Seriously, ask yourself: why do you need one in the first place? Rhetorical question, you don't need one, you WANT one because it's a shiny toy.
Because I'm working in the kitchen with my hands covered in food, my toddlers are playing in the nursery two floors up or in the basement, and with an Alexa I can easily start a video chat (without using my hands and without them having to press buttons) to let them know they have to come down for dinner, and to see what they're up to. Wiring this old house would be gnarly so I'm stuck with something that communicates over wifi and range-extenders.
If you have other suggestions for something that meets these needs, I'm all ears! I've not found one.
I bet the "tens of thousands" of dollars spent was really successful, considering that Clinton and surrogates spent 1.5 Billion influencing her electoral failures. But yeah, keep on blaming the Russians for her loss, because that totally happened!
I think it's clear she lost because she wasn't as compelling a candidate as trump.
But completely aside from the fact that the foreign ads had an insignificant effect -- don't you still think it's concerning? Sure lots of nations have interfered or influenced the elections in other nations. It's not nice to be on the receiving end. It's against the law in the US. And what if these are just small incursions to test the water in preparation for much larger influence campaigns in future? not necessarily even ones targeted at elections?
Sure, foreign powers already have considerable "top-down" influence through bribes, lobbying, corruption. We might be seeing the first signals that in a decade from now we'll see the dawn of the era of "bottom-up" influence as well.
I think that these incidents do merit investigation, even though the ones in question didn't affected Hillary's loss.
These people do realize that $10k to $100k, compared to the $1.2 billion spent on the election is chump change and couldn't have effected squat, right?
I think that's clear.
But completely aside from the fact that this had an insignificant effect -- don't you still think it's concerning? Sure lots of nations have interfered or influenced the elections in other nations. It's not nice to be on the receiving end. It's against the law in the US. And what if these are just small incursions to test the water in preparation for much larger influence campaigns in future? not necessarily even ones targeted at elections?
Sure, foreign powers already have considerable "top-down" influence through bribes, lobbying, corruption. We might be seeing the first signals that in a decade from now we'll see the dawn of the era of "bottom-up" influence as well.
I think that these incidents do merit investigation, even though the ones in question wouldn't have effected Hillary's loss.
The best way to TRULY understand something is to teach it to someone. I've observed in my field C# that the top stack overflow answered are indeed the real experts - indeed some of them were on the C# team itself and others were given awards for the quality of their help.
Otherwise, I'm not sure how a judge could have thought that this is an appropriate remedy to the issue. The judge is asking entities who are not parties to the case to perform actions that constitute the remedy.
I followed up with a lawyer to ask about privity. Recall, the judge recommended an injunction to anyone "in privity with Sci-Hub, including any search engines and domain registrars...". His answer:
I think it'd be exceptionally difficult to establish privity here as Sci-Hub pays nothing to search engines. And if you say that merely indexing a website is sufficient for privity, then you've just made Google complicit in every single terrorism case, fraud case, and so on. Google will throw lawyers and money at this to make it go away.
A paper has 5,154 "authors"? Did each one contribute two words to the paper? That's absurd!
The truth is that the work described in the paper had 5154 contributors ranging from minor to major contributions. How were those split up? Were there three of them that provided the key breakthroughs/insights? Or was the paper instead primarily the product of the routine boring plodding work of 2000 of them? A workforce of 5000 people must need HR and catering and bureaucrats - should these be listed as authors too because their work was equally invaluable? Which of those 5154 people could be replaced by others who are have a general professional knowledge of the field, vs which ones provided unique insights that wouldn't have been expected of a notionally skilled worker? (to borrow a criterion from patent law).
I don't think the number "5154 authors" is evidence -- it doesn't bolster the argument in the article.
Otherwise, I'm not sure how a judge could have thought that this is an appropriate remedy to the issue. The judge is asking entities who are not parties to the case to perform actions that constitute the remedy.
The judge's recommended injunction would not require arbitrary non-party entities to perform actions. It is specifically calls out that only entities in privity with Sci-Hub should perform the actions.
That's pretty much a tautology, isn't it? I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I understand it the definition of privity in this context specifically means "subject to enforcement".
If Google isn't in privity with Sci-Hub, then great, the judge's recommended sanctions have no effect on them. If Google is in privity with Sci-Hub, then yes by definition Google should perform actions. It'll be up to Google and DNS providers to show they're not in privity with Sci-Hub. That will be the interesting case.
["The US gun lobby doesn't even want to restrict sales to those who already have mental health issues."] That's just simply a lie. And you know it. So the question is, what do you hope to achieve by lying?
I'm not sure how accusations of lying help this discussion.
