Remember, you're not the customer, you're the product.
Awesome, only three posts down before I got to the first "you're the product" post. Look, everyone understand advertising. Nobody needs to be told that Google and Facebook aren't non-profits operating for the good of mankind.
Not getting laid can really turn a person inside out. Think back to this post when you sitting alone Saturday night looking at pr0n. It might give you a clue how you got there.
I'll never have to 'experience the horror' of dying because of a SDC fuck-up because I'll never set foot in one, ever, or advise anyone else to either for that matter.
How's that "going" to protect you now? I suspect the person in the Tesla is going to be the one that comes away "with" the least injuries.
Maybe you could use that stick up your ass to renogginize the guy?
Lol. Because having empathy about the death of other humans is having a stick up your ass now. I'm fairly comfortable with my opinion on this, but thanks for the commentary.
I'd rather deal with accidents caused by humans than the horror and tragedy of humans being killed because some machine fucked up and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it from happening -- then there's nobody to even blame because a machine did it, you can't even point at a person and say "it's their fault".
The only thing that matters if the number of lives saved. If self driving cars don't achieve significant gains in that area it'll be a non-starter and you will never have to experience that "horror".
As for the state of the art, there's no question. It's the driver's responsibility, whether the car was on autopilot or not. Autopilot is an assist only. The driver is expected to remain alert and ready to take over at any moment. So do not worry, you'll have someone to blame, and that'll make the death of a loved one all the more tolerable.
The current poor excuse for 'AI' will never be 'better than humans' because it is fundamentally incapable of anything like 'thinking', it's just following complicated 'decision trees'. We have no idea how 'thinking' actually works therefore we cannot build machines that 'think', which is why it fails like this so badly.
I don't think 'you' understand what it 'means' to quote something. Tends to make folks put less stock in your ruminations about AI and the nature of human thought.
Ask this guy if he was glad to be in a Tesla when he fell asleep at the wheel:
Another way to look at it: he fell asleep *because* he was in a Tesla. The problem with Teslas is that they are essentially self driving cars, minus the certification of being so (because such a thing doesn't exist yet). Of course people are going to fall asleep, pull out their laptop, watch a movie, and so on.
That's the realistic future of self driving cars. There never will be a stamp of "fully autonomous", and the driver will always have ultimate responsibility for the operation of the vehicle. They will however reach a point where the autopilot is so good that diverting your attention from the road will be more safe (statistically) than manual driving today.
You seem to have a reading problem. Or you just want so desperately to be right you ignore what is right in front of your eyes.
Nah I'm good. You're the one with nothing better to do than hurl insults. I agree though, it's very hard to rationalize that behavior, and even harder when someone calls you on it.
I find that you have two classes of people: Those that want to learn and those that do not. The second class is lost anyways, no way to reach them. May at least get some entertainment out of them. The first class is something else and I either do not insult them or apologize when I realize the mistake. That approach is working pretty well, thank you.
Fancy talk. Go read your post. You called everyone that might not have agreed with you, or just had less knowledge on the topic, "clueless." You didn't qualify it.
Trust me, that doesn't work well. That means you either get punched in the nose a lot, or you limit your trolling to when you are safe behind your computer screen.
Pretty high, I'd say, since in both cases you have an understanding of your needs, i.e., what it should be doing
Okay. How often do you find yourself making changes in your C compiler because it doesn't support some feature you'd really like? I always thought it'd be nice if C could have a bound-safe array. I think I'll add it. I'm sure it's just a small change. After all I understand my needs so it'll be simple.
The target for code generation tools are higher-level folks. They don't understand coding. That's the whole point. Software development without software development (or with much higher level constructs).
And when you let a compiler generate assembly, you end up with something an assembly programmer might regard as crap as well. But since you're not the consumer of the result, who cares?
That's all fine unless you someday have to tweak the lower-level code in a way not supported by the thing that generated it in the first place. And if you need to re-generate the code, and re-apply your changes... a creek named shit.
Netflix would do well to hire someone with their pulse on the international content distribution market, like yourself. I'm sure they just have a room of chimps filling the role now.
Read about Verified Boot and Trusted Execution. With regards to preventing malicious code from being flashed Android is very secure (as is iOS). That's what we're talking about here. If you want to turn this into a "Google steals my personal data" argument, I'm not biting.
So I don't have to know a hacker is one firmware away from activating the microphone in my device? Don't assume I am the only one altering the firmware.
If you think hackers can flash their own firmware on the devices on your network, you should really be freaking out. A microphone on your thermostat is the least of your worries. They could be flashing your router, your security cams, your phone. Be afraid.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, you're not the customer, you're the product.
Awesome, only three posts down before I got to the first "you're the product" post. Look, everyone understand advertising. Nobody needs to be told that Google and Facebook aren't non-profits operating for the good of mankind.
Not getting laid can really turn a person inside out. Think back to this post when you sitting alone Saturday night looking at pr0n. It might give you a clue how you got there.
Oh shut up, who the hell asked you for writing style advice?
There are writing styles, but your superfluous usage of quotes is just incorrect.
I'll never have to 'experience the horror' of dying because of a SDC fuck-up because I'll never set foot in one, ever, or advise anyone else to either for that matter.
How's that "going" to protect you now? I suspect the person in the Tesla is going to be the one that comes away "with" the least injuries.
Maybe you could use that stick up your ass to renogginize the guy?
