decades to come.
Now grab your popcorn and watch the fire insurance companies declare this self-interested DHS bonfire an act of God.
When she returns to a population center larger than Seneca, Nebraska, maybe she won't need the gun so much.
The largest regulating influence on physical confrontation is the social environment. On average, woman slightly outperform men in best exploiting their social environment.
Bottom line: step away from the bathroom scale, and consider some of the other crucial factors.
Whoops, I didn't mean to leave my reference to Little Shop of Horrors quite so oblique. Insert your own Steve Martin / Jeff Bezos gold-filling "maintenance" joke.
WTF?
The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon (2013) lays this entire saga out bare. Already, by then, many of Amazon's core tactics were old news.
But apparently, a lot of people out there were somehow living in their own personal reality distortion clouds: somehow perceiving Amazon through their "ah, it's so cute!" man-eating baby-broccoli peril-impervious sun shades.
Ursula K Le Guin's speech at National Book Awards: Books aren't just commodities — 2014
Here's the reference:
Amazon and publisher Hachette end dispute over online book sales — 2014
In a recent anthology, Words Are My Matter (2016), she talks about how much she anguished over writing that speech, essentially biting the hand that granted her that award. But she decided, in the end, that she meant every last work of it. Amazon actually had themselves their own table at that ceremony, where they sat stiff and thin-lipped during Le Guin's oratory.
The degree to which this lunacy rubs off on other people is proportional to how close their positions are to those listed above.
What I'm hearing you say: Gotta flush some batshit 11s, so that we don't look bad as batshit 10s.
The whole reason that pizzagate became a cross-spectrum meme is because it's a handy batshit 11, where the pizzagate meme-dropper doesn't need to know a damn thing, because it simply can't go seriously sideways (99% of the sober Internet is on your side).
A know-nothing spectral boob trying to mock a batshit 9 in a roomful of true believers soon gets his fingers and toes hacked off. And so we have the safe, cliche uber memes.
What On Earth Does Kent Hovind Believe - Part 1 - The Flat Earth
Start at about 2m30 (the narrator's preamble is pretty smug).
So he's a Young Earth creationist through and through, but he somehow draws the line over Biblical literalism concerning a flat earth. What does that argue for his mental competence? I can't figure that out, but I do know that people are complicated, and that isn't going to change soon.
Somewhere a Netflix engineer is laughing his ragged ass off.
A sober assessment is that there will soon be a far larger number of articles semi-protected.
If we can somehow figure out how to mass produce the Jordan Peterson mind-meld, Wikipedia might even be able to make constructive use of this influx of outrage and youthful energy.
(That last paragraph wasn't part of the sober assessment, just in case your mental parser is invisibly fond of scope creep.)
If this model works so great, why don't the pirates buy Google, too? Just imagine the size of a Google squeeze.
Obviously, the underlying reason that TrU was targetting in the first place is because it was a vulnerable business, clearly facing into a stiff, online-retail head wind, and the bottom-feeding pirates could clamber aboard at an affordable hoard of highly leveraged ducats.
Why #3: What prevented TrU from defending itself with the appropriate iocane poison pill?
I don't happen to know enough about this to answer that question, but the reason can't be that they had never heard of the Princess Bride.
Yes, and then the video ends for no apparent reason, with the mysterious object still locked.
Most probable explanation: ET caused a malfunction of some kind in the recording gear.
The corporate DNA is strong in this one.
I went though a short, thirty-year obsession with all things microarchitecture. The appalling stupidity of accepted memes in this space I'll surely carry to my lonely grave.
Crufty x86: here's how it broke down.
First, about 50% of the original cruft drank the shrink-me fluid, and shrank down so small you can barely see it now (e.g. some extra microcode entries in a rarely used, unpopular spiral annex of the instruction decode table for misbegotten 286-era CISC call gates.) Jesus, people, exponential happens.
Second, about 25% of the cruft turned out to not nearly be so crufty as legend would have it. The RISC camp soils itself over the read-modify-write instruction group. But generating a complex address once (yes, x86 does complex address generation within the context of a single instruction) rather than twice alleviates substantial pressure on the address look-aside unit. It's also a very handy and compact addressing mode for minor stack spill (e.g. function variables that don't quite manage to stay in registers all the time). With a 30% instruction encoding density advantage over the original ARM32, you need many fewer transistors in your i-cache to achieve the same i-cache hit ratio. The bigger your caches, the more free transistors to apply elsewhere. x86 is still a bit short on registers despite rmw, but you gain a bunch of this back on lighter context switches, so it's not a complete write-off.
The other 25% is an eternal pain in the ass. Here's how the PITA component breaks down. The majority of it has little impact on peak throughput at all, but it comes at a thermal efficiency cost. The thermal cost is mostly irrelevant if you are sucking juice from a wall socket, and your processor is not hitting the thermal wall. The other side of this is a hideous sunk-cost in the engineering trickery required to pull this off (for a company the size of Intel, however, hideous is mostly peanuts, and nice barrier to entry you've got there, shame if a different device category became prominent).