View1: We've seen various mass shootings, and a bunch of individual shootings, from individuals who in retrospect weren't quite right in the head. Maybe they were seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist for something. The current federal laws prevent firearm ownership only for people who have been "adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution" and states have their own spin on it. I think we should draw the line back so more kinds of mental illness would prohibit firearm ownership. This is what Obama did by preventing some people on Social Security disabilities for psychiatric illness from owning firearms -- a move which the NRA called an "unconstitutional gun grab".
View2: Sure the line has to be drawn somewhere. The line we currently draw is a good one. It really should take an official court ruling that someone is mentally defective before we start taking away their constitutional rights to bear arms. (Likewise, it takes a court ruling to deprive people of their constitutional right to liberty by sending them to jail).
I can see merit in both views.
As for the sentence you quoted that "The US gun lobby doesn't even want to restrict sales to those who already have mental health issues"? -- well, the US gun lobby does want to restrict sales to SOME people who have mental health issues, and wants to NOT restrict sales to other people who have mental health issues but haven't yet been committed or adjudicated as mentally defective. So the sentence was literally true, and literally false, according to how you fill in the ambiguities in it. You chose to fill in the ambiguities in such a way to make it false, and then you accused the poster of lying. You could have chosen differently.
Is it possible that an employee navigated to one of those links while they weren't on a corporate VPN? e.g. they had the link and clicked on it while on a home or public wifi? Then a compromised router could have detected the URL and passed it on.
Or maybe they had a web-page open while on corpnet where there was an internal announcement/email that mentioned the URL, and then they took their laptop home and the web-page was still open, and they accidentally clicked the link without realizing that their VPN hadn't yet finished connecting?
Or might the URL have been in an employee's browser history? and malware got on their computer and fetched the browser history?
You are not more creative under the influence of drugs, you are actually less creative. But you stop asking yourself "Is this a good idea?" and just do it. It's basically brainstorming for one person.
Robin Milner, computer scientist and Turing-award-winner, sometimes used sleep-deprivation to the same end. When he was sleep-deprived, he said, the internal censor that too often says "this is a bad idea" was suppressed long enough for him to get the idea down on paper. Then he could evaluate it the next day.
When you see people in the checkout buying their food with EBT and then get $20 cash back so they can buy alcohol with cash at the same register. Your tax dollars at work.
Yeah because poor people shouldn't be allowed alcohol amirite? Also they shouldn't have other luxuries like netflix or cable or going to cinemas. Only what they get over-the-air on a TV set they got at Goodwill. And no vacations either. In fact they should be pretty much excluded from our shared media and culture until they're up on their feet, saved for their kids college, and able to afford a comfortable middle-class existence.
Lesson: whatever subsidy is given, be it in the form of EBT or tax refunds or UBI or handouts of actual physical foods or a soup kitchen or emergency medical treatment, will inevitably be used to spare other money for luxuries. That's inevitable. It's a consequence of money and everyone's autonomy to use it as they wish. The only way you can avoid this is (1) don't give any subsidy whatsoever, or (2) take away all autonomy and micro-manage their lives.
I don't need to get into moral judgments here because there are clear practical answers: dollar for dollar, if the government invests $1 on EBT then the economy will get $1.84 back in overall benefits (growing the taxpayer base, helping poor people out of poverty). So if you're a hard-nosed business investor looking for a savvy place to park your capital, food stamps are a good bet, better than the stock market. https://www.theatlantic.com/he...
As for giving people autonomy to chose how to spend money themselves? It's the capitalist way. I believe it works because, by and large, individuals are better at making investment judgments relative to their future than large organizations or business are. Sure, 80% of new business go bust in their first year, but we still invest money in new business (without hamstringing how they spend it) because on average it pays off. And sure, some people abuse food stamps, but we still invest money in them because on average it pays off.
How is this Apple's fault that you didn't register all the fingers you wanted to use with Touch ID. You are allowed to register many prints.
Umm... thanks for telling me that I'm holding my phone wrong, I guess??
You're allowed to register five fingerprints. With my two thumbs, two index fingers and my wife's thumb, we're already maxed out.
So which of the steps are you complaining about? You have to pick up the phone otherwise you're taking a photo of the surface it's on (in the dark). I don't know about your phone but I never have "wait" for the motion sensor. It takes less than a second to get to the camera with all of those actions.
Try it. On my iPhone 6S, it's about two seconds from picking it up to being able to take a photo...
