Rei, I think the salient difference is that nobody works inside a VDU.
There has been relatively little focus on the details of car/capsule design. The design of a capsule able to withstand multiple trips per day in near-space conditions, providing life support while maintaining a near-zero failure rate, would be in my estimation more impressive than evacuating a long pipeline to 0.001 bar. I wish them luck, because the design of the doors alone would be of great benefit for space technology.
My understanding is that as of now the coins are separate, you have one on ledger A and one on ledger B and never the twain shall meet. The actual value of each will now be determined by market forces, so if they were viewed as equal the value of one would be roughly half, though it sounds like BTC has the leg up for now. I think the fact that many bitcoins will not be duplicated into bitcoin cash, due to their exchanges not supporting the new currency, is part of this.
As a side note, an unscrupulous exchange could use this to undertake massive fraud, simply by announcing they would not support the fork while keeping their customers forked currency for themselves.
How does a thing like this even work? What I'm reading is that everyone with bitcoin will now have an equal amount of bitcoin cash, and from now on the value of each will be uncoupled. Does this mean in the short run after the split the value of bitcoin is halved (at least), until the market decides how this will play out? What if I don't have a wallet that supports both at the outset, am I locked out from getting my bitcoin cash issue?
One thing that has accelerated this trend is the lack of upward mobility many workers find within their company. There is no bonus for being an internal candidate, and in some cases it seems to be a stigma (In one case I know of, a state agency requires extra paperwork if an internal candidate is selected for an open position, to prove they were better qualified). In these cases it's risky to wait years for a possible opening for advancement, better to search around as soon as you feel you are qualified.
This is all true, and I would like to add that these are jobs that are incredibly fragile. Mass layoffs of minimum wage workers are hardly mentioned as is, but with the gig economy hundreds of thousands of hours of work can be taken off the table without so much as a director's meeting.
I think you're right that underemployment is not as easily as accounted for as unemployment, and that actually seems to be more of the thrust of the article. The summary blurb isn't really doing it justice (shocking!) and ends up making the article seem stupid.
I think in this case the work produced is just a tool used to force compensation. It is similar to a mechanics lien, you have a "claim" to the work, but it only extends as far as your losses/costs. In your example, the neighbor could be forced to sell the house in order to provide you with the $5 your hammer cost, but you would have no claim on the house otherwise.
The problem is his "brand" - if you put Spicer in front of a camera now the gut reaction of half the audeince would be to assume he's spouting foolishness. Baron_Yam is right, he'd be good behind the camera, but he can't be in front of it.
I certainly agree with you, there are a lot of consumers who would look favorably on an autonomous car, but many (by this I mean millennials) are unlikely to be able to afford them when they come out. Whereas the boomers are on the whole flush with cash and are right at the cusp of losing the independence driving brings them, They would easily pay a $20,000 or so premium for an AV, wheras someone like myself would pay maybe $3000, assuming I was even interested in buying a new car. It's a very lucrative but transient market, after 15 years the technology will be old hat, the premium will have whittled down to nothing, and the remaining boomers may be too old to care. This is why I have been saying for a while that the AVs will be on the road before 2020. Reducing driving fatalities will be the icing on the cake, and I would say you are right in saying that the promise of that will help cut through regulations.
So I have some friends who are of the belief that Musk is just a consummate shyster, and I have disagreed, pointing to promising results with SpaceX and favorable sales from Tesla. This kind of talk makes me believe that there might be something to their concerns. I assume "verbal approval" from the gov't means that he asked someone (who knows who) if in theory he could do this and they said "sure", which counts for all of nothing. What this doesn't sound like is the well-established plan of an enterprise that is going to go forward.
This consumer demand you're talking about has nothing to do with eliminating road fatalities. It has everything to do with baby boomers getting too old to drive.
Lots of people going through trauma need the routine and stability that a job provides. I've seen it more than once myself, people who could have been on leave but wanted to be at work, where they knew people and had things to do. It's much better to give people slack in their environment than to send them off to sit at home in the dark by themselves. They can reintegrate slowly, rather than just assuming that they're magically all better one day and are ready to jump back into the workforce.
Don't let that stop you from grinding that axe, though.
You hit the nail on the head with your response further down, the AI only knows correlation==correlation. It is given data finds a trend, and will project that trend onward. If a group is systematically treated unfairly it will pick up on that as a trend. Feed it data from bus seating arrangements in Jim Crow-era Alabama, ask it to devise seating arraignments, and it will place Black people in the back of the bus. The problem is that we are attempting to make a program that provides "just" outcomes, not necessary previous outcomes. This is made more difficult when certain people are quick to jump on anything that legitimizes the status quo.
Slashdot Mirror
Rei, I think the salient difference is that nobody works inside a VDU.
There has been relatively little focus on the details of car/capsule design. The design of a capsule able to withstand multiple trips per day in near-space conditions, providing life support while maintaining a near-zero failure rate, would be in my estimation more impressive than evacuating a long pipeline to 0.001 bar. I wish them luck, because the design of the doors alone would be of great benefit for space technology.
If there were right to be forgotten protections in place like Europe, this poor man wouldn't have been driven to this /s
How can a 1MB block encode an unlimited number of transactions?