A minority of the PITA aspects of the instruction set are just permanently a PITA. Deep OOO requires extensive hazard detection, and x86 has hazards up the wazoo (many partial register writes, and seventeen different flavours of flag register update subsets). This costs silicon, this costs power, this costs cycle time, this costs pipeline stages. Lose, lose, lose.
Considering the architecture is now 40-years old, that's not exactly a resounding F on the old report card, by a sane grader.
Because of aspects like instruction decode alignment (with those blasted variable prefix bytes) and extremely complex hazard detection x86 is just always going to produce twice as much heat arriving at the same result 20% faster than any reasonable design that was originally power conscious.
I suspect most of this fixed thermal inefficiency resides in the front end and not the back end. Meaning that an alternative x86 instruction set could be devised (somewhat more drastically different than Thumb-2 vs. Thumb) with vastly more efficient instruction decode (thermally) and vastly fewer implicit scheduling hazards. Caches, register sets, dispatch pipelines, retirement unit, memory ports, execution units, these could all remain the same. Perhaps the only register you'd want to muck with is the flags register, and maybe you'd trash the ability to write to AH (though you'd probably keep partial register writes to AL to handle common byte operations).
[*] Fifteen years ago, the ugly details of this stuff was more in my head, so my examples predate AMD64, but mutatis mutandis.
Maybe by doing so you'd even close the gap enough to compete with ARM. But: a huge redevelopment and validation cost (what, me validate?), another substantially different code generation mode for every major compiler, another by
When I hover over a YouTube recommendation, a vertical "..." control appears, which can be clicked upon to pop up a small menu.
Inside this floating drip, drip, drip menu there are three items: Not interested, Add to Watch later, and Add to playlist.
I've been running experiments on Not interested. First I applied it to every video where the thumbnail contained giant boobs. I like boobs, but there's a time and place, but pressed into my nose all day long—under false pretences, more often than not—is not the time and place.
If it really is machine learning under the hood, in theory YouTube would detect this conspicuous pattern. Miraculously, after dismissing many dozens of these, YouTube rarely offers up thumbnail cleavage any longer. But what did it really conclude? That I don't like boobs? That I don't like videos thumbnailed under false pretences? That I don't like the kinds of subject matter typically bannered under "here be the big boobies"?—for which the "fail" genre servers as the conspicuous anchor tenant. Or did it just run out of booby thumbnails in its primary recommendation rotation? From the outside looking in, it's hard to know.
Then I watched a bunch of chess analysis videos after AlphaZero "destroyed" Stockfish. I decided that I really like agadmator's coverage in general, so I watched some of his classics. By this point, 50% of my recommendation column on nearly every YouTube screen was chess videos. So I started to systematically blow these away with my persistent Not interested assault weapon (more of a musket than a semi-automatic, but you go to war with the army you have). It took about a week, and one- to two-hundred repetitions, but now the chess videos arise in my feed no more.
Then I got interested in the Sam Harris interactions with/about Jordan Peterson (who is not an idiot, and not a puppet of the far right, but very well read, articulate, 50% a clone of my own perspective on life, and 50% the exact opposite of my perspective on life; in short, about the most useful resource presently available to me to drive actual personal growth). It wasn't long before I was viewing Harris's "controversial" interview of Charles Murray. (By merely adding that scarequote disclaimer, a certain faction of the Identity Politics Police have already won.)
You can guess what happened to my recommendation feed after that.
Now, this could have been far worse than it was, because I had long been waging a slow campaign of rooftop assassination of any video containing ALLCAPS somewhere in the video title (especially if the main verb, and most especially the snowclone "x DESTROYS y about z"—if you've already mentally replaced z with "Zionism", YouTube has conditioned you well).
Optimally x and y are selected to maximize brass-knuckle pursuit dynamics. We've all seen this trope on WWE. Back when I grew up in the two-channel 1970s, wrestling was one notch above ultimate pain, variety hours such as Lawrence Welk, Tommy Hunter, Rene Simard, or the The Pig and Whistle, so I endured enough wrestling to internalize all the wrestling tropes for life, while desperately checking back to the other channel every three minutes in prayer, I guess, for the kind of programming miracle—surely on par with the virgin birth (whatever that was)—where an entire show is cancelled and replaced mid-episode (I dreamed this dream week after week for what seemed like years and years).
Brass-knuckle pursuit dynamics is where the black hats have both guys in the ring, while the white-hat's partner distractedly sits the imbalance out (bear in mind, this is Canada in the 1970s, where any given NHL bench-clearing brawl clears the bench right down to the lowest equipment manager, so the 250+ lb muscle-bound white hat going Daisy Daydream while his partner gets two-wayed in the ring already strained the c
Neither has there been any evidence that waiting for evidence is a survivable strategy.
At root, there's always a decision made before evidence becomes available. This is often a decision to wait for evidence to become available.
Of course, by the iron law of survivorship bias, the wait and see policy can never be wrong. ET, where are you?
I don't happen to agree with Musk that the problem is presently this dire, but his proposal is absolutely worth considering seriously, and better sooner than never, even at some cost.