Wait for motion-sensor to wake up enough that the screen allows a swipe-left: ~0.7 seconds, failure rate ~2% Swipe-left: ~0.4 seconds, failure rate ~5% Wait for phone app to be responsive: ~0.3 seconds, failure rate 0% Press the on-screen take-photo button: ~0.3 seconds, failure rate 0%
Or:
Press home button to log in: ~0.4 seconds, failure rate ~10% Press on-screen camera icon on the bottom bar: ~0.3 seconds, failure rate 0% Press on-screen take-photo button: ~0.3 seconds, failure rate 0%
What I'm hoping with face recognition is this:
Pick up camera and have it recognize my face en-route to my hands: ~0.4 seconds, failure rate 2% Press on-screen camera icon on the bottom bar: ~0.1 seconds, failure rate 0% [faster than above because I don't need to reposition my finger] Press on-screen take-photo button: ~0.3 seconds, failure rate 0%
They mostly coasted on the fact that the next model improved some aspects -- CPU, storage, photo quality -- some noticeable increment, but they didn't really increase the basic utility value. It really seems like they've hit the point where not even technical incremental improvement adds very much, and now they're needlessly altering the experience just to sell new phones.
What?? I'm personally a Windows Phone fan (well I was until that died and I reluctantly switched to Apple) but I think basic utility is definitely helped by the few changes we saw:
* Wireless charging. Sometimes lint gets stuck and I can't charge. Often I just forget to charge my phone. When I had a micro-usb adapter I'd wear out about one cable a year, and once the port on my phone just got too damaged and I had to get a new phone. The lightning port doesn't seem quite as fragile, but even so I'm excited about this.
* Face log-in. I love it on my Windows machine. Touch ID frustrates the heck out of me because it fails 20+ times a day (usually due to not scrupulously dry fingers, or using the phone with a finger or toe that I haven't registered due to my other hands being occupied holding my toddlers). It also interferes with the when you want to grab your phone and take a photo instantly, another toddler-related need. It took me about 5 months to of iphoning to learn the muscle memory rule "DON'T press the home button (because it's too prone to failing to log you in and by that time you'll have lost the shot); instead pick the phone up, wait for the motion sensor to realize it's moved, then swipe left to get to the camera".
* Less bevel. Yes I am eager to be able to read more words per line on Kindle when I go to bed. It's a trade-off between "wanting bigger screen for kindle and movies" vs "wanting smaller phone for everyday use and fitting in pocket". This is a minor technical improvement sure but I welcome it.
As for the depth sensor? It feels like there'll be useful apps coming out of this (e.g. the virtual tape measure app) but it's too early to tell.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... The National Hurricane Center (NHC) provides information on major U.S. hurricanes during the past 100-plus years.According to the NHC, 70 major hurricanes struck the United States in the 100 years between 1911 and 2010. That is an average of 7 major hurricane strikes per decade. What are the trends within this 100-year span? Let's take a look. Let's split the 100-year hurricane record in half, starting with major hurricane strikes during the most recent 50 years.... During the preceding decade...
Did an arts graduate write that junk Forbes article? It's ridiculous and disingenuous to try to explain a TABLE of data with ad-hoc divisions like that. We're on slashdot; we should know better. Here's a graph with trend lines since 1978:
This trend line shows a slight decrease in hurricanes overall, but despite that a slight increase in major hurricanes. We'd have to do trend lines for the source data for the Forbes article to make sense of it.
But the reality is that *everyone * in the teaching profession already deplores the lack of male teachers and looks for ways to redress the balance. Male and female teachers alike know it's good for the kids to have at least some male teachers. They do everything they can short of actually raising salaries.
Source: my experience as a male teacher, and stories from my mother who was a deputy head.
A) Google to web site person: "By putting these +1 buttons on articles, we get to know what articles are liked better so the search algorithms work better".
B) Web site person to Google: "Surprise! I'm a journalist. Here's my headline: 'Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your Search Traffic Suffers' ".
The first is a natural consequence of how computers work. They are stupid and need data to help them. The second is an accusation of abuse of power. These are not the same things. The first is true, the second is a twisting of the truth by a journalist to create a false perception.
Here's how I imagine it went down...
Engineer: I have a good idea! Let's use +1 indications from Google Plus so we can improve the quality of search results by knowing what articles are liked.
-- EITHER --
DataScientist: I share your goal of higher quality search results, but tying it to Google Plus is a poor way to achieve it. That's because Google Plus isn't widely adopted. First we will get a signal of "which articles are liked by the biased subgroup that are Google Plus enthusiasts" rather than what articles are more generally liked. Second, the system will offer perverse incentives for websites to game the system by overly promoting the +1 button in detriment to their actual natural organic use. We need to build more accurate measures of which articles are liked.
-- OR --
BusinessManager: That's great! Not only will it improve the quality of search, but it'll do so by leveraging third parties to promote the Google Plus service on our behalf! Ship it!
If you say Google has this misogyny, a female only company should beat the shit out of Google. If not, you should not say that women face workplace misogyny in the context of Google. Which is it?
