Simple rule of thumb to distinguish machine learning from AI:
- If it's written in Python, it's probably ML.
- If it's written in Powerpoint, it's probably AI.
I've consistently seen Aurora MySQL performance worse than RDS MySQL on writes, and overall, a carefully tuned (in a way you can't tune RDS or Aurora due to lack of access) MariaDB instance on EC2 will utterly annihilate Aurora and RDS on overall performance, for same instance sizes.
Of course, a bare metal setup of the same size (same CPU cores, same RAM amount) will annihilate the EC2 instance on performance and at about half of the TCO over three years, but nobody seems to care about that these days.
"The license plate readers cost $20,000 per patrol car."
Pretty sure the total BOM for a device that will reliably do this 24/7 cannot be more than about $200, with maybe a week of developer time to string together some open source software to do this.
Not quite true. When it comes to serious things like cancer survival rates, US turns out to be actually pretty damn good.
UK typically gets top marks everywhere except the only imporant thing - outcomes, where it scores close to rock bottom.
Also, at least in UK, there is a thriving private medical industry for people who are willing to stump up the cash for private insurance because the state funded single payer health provisions are not what you want to be at the mercy of for a serious illness.
Bottom line, just because there are plenty of examples of single payer healthcare systems, it doesn't automatically make them good or better than the alternatives. Ultimately you have to decide which 2 of the 3 you want:
- Universality
- Quality
- Affordability
You cannot have all three. People need to wake up to that simple fact.
The thing that this particular teletubby interface update broke is information density. After the update, the new skin in both gmail and calendar quite simply puts less on a screen. On the desktop it is annoying. On the mobile devices with limited screen real estate, it is downright devastating for usage and productivity.
It's as if since the turn of the century, user interfaces have been continuously redesigned to be more and more friendly toward children under 2 - with rounded corners and buttons too big to accidentally swallow. It's as if Fischer Price have been contracted to do user interface designs ever since.
And a ride hailing company doesn't have fixed rides/routes it fulfills.
Freelancer.com IS a main source of income for a non-trivial fraction of it's members.
Employment fundamentally requires mutuality of obligation. In the context of an Uber driver, if the driver MUST accept the ride they have been assigned under pain of divorce and their employer is paying them regardless of whether there are any fares to pick up, then they are an employee. If they are free to decide whether to work or not at any time, and are free to accept or reject any fare as they please, then clearly there is no mutuality of obligation and thus there is no employment. Otherwise it's a bit like arguing that the plumber you called out to fix a leak in your kitchen is your employee and you now also owe them holiday pay and employer's pension contributions on top of the hourly rate they are charging you.
So by this logic, everybody bidding on contracts on freelancer.com is now an employee of freelancer.com and entitled to minimum wage for the duration of their membership?
This fundamentally fails the employment test of mutuality of obligation because an Uber driver is under no obligation to accept any available drive.
There are compliance regulations in many sectors, including finance (which includes insurance) and medical (which includes medical insurers) that say that everything has to be kept for a number of years. So on the whole in most of the civilised world, this sort of thing absolutely isn't going to fly.
You clearly drank far too much koolaid about the capabilities of AI.
The solution is simple and low-tech - introduce separate recycling bins for each type of recyclable waste (paper, plastic, metal), and make people take responsibility for their own shit - as unpalatable as it may seem to people suffering from delusions of entitlement. Add some bankrupting punitive fines for contaminating recycling for good measure, just to make sure.
The company is liable for corporation taxes in it's local tax jurisdiction, the person doing the work is liable for personal taxes, including national insurance, in the jurisdiction where they are tax resident.
That's interesting, because when different brands share the same platform with a huge parts overlap under different part numbers, you can save a fortune by cross-checking what are identical parts. For example, Porsche Cayenne, VW Touareg, and to a large extent Audi Q7 are largely the same, apart from trim and some of the engine options. But you can pick up things like air suspension components for a Touareg for a lot less than the same part for a Cayenne, even though the only difference is the part number.
This is far from being an only example, too.
Your number of pixels reason is stupid. You can use it to argue the opposite. The shorter the aspect ratio gets the fewer pixels you get for the same height.
You clearly either didn't read or didn't comprehend what I said, specifically "the less square the aspect ratio, the fewer pixels you get for the same width".
Now, granted, you probably don't want 1:1 aspect ratio even if you only have one eye - human eye sees in an aspect ratio of approximately 5:3 (15:9).
16:10 was a much better aspect ratio than 16:9 for just about any workload - including movies.
It's all about marketing - the less square the aspect ratio, the fewer pixels you get for the same width (e.g. 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080, or 3840x2400 vs. 3840x2160) and diagonal size, the two main metrics by which screens are marketed. The manufacturer gets to sell you fewer pixels, resulting in better yields, and less surface area, resulting in lower cost to them, all while getting to charge you a higher price because the numbers look the same or better.
This is in part why now, after a few years of manufacturers having shaped the market by making 16:9 the norm, we are now seeing an increase in ultra-wide screens which take this to the next level.
Because the incidence of brain cancer over 29 years (i.e. from before mobile phones existed until today) have not changed:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
Slashdot Mirror
Upvote those who get thereference. :-p
Simple rule of thumb to distinguish machine learning from AI: - If it's written in Python, it's probably ML. - If it's written in Powerpoint, it's probably AI.
They don't get what they pay for. AWS is ludicrously expensive.