My understanding is that as of now the coins are separate, you have one on ledger A and one on ledger B and never the twain shall meet. The actual value of each will now be determined by market forces, so if they were viewed as equal the value of one would be roughly half, though it sounds like BTC has the leg up for now. I think the fact that many bitcoins will not be duplicated into bitcoin cash, due to their exchanges not supporting the new currency, is part of this.
As a side note, an unscrupulous exchange could use this to undertake massive fraud, simply by announcing they would not support the fork while keeping their customers forked currency for themselves.
How does a thing like this even work? What I'm reading is that everyone with bitcoin will now have an equal amount of bitcoin cash, and from now on the value of each will be uncoupled. Does this mean in the short run after the split the value of bitcoin is halved (at least), until the market decides how this will play out? What if I don't have a wallet that supports both at the outset, am I locked out from getting my bitcoin cash issue?
Seriously, why can't they live in the house? Do the parents know something we don't?
They aren't in the roofing business either, should they not have a roof?
One thing that has accelerated this trend is the lack of upward mobility many workers find within their company. There is no bonus for being an internal candidate, and in some cases it seems to be a stigma (In one case I know of, a state agency requires extra paperwork if an internal candidate is selected for an open position, to prove they were better qualified). In these cases it's risky to wait years for a possible opening for advancement, better to search around as soon as you feel you are qualified.
Wouldn't they weight them at check in? I thought there was already a max weight for checked bags.
This is all true, and I would like to add that these are jobs that are incredibly fragile. Mass layoffs of minimum wage workers are hardly mentioned as is, but with the gig economy hundreds of thousands of hours of work can be taken off the table without so much as a director's meeting.
I think you're right that underemployment is not as easily as accounted for as unemployment, and that actually seems to be more of the thrust of the article. The summary blurb isn't really doing it justice (shocking!) and ends up making the article seem stupid.
Thanks you, that is a hell of a summary. It's like being back in the the old /.
I think in this case the work produced is just a tool used to force compensation. It is similar to a mechanics lien, you have a "claim" to the work, but it only extends as far as your losses/costs. In your example, the neighbor could be forced to sell the house in order to provide you with the $5 your hammer cost, but you would have no claim on the house otherwise.
The problem is his "brand" - if you put Spicer in front of a camera now the gut reaction of half the audeince would be to assume he's spouting foolishness. Baron_Yam is right, he'd be good behind the camera, but he can't be in front of it.
I certainly agree with you, there are a lot of consumers who would look favorably on an autonomous car, but many (by this I mean millennials) are unlikely to be able to afford them when they come out. Whereas the boomers are on the whole flush with cash and are right at the cusp of losing the independence driving brings them, They would easily pay a $20,000 or so premium for an AV, wheras someone like myself would pay maybe $3000, assuming I was even interested in buying a new car. It's a very lucrative but transient market, after 15 years the technology will be old hat, the premium will have whittled down to nothing, and the remaining boomers may be too old to care. This is why I have been saying for a while that the AVs will be on the road before 2020. Reducing driving fatalities will be the icing on the cake, and I would say you are right in saying that the promise of that will help cut through regulations.
I'm afraid the only one looking stupid here is you. How do you have a 5 digit ID and not know who the Nazgûl are?
That was a joke, calm down.
So I have some friends who are of the belief that Musk is just a consummate shyster, and I have disagreed, pointing to promising results with SpaceX and favorable sales from Tesla. This kind of talk makes me believe that there might be something to their concerns. I assume "verbal approval" from the gov't means that he asked someone (who knows who) if in theory he could do this and they said "sure", which counts for all of nothing. What this doesn't sound like is the well-established plan of an enterprise that is going to go forward.
This consumer demand you're talking about has nothing to do with eliminating road fatalities. It has everything to do with baby boomers getting too old to drive.
Lots of people going through trauma need the routine and stability that a job provides. I've seen it more than once myself, people who could have been on leave but wanted to be at work, where they knew people and had things to do. It's much better to give people slack in their environment than to send them off to sit at home in the dark by themselves. They can reintegrate slowly, rather than just assuming that they're magically all better one day and are ready to jump back into the workforce.
Don't let that stop you from grinding that axe, though.
You hit the nail on the head with your response further down, the AI only knows correlation==correlation. It is given data finds a trend, and will project that trend onward. If a group is systematically treated unfairly it will pick up on that as a trend. Feed it data from bus seating arrangements in Jim Crow-era Alabama, ask it to devise seating arraignments, and it will place Black people in the back of the bus. The problem is that we are attempting to make a program that provides "just" outcomes, not necessary previous outcomes. This is made more difficult when certain people are quick to jump on anything that legitimizes the status quo.
Scientists: laypeople are twisting our words and making hyperbolic claims based on their misunderstanding of our research.
Other Scientists: Hey let's name this phenomenon after a fantastical and thematically similar yet completely unrelated concept in popular culture.
A. It would be (most likely) unconstitutional B. It would be expensive C. It would be time-consuming to calibrate
Space Corps? Telepathy? Are we (finally) living in a classic sci-fi novel?
I certainly hope it doesn't kill the music industry. Y'know, like it did last time. And the time before that.