I'm going to answer very precisely because I'm not following your logic.
Yes, believe that in Google like in other companies, most women face daily or weekly put-downs due to misogyny in unconscious bias. I think that professional conduct courses that cover unconscious bias, and internal women support groups and programmes, and a good and reasonable and proportionate way to address this. I believe that companies which institute such policies will be healthier than, and will outcompete, comparable companies which don't institute such policies.
It does not follow that a female-only company would beat the shit out of Google. That's a huge logical leap and I don't understand why you even begin to think it would follow. I've tried a few times to write out how I think you might think it would follow but have deleted each attempt.
The point instead is that lots of women face daily or weekly put-downs due to misogyny...
Ok, so you just need to start a competitor to Apple, Google, Microsoft and all these misogynist companies... If I am not looking in the right places, please educate me about these women-centric companies beating the shit out of Google, Apple, Microsoft.
I don't know if you've been following the news, but Google and Microsoft at least (presumably also Apple but I don't know) already HAVE put in place policies that in my mind are reasonable and proportionate to gradually work against the problems I talk about, e.g. that each employee has to spend thirty minutes a year watching a video training course that includes a small segment on professional conduct and unconscious bias. Indeed Damore wrote a memo about those policies. And Google and Microsoft are indeed "beating the shit".
(Damore's memo was only part concerned with those policies. It was mostly concerned about an ideological echo chamber. I had no experience of an ideological chamber during my ten years at Microsoft, and I've never been at Google, so I can't really comment. But I think ideological echo chambers are always bad. In my current workplace I'm the only one to defend Trump, but I've never felt oppressed or silenced for it, nor unable to speak my mind.)
And in fact, if history is a lesson, trying to stamp this out in this fashion is insane. These kinds of groups just become more hateful, radical, violent and provocative. If they can't speak, then they will act.
What history are you taking as your lesson?
The closest analogue I can think of is post-war Germany, which for ~70 years has stamped out fascist and nazi speech in exactly this fashion. And hasn't seen an increase in hate and action from nazis.
The point instead is that lots of women face daily or weekly put-downs due to misogyny.
No, they face those because some people are dicks.
I made a statistical assertion that the rate of career and professional obstacles facing women is higher than that for men and that this is due to misogyny. As far as I can tell, you made the claim that it's not higher. Is that right?
Why is this concept so controversial ? Why do those advocating the $15 hamburger wage not see this ?
You can see this and still advocate for the $15 minimum wage.
I think $8/hour labor is just demeaning to the workers and to society, and should be stopped for that reason.
On the one hand that means that some people will now no longer have a job. On the other hand our society as a whole is still producing just as much (actually it's producing slightly more because there's extra work in producing the robots). And a society where more is produced for less labor is a BETTER society.
Separate from that is the question about how the benefits of that society are divided. If the only mechanism you can countenance for dividing those benefits is by having lots of people work these demeaning and (apparently) unnecessary jobs - well, that's your view. I think there are better options.
Did you read the memo? Did it say anything about women being inferior to men and that they should stay in the kitchen?
Did you read the post to which you replied? It didn't touch on the points you raise.
The point instead is that lots of women face daily or weekly put-downs due to misogyny. They see and experience it ALL the blasted time in their professional lives. It's a constant source of extra stress and career battles. This is a very plausible reason for there being fewer women in IT, and it's very plausible that it's a more significant reason than the biological reasons that Damore implied.
(And actually it's pretty frustrating to face this kind of challenge daily or weekly, and see first-hand what a *significant* impact it has, and then have an outsider write a memo that purports to examine the reasons for the gender gap but then completely fails to notice this significant factor. That said, I grant that the Damore memo was more focused on ideological echo chamber, and its attempts at explaining the gender gap were only a small part of it.)
If you feel that Russia is a bastion of equality and financial safety, then I don't think you are open to being convinced of anything different.
Wait, what?
"no strong economic inventive" (what you said first) and "bastion of financial safety" (what you're ascribing to me now) are two very different things.
"no social norms to push women away from CS" (what you said first) and "bastion of equality" (what you're ascribing to me now) are two very different things.
I don't at all think Russia is a bastion of financial safety, nor a bastion of equality. However I understand that the social norms pushing women away from CS are weaker in Russia than elsewhere, and I'm not aware of strong economic incentive in Russia to push women either into or away from computer science compared to other professions. So I think Russia meets your two preconditions quite well.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, ask yourself: why do you need one in the first place? Rhetorical question, you don't need one, you WANT one because it's a shiny toy.