Lol. Because having empathy about the death of other humans is having a stick up your ass now. I'm fairly comfortable with my opinion on this, but thanks for the commentary.
I'd rather deal with accidents caused by humans than the horror and tragedy of humans being killed because some machine fucked up and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it from happening -- then there's nobody to even blame because a machine did it, you can't even point at a person and say "it's their fault".
The only thing that matters if the number of lives saved. If self driving cars don't achieve significant gains in that area it'll be a non-starter and you will never have to experience that "horror".
As for the state of the art, there's no question. It's the driver's responsibility, whether the car was on autopilot or not. Autopilot is an assist only. The driver is expected to remain alert and ready to take over at any moment. So do not worry, you'll have someone to blame, and that'll make the death of a loved one all the more tolerable.
The current poor excuse for 'AI' will never be 'better than humans' because it is fundamentally incapable of anything like 'thinking', it's just following complicated 'decision trees'. We have no idea how 'thinking' actually works therefore we cannot build machines that 'think', which is why it fails like this so badly.
I don't think 'you' understand what it 'means' to quote something. Tends to make folks put less stock in your ruminations about AI and the nature of human thought.
Love it
Decapitation is hilarious! Let's all joke about their gruesome death, and as a bonus, think about their grieving family and chuckle.
Ask this guy if he was glad to be in a Tesla when he fell asleep at the wheel:
Another way to look at it: he fell asleep *because* he was in a Tesla. The problem with Teslas is that they are essentially self driving cars, minus the certification of being so (because such a thing doesn't exist yet). Of course people are going to fall asleep, pull out their laptop, watch a movie, and so on.
That's the realistic future of self driving cars. There never will be a stamp of "fully autonomous", and the driver will always have ultimate responsibility for the operation of the vehicle. They will however reach a point where the autopilot is so good that diverting your attention from the road will be more safe (statistically) than manual driving today.
You seem to have a reading problem. Or you just want so desperately to be right you ignore what is right in front of your eyes.
Nah I'm good. You're the one with nothing better to do than hurl insults. I agree though, it's very hard to rationalize that behavior, and even harder when someone calls you on it.
I find that you have two classes of people: Those that want to learn and those that do not. The second class is lost anyways, no way to reach them. May at least get some entertainment out of them. The first class is something else and I either do not insult them or apologize when I realize the mistake. That approach is working pretty well, thank you.
Fancy talk. Go read your post. You called everyone that might not have agreed with you, or just had less knowledge on the topic, "clueless." You didn't qualify it.
Trust me, that doesn't work well. That means you either get punched in the nose a lot, or you limit your trolling to when you are safe behind your computer screen.
Amazon should be able to sell all shows, not just be able to display certain shows. Same issue with Netflix.
You should talk to the content creators about that. Explain to them they should split their streaming profits with some other company, because.
I see "clueless" is still cool in come circles.
How's that working for you? When attempting to teach someone something new, starting out by telling them they are an idiot?
Pretty high, I'd say, since in both cases you have an understanding of your needs, i.e., what it should be doing
Okay. How often do you find yourself making changes in your C compiler because it doesn't support some feature you'd really like? I always thought it'd be nice if C could have a bound-safe array. I think I'll add it. I'm sure it's just a small change. After all I understand my needs so it'll be simple.
The target for code generation tools are higher-level folks. They don't understand coding. That's the whole point. Software development without software development (or with much higher level constructs).
Then you update your generator, obviously. That's the only systematic approach.
If I need a generator to write code for me, what are the chances I'm capable of augmenting the generator itself for my requirements?
And when you let a compiler generate assembly, you end up with something an assembly programmer might regard as crap as well. But since you're not the consumer of the result, who cares?
That's all fine unless you someday have to tweak the lower-level code in a way not supported by the thing that generated it in the first place. And if you need to re-generate the code, and re-apply your changes... a creek named shit.
Whooooosh.
I don't think I can blame people for not being interested in Captain Marvel either... it's not a superhero name most people are familiar with.
Who knew people might lose interest after 37 superhero movies over the last 5 years?
It's just a terrible waste of money
Netflix would do well to hire someone with their pulse on the international content distribution market, like yourself. I'm sure they just have a room of chimps filling the role now.
It isn't, Netflix is just shoving this crap down our throats.
Sure, because they decided that spreading internationalism is better than being filthy rich. Also, I have a nice bridge for sale.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
It's not an issue.
Then why write an article about it.
It's surprising that Netflix has international content? If I'm a subscriber I already know that.
Someone help me. I can't parse the issue here.
Instead of trying to sell American ideas to a foreign audience, it's aiming to sell international ideas to a global audience.
So what? It's a business strategy, not a social agenda. If it works and that's what people want, bully for them.
Whereas Google is known to be more focused on collecting data than security.
I guess you'd need to qualify that.
https://source.android.com/sec...
Read about Verified Boot and Trusted Execution. With regards to preventing malicious code from being flashed Android is very secure (as is iOS). That's what we're talking about here. If you want to turn this into a "Google steals my personal data" argument, I'm not biting.
So I don't have to know a hacker is one firmware away from activating the microphone in my device? Don't assume I am the only one altering the firmware.
If you think hackers can flash their own firmware on the devices on your network, you should really be freaking out. A microphone on your thermostat is the least of your worries. They could be flashing your router, your security cams, your phone. Be afraid.
I never understood the fascination with Linux. It's just a few computer programs.