I've consistently seen Aurora MySQL performance worse than RDS MySQL on writes, and overall, a carefully tuned (in a way you can't tune RDS or Aurora due to lack of access) MariaDB instance on EC2 will utterly annihilate Aurora and RDS on overall performance, for same instance sizes. Of course, a bare metal setup of the same size (same CPU cores, same RAM amount) will annihilate the EC2 instance on performance and at about half of the TCO over three years, but nobody seems to care about that these days.
"The license plate readers cost $20,000 per patrol car." Pretty sure the total BOM for a device that will reliably do this 24/7 cannot be more than about $200, with maybe a week of developer time to string together some open source software to do this.
Not quite true. When it comes to serious things like cancer survival rates, US turns out to be actually pretty damn good. UK typically gets top marks everywhere except the only imporant thing - outcomes, where it scores close to rock bottom. Also, at least in UK, there is a thriving private medical industry for people who are willing to stump up the cash for private insurance because the state funded single payer health provisions are not what you want to be at the mercy of for a serious illness. Bottom line, just because there are plenty of examples of single payer healthcare systems, it doesn't automatically make them good or better than the alternatives. Ultimately you have to decide which 2 of the 3 you want: - Universality - Quality - Affordability You cannot have all three. People need to wake up to that simple fact.
The thing that this particular teletubby interface update broke is information density. After the update, the new skin in both gmail and calendar quite simply puts less on a screen. On the desktop it is annoying. On the mobile devices with limited screen real estate, it is downright devastating for usage and productivity.
It's as if since the turn of the century, user interfaces have been continuously redesigned to be more and more friendly toward children under 2 - with rounded corners and buttons too big to accidentally swallow. It's as if Fischer Price have been contracted to do user interface designs ever since.
If I'm reading this correctly, the exact same technology also enables faster-than-light communication.
Easy fix, then. Remove the kicking off the app, and everything will carry on as usual only without the spurious legal wrangling.
And a ride hailing company doesn't have fixed rides/routes it fulfills. Freelancer.com IS a main source of income for a non-trivial fraction of it's members.
Who, exactly, is an employer in that case?
Employment fundamentally requires mutuality of obligation. In the context of an Uber driver, if the driver MUST accept the ride they have been assigned under pain of divorce and their employer is paying them regardless of whether there are any fares to pick up, then they are an employee. If they are free to decide whether to work or not at any time, and are free to accept or reject any fare as they please, then clearly there is no mutuality of obligation and thus there is no employment. Otherwise it's a bit like arguing that the plumber you called out to fix a leak in your kitchen is your employee and you now also owe them holiday pay and employer's pension contributions on top of the hourly rate they are charging you.
So by this logic, everybody bidding on contracts on freelancer.com is now an employee of freelancer.com and entitled to minimum wage for the duration of their membership? This fundamentally fails the employment test of mutuality of obligation because an Uber driver is under no obligation to accept any available drive.
^^That's the first thing that came to mind
There are compliance regulations in many sectors, including finance (which includes insurance) and medical (which includes medical insurers) that say that everything has to be kept for a number of years. So on the whole in most of the civilised world, this sort of thing absolutely isn't going to fly.
^^^ This x1000! Mod parent up.
You clearly drank far too much koolaid about the capabilities of AI. The solution is simple and low-tech - introduce separate recycling bins for each type of recyclable waste (paper, plastic, metal), and make people take responsibility for their own shit - as unpalatable as it may seem to people suffering from delusions of entitlement. Add some bankrupting punitive fines for contaminating recycling for good measure, just to make sure.
"The world's greatest minds were too busy curing hair loss and prolonging erections." Who'd have thought...
The company is liable for corporation taxes in it's local tax jurisdiction, the person doing the work is liable for personal taxes, including national insurance, in the jurisdiction where they are tax resident.
... is going to sting on this one...
That's interesting, because when different brands share the same platform with a huge parts overlap under different part numbers, you can save a fortune by cross-checking what are identical parts. For example, Porsche Cayenne, VW Touareg, and to a large extent Audi Q7 are largely the same, apart from trim and some of the engine options. But you can pick up things like air suspension components for a Touareg for a lot less than the same part for a Cayenne, even though the only difference is the part number. This is far from being an only example, too.
Your number of pixels reason is stupid. You can use it to argue the opposite. The shorter the aspect ratio gets the fewer pixels you get for the same height.
You clearly either didn't read or didn't comprehend what I said, specifically "the less square the aspect ratio, the fewer pixels you get for the same width". Now, granted, you probably don't want 1:1 aspect ratio even if you only have one eye - human eye sees in an aspect ratio of approximately 5:3 (15:9).
16:10 was a much better aspect ratio than 16:9 for just about any workload - including movies. It's all about marketing - the less square the aspect ratio, the fewer pixels you get for the same width (e.g. 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080, or 3840x2400 vs. 3840x2160) and diagonal size, the two main metrics by which screens are marketed. The manufacturer gets to sell you fewer pixels, resulting in better yields, and less surface area, resulting in lower cost to them, all while getting to charge you a higher price because the numbers look the same or better. This is in part why now, after a few years of manufacturers having shaped the market by making 16:9 the norm, we are now seeing an increase in ultra-wide screens which take this to the next level.
Because the incidence of brain cancer over 29 years (i.e. from before mobile phones existed until today) have not changed: https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
So basically: 1) Hoard 2) Move to a tax haven 3) Then cash out