Because I'm working in the kitchen with my hands covered in food, my toddlers are playing in the nursery two floors up or in the basement, and with an Alexa I can easily start a video chat (without using my hands and without them having to press buttons) to let them know they have to come down for dinner, and to see what they're up to. Wiring this old house would be gnarly so I'm stuck with something that communicates over wifi and range-extenders.
If you have other suggestions for something that meets these needs, I'm all ears! I've not found one.
I don't think Iceland has the undersea cable to export any of its excess electricity.
Already container ships take bauxite to Iceland to smelt for aluminum because there's so much cheap geothermal available.
I bet the "tens of thousands" of dollars spent was really successful, considering that Clinton and surrogates spent 1.5 Billion influencing her electoral failures. But yeah, keep on blaming the Russians for her loss, because that totally happened!
I think it's clear she lost because she wasn't as compelling a candidate as trump.
But completely aside from the fact that the foreign ads had an insignificant effect -- don't you still think it's concerning? Sure lots of nations have interfered or influenced the elections in other nations. It's not nice to be on the receiving end. It's against the law in the US. And what if these are just small incursions to test the water in preparation for much larger influence campaigns in future? not necessarily even ones targeted at elections?
Sure, foreign powers already have considerable "top-down" influence through bribes, lobbying, corruption. We might be seeing the first signals that in a decade from now we'll see the dawn of the era of "bottom-up" influence as well.
I think that these incidents do merit investigation, even though the ones in question didn't affected Hillary's loss.
Don't you?
These people do realize that $10k to $100k, compared to the $1.2 billion spent on the election is chump change and couldn't have effected squat, right?
I think that's clear.
But completely aside from the fact that this had an insignificant effect -- don't you still think it's concerning? Sure lots of nations have interfered or influenced the elections in other nations. It's not nice to be on the receiving end. It's against the law in the US. And what if these are just small incursions to test the water in preparation for much larger influence campaigns in future? not necessarily even ones targeted at elections?
Sure, foreign powers already have considerable "top-down" influence through bribes, lobbying, corruption. We might be seeing the first signals that in a decade from now we'll see the dawn of the era of "bottom-up" influence as well.
I think that these incidents do merit investigation, even though the ones in question wouldn't have effected Hillary's loss.
Don't you?
The best way to TRULY understand something is to teach it to someone. I've observed in my field C# that the top stack overflow answered are indeed the real experts - indeed some of them were on the C# team itself and others were given awards for the quality of their help.
Otherwise, I'm not sure how a judge could have thought that this is an appropriate remedy to the issue. The judge is asking entities who are not parties to the case to perform actions that constitute the remedy.
I followed up with a lawyer to ask about privity. Recall, the judge recommended an injunction to anyone "in privity with Sci-Hub, including any search engines and domain registrars...". His answer:
I think it'd be exceptionally difficult to establish privity here as Sci-Hub pays nothing to search engines. And if you say that merely indexing a website is sufficient for privity, then you've just made Google complicit in every single terrorism case, fraud case, and so on. Google will throw lawyers and money at this to make it go away.
A paper has 5,154 "authors"? Did each one contribute two words to the paper? That's absurd!
The truth is that the work described in the paper had 5154 contributors ranging from minor to major contributions. How were those split up? Were there three of them that provided the key breakthroughs/insights? Or was the paper instead primarily the product of the routine boring plodding work of 2000 of them? A workforce of 5000 people must need HR and catering and bureaucrats - should these be listed as authors too because their work was equally invaluable? Which of those 5154 people could be replaced by others who are have a general professional knowledge of the field, vs which ones provided unique insights that wouldn't have been expected of a notionally skilled worker? (to borrow a criterion from patent law).
I don't think the number "5154 authors" is evidence -- it doesn't bolster the argument in the article.
Otherwise, I'm not sure how a judge could have thought that this is an appropriate remedy to the issue. The judge is asking entities who are not parties to the case to perform actions that constitute the remedy.
The judge's recommended injunction would not require arbitrary non-party entities to perform actions. It is specifically calls out that only entities in privity with Sci-Hub should perform the actions.
That's pretty much a tautology, isn't it? I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I understand it the definition of privity in this context specifically means "subject to enforcement".
If Google isn't in privity with Sci-Hub, then great, the judge's recommended sanctions have no effect on them. If Google is in privity with Sci-Hub, then yes by definition Google should perform actions. It'll be up to Google and DNS providers to show they're not in privity with Sci-Hub. That will be the interesting case.
["The US gun lobby doesn't even want to restrict sales to those who already have mental health issues."]
That's just simply a lie. And you know it. So the question is, what do you hope to achieve by lying?
I'm not sure how accusations of lying help this discussion.
View1: We've seen various mass shootings, and a bunch of individual shootings, from individuals who in retrospect weren't quite right in the head. Maybe they were seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist for something. The current federal laws prevent firearm ownership only for people who have been "adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution" and states have their own spin on it. I think we should draw the line back so more kinds of mental illness would prohibit firearm ownership. This is what Obama did by preventing some people on Social Security disabilities for psychiatric illness from owning firearms -- a move which the NRA called an "unconstitutional gun grab".
View2: Sure the line has to be drawn somewhere. The line we currently draw is a good one. It really should take an official court ruling that someone is mentally defective before we start taking away their constitutional rights to bear arms. (Likewise, it takes a court ruling to deprive people of their constitutional right to liberty by sending them to jail).
I can see merit in both views.
As for the sentence you quoted that "The US gun lobby doesn't even want to restrict sales to those who already have mental health issues"? -- well, the US gun lobby does want to restrict sales to SOME people who have mental health issues, and wants to NOT restrict sales to other people who have mental health issues but haven't yet been committed or adjudicated as mentally defective. So the sentence was literally true, and literally false, according to how you fill in the ambiguities in it. You chose to fill in the ambiguities in such a way to make it false, and then you accused the poster of lying. You could have chosen differently.
I bought a motorcycle helmet years ago, I still get ads for the helmet and others I researched.
Oh! But wasn't your purchase just the first step towards a lifelong hobby of collecting motorcycle helmets?
Maybe the leak wasn't deliberate?
Is it possible that an employee navigated to one of those links while they weren't on a corporate VPN? e.g. they had the link and clicked on it while on a home or public wifi? Then a compromised router could have detected the URL and passed it on.
Or maybe they had a web-page open while on corpnet where there was an internal announcement/email that mentioned the URL, and then they took their laptop home and the web-page was still open, and they accidentally clicked the link without realizing that their VPN hadn't yet finished connecting?
Or might the URL have been in an employee's browser history? and malware got on their computer and fetched the browser history?
You are not more creative under the influence of drugs, you are actually less creative. But you stop asking yourself "Is this a good idea?" and just do it. It's basically brainstorming for one person.
Robin Milner, computer scientist and Turing-award-winner, sometimes used sleep-deprivation to the same end. When he was sleep-deprived, he said, the internal censor that too often says "this is a bad idea" was suppressed long enough for him to get the idea down on paper. Then he could evaluate it the next day.
When you see people in the checkout buying their food with EBT and then get $20 cash back so they can buy alcohol with cash at the same register. Your tax dollars at work.
Yeah because poor people shouldn't be allowed alcohol amirite? Also they shouldn't have other luxuries like netflix or cable or going to cinemas. Only what they get over-the-air on a TV set they got at Goodwill. And no vacations either. In fact they should be pretty much excluded from our shared media and culture until they're up on their feet, saved for their kids college, and able to afford a comfortable middle-class existence.
Lesson: whatever subsidy is given, be it in the form of EBT or tax refunds or UBI or handouts of actual physical foods or a soup kitchen or emergency medical treatment, will inevitably be used to spare other money for luxuries. That's inevitable. It's a consequence of money and everyone's autonomy to use it as they wish. The only way you can avoid this is (1) don't give any subsidy whatsoever, or (2) take away all autonomy and micro-manage their lives.
I don't need to get into moral judgments here because there are clear practical answers: dollar for dollar, if the government invests $1 on EBT then the economy will get $1.84 back in overall benefits (growing the taxpayer base, helping poor people out of poverty). So if you're a hard-nosed business investor looking for a savvy place to park your capital, food stamps are a good bet, better than the stock market. https://www.theatlantic.com/he...
As for giving people autonomy to chose how to spend money themselves? It's the capitalist way. I believe it works because, by and large, individuals are better at making investment judgments relative to their future than large organizations or business are. Sure, 80% of new business go bust in their first year, but we still invest money in new business (without hamstringing how they spend it) because on average it pays off. And sure, some people abuse food stamps, but we still invest money in them because on average it pays off.
How is this Apple's fault that you didn't register all the fingers you wanted to use with Touch ID. You are allowed to register many prints.
Umm... thanks for telling me that I'm holding my phone wrong, I guess??
You're allowed to register five fingerprints. With my two thumbs, two index fingers and my wife's thumb, we're already maxed out.
So which of the steps are you complaining about? You have to pick up the phone otherwise you're taking a photo of the surface it's on (in the dark). I don't know about your phone but I never have "wait" for the motion sensor. It takes less than a second to get to the camera with all of those actions.
Try it. On my iPhone 6S, it's about two seconds from picking it up to being able to take a photo...
Wait for motion-sensor to wake up enough that the screen allows a swipe-left: ~0.7 seconds, failure rate ~2%
Swipe-left: ~0.4 seconds, failure rate ~5%
Wait for phone app to be responsive: ~0.3 seconds, failure rate 0%
Press the on-screen take-photo button: ~0.3 seconds, failure rate 0%
Or:
Press home button to log in: ~0.4 seconds, failure rate ~10%
Press on-screen camera icon on the bottom bar: ~0.3 seconds, failure rate 0%
Press on-screen take-photo button: ~0.3 seconds, failure rate 0%
What I'm hoping with face recognition is this:
Pick up camera and have it recognize my face en-route to my hands: ~0.4 seconds, failure rate 2%
Press on-screen camera icon on the bottom bar: ~0.1 seconds, failure rate 0% [faster than above because I don't need to reposition my finger]
Press on-screen take-photo button: ~0.3 seconds, failure rate 0%
They mostly coasted on the fact that the next model improved some aspects -- CPU, storage, photo quality -- some noticeable increment, but they didn't really increase the basic utility value. It really seems like they've hit the point where not even technical incremental improvement adds very much, and now they're needlessly altering the experience just to sell new phones.
What?? I'm personally a Windows Phone fan (well I was until that died and I reluctantly switched to Apple) but I think basic utility is definitely helped by the few changes we saw:
* Wireless charging. Sometimes lint gets stuck and I can't charge. Often I just forget to charge my phone. When I had a micro-usb adapter I'd wear out about one cable a year, and once the port on my phone just got too damaged and I had to get a new phone. The lightning port doesn't seem quite as fragile, but even so I'm excited about this.
* Face log-in. I love it on my Windows machine. Touch ID frustrates the heck out of me because it fails 20+ times a day (usually due to not scrupulously dry fingers, or using the phone with a finger or toe that I haven't registered due to my other hands being occupied holding my toddlers). It also interferes with the when you want to grab your phone and take a photo instantly, another toddler-related need. It took me about 5 months to of iphoning to learn the muscle memory rule "DON'T press the home button (because it's too prone to failing to log you in and by that time you'll have lost the shot); instead pick the phone up, wait for the motion sensor to realize it's moved, then swipe left to get to the camera".
* Less bevel. Yes I am eager to be able to read more words per line on Kindle when I go to bed. It's a trade-off between "wanting bigger screen for kindle and movies" vs "wanting smaller phone for everyday use and fitting in pocket". This is a minor technical improvement sure but I welcome it.
As for the depth sensor? It feels like there'll be useful apps coming out of this (e.g. the virtual tape measure app) but it's too early to tell.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
The National Hurricane Center (NHC) provides information on major U.S. hurricanes during the past 100-plus years.According to the NHC, 70 major hurricanes struck the United States in the 100 years between 1911 and 2010. That is an average of 7 major hurricane strikes per decade. What are the trends within this 100-year span? Let's take a look. Let's split the 100-year hurricane record in half, starting with major hurricane strikes during the most recent 50 years.... During the preceding decade...
Did an arts graduate write that junk Forbes article? It's ridiculous and disingenuous to try to explain a TABLE of data with ad-hoc divisions like that. We're on slashdot; we should know better. Here's a graph with trend lines since 1978:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
This trend line shows a slight decrease in hurricanes overall, but despite that a slight increase in major hurricanes. We'd have to do trend lines for the source data for the Forbes article to make sense of it.
You think you're making a clever point.
But the reality is that *everyone * in the teaching profession already deplores the lack of male teachers and looks for ways to redress the balance. Male and female teachers alike know it's good for the kids to have at least some male teachers. They do everything they can short of actually raising salaries.
Source: my experience as a male teacher, and stories from my mother who was a deputy head.
A) Google to web site person: "By putting these +1 buttons on articles, we get to know what articles are liked better so the search algorithms work better".
B) Web site person to Google: "Surprise! I'm a journalist. Here's my headline: 'Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your Search Traffic Suffers' ".
The first is a natural consequence of how computers work. They are stupid and need data to help them.
The second is an accusation of abuse of power. These are not the same things. The first is true, the second is a twisting of the truth by a journalist to create a false perception.
Here's how I imagine it went down...
Engineer: I have a good idea! Let's use +1 indications from Google Plus so we can improve the quality of search results by knowing what articles are liked.
-- EITHER --
DataScientist: I share your goal of higher quality search results, but tying it to Google Plus is a poor way to achieve it. That's because Google Plus isn't widely adopted. First we will get a signal of "which articles are liked by the biased subgroup that are Google Plus enthusiasts" rather than what articles are more generally liked. Second, the system will offer perverse incentives for websites to game the system by overly promoting the +1 button in detriment to their actual natural organic use. We need to build more accurate measures of which articles are liked.
-- OR --
BusinessManager: That's great! Not only will it improve the quality of search, but it'll do so by leveraging third parties to promote the Google Plus service on our behalf! Ship it!
If you say Google has this misogyny, a female only company should beat the shit out of Google. If not, you should not say that women face workplace misogyny in the context of Google. Which is it?
I'm going to answer very precisely because I'm not following your logic.
Yes, believe that in Google like in other companies, most women face daily or weekly put-downs due to misogyny in unconscious bias. I think that professional conduct courses that cover unconscious bias, and internal women support groups and programmes, and a good and reasonable and proportionate way to address this. I believe that companies which institute such policies will be healthier than, and will outcompete, comparable companies which don't institute such policies.
It does not follow that a female-only company would beat the shit out of Google. That's a huge logical leap and I don't understand why you even begin to think it would follow. I've tried a few times to write out how I think you might think it would follow but have deleted each attempt.
The point instead is that lots of women face daily or weekly put-downs due to misogyny...
Ok, so you just need to start a competitor to Apple, Google, Microsoft and all these misogynist companies... If I am not looking in the right places, please educate me about these women-centric companies beating the shit out of Google, Apple, Microsoft.
I don't know if you've been following the news, but Google and Microsoft at least (presumably also Apple but I don't know) already HAVE put in place policies that in my mind are reasonable and proportionate to gradually work against the problems I talk about, e.g. that each employee has to spend thirty minutes a year watching a video training course that includes a small segment on professional conduct and unconscious bias. Indeed Damore wrote a memo about those policies. And Google and Microsoft are indeed "beating the shit".
(Damore's memo was only part concerned with those policies. It was mostly concerned about an ideological echo chamber. I had no experience of an ideological chamber during my ten years at Microsoft, and I've never been at Google, so I can't really comment. But I think ideological echo chambers are always bad. In my current workplace I'm the only one to defend Trump, but I've never felt oppressed or silenced for it, nor unable to speak my mind.)
And in fact, if history is a lesson, trying to stamp this out in this fashion is insane. These kinds of groups just become more hateful, radical, violent and provocative. If they can't speak, then they will act.
What history are you taking as your lesson?
The closest analogue I can think of is post-war Germany, which for ~70 years has stamped out fascist and nazi speech in exactly this fashion. And hasn't seen an increase in hate and action from nazis.
The point instead is that lots of women face daily or weekly put-downs due to misogyny.
No, they face those because some people are dicks.
I made a statistical assertion that the rate of career and professional obstacles facing women is higher than that for men and that this is due to misogyny. As far as I can tell, you made the claim that it's not higher. Is that right?
Why is this concept so controversial ? Why do those advocating the $15 hamburger wage not see this ?
You can see this and still advocate for the $15 minimum wage.
I think $8/hour labor is just demeaning to the workers and to society, and should be stopped for that reason.
On the one hand that means that some people will now no longer have a job. On the other hand our society as a whole is still producing just as much (actually it's producing slightly more because there's extra work in producing the robots). And a society where more is produced for less labor is a BETTER society.
Separate from that is the question about how the benefits of that society are divided. If the only mechanism you can countenance for dividing those benefits is by having lots of people work these demeaning and (apparently) unnecessary jobs - well, that's your view. I think there are better options.
Did you read the memo? Did it say anything about women being inferior to men and that they should stay in the kitchen?
Did you read the post to which you replied? It didn't touch on the points you raise.
The point instead is that lots of women face daily or weekly put-downs due to misogyny. They see and experience it ALL the blasted time in their professional lives. It's a constant source of extra stress and career battles. This is a very plausible reason for there being fewer women in IT, and it's very plausible that it's a more significant reason than the biological reasons that Damore implied.
(And actually it's pretty frustrating to face this kind of challenge daily or weekly, and see first-hand what a *significant* impact it has, and then have an outsider write a memo that purports to examine the reasons for the gender gap but then completely fails to notice this significant factor. That said, I grant that the Damore memo was more focused on ideological echo chamber, and its attempts at explaining the gender gap were only a small part of it.)
If you feel that Russia is a bastion of equality and financial safety, then I don't think you are open to being convinced of anything different.
Wait, what?
"no strong economic inventive" (what you said first) and "bastion of financial safety" (what you're ascribing to me now) are two very different things.
"no social norms to push women away from CS" (what you said first) and "bastion of equality" (what you're ascribing to me now) are two very different things.
I don't at all think Russia is a bastion of financial safety, nor a bastion of equality. However I understand that the social norms pushing women away from CS are weaker in Russia than elsewhere, and I'm not aware of strong economic incentive in Russia to push women either into or away from computer science compared to other professions. So I think Russia meets your two preconditions quite well.