The bottom line is that relatively few people have right combination of aptitude, temperament and specific ambitions to excel in these fields (ambitions like sitting on you ass all day staring at a computer).
CS has exploded since the first dot-com boom, with the majority of people chasing a âoegood careerâ, not the logical conclusion of their own abilities.
Efforts to increase diversity in the field have been a good thing, because talent is too scarce to let illogical, arbitrary factors like race, gender and nationality distort the market.
But has it? I've seen over the last 20 years loads of money and diversity efforts applied to CS. To an industry that already was way ahead of the game when it came to utilizing folks who weren't from the mainstream US (either folks who were from other places, other demographic groups, etc). The result I've seen is more poorly trained programmers who cause more harm than good but are cheap which the companies love.
We've forgotten every single lesson of Fred Brooks in favor of factory style methods of programming that often cause more harm than good. The shitty engineering at the last company for which I worked was costing them around $1b a year of lost revenue due to the poor latency of their site (which was the only way they made revenue). They did employee 400 engineers but for a task that should have taken at most 50 and since they paid poorly they only got mediocre engineers who didn't understand what they were doing.
If they had instead paid 2x the industry average they could have easily hired those 50 skilled engineers they needed, saved money, and increased revenue. And this is the current mode of operations in SV.
What happens when someone in a suit figures out how flawed all this is and these company get rid of all these cut rate engineers (or a competitor figures it out and they go out of biz)? What are we going to do with several million poorly trained CS grads who can't program well and we no longer need (or they are turfed out at 40 per corporate policy)? They've all been told as long as they learn programming they will be fine and feel like their (probably liberal) teachers lied to them and swing to the right much like blue collar workers have been doing for decades. Its like we are trying to breed political instability.
Big investors don't care when something dies. They sell long before then.
They care primarily about the 2nd derivative. When growth stop accelerating, they start making their plans to bail out...
This wasn't how investment analysis used to work. Steady growth of an asset over an extended period of time is a good bet to beat virtually any fast-buck strategy.
The claim that Peter Minuit bought Manhattan from the Lenape people for $24 is probably apocryphal, but if the tribe had received that amount in the year claimed and simply banked it at two percent compound interest, their stake would now be worth more than Manhattan itself.
Not quite. 1.02 ^ 392 ~= 2351.1 so $24 x 1.02 ^ 392 = $56,425.91 which is obviously far less than Manhattan is worth today.
However increasing the rate helps a lot
1.03 ^ 392 ~= 107,694.14 so about $2.4m
1.04 ^ 392 ~= 4,754,107.58 so about $114m
1.05 ^ 392 ~= 202,397,542.68 so about $4.8b
1.06 ^ 392 ~= 8,315,707,096.14 so about $200b
1.07 ^ 392 ~= 329,944,469,081.16 so about $7.9t
So the natives would need between a 6% and 7% annual return to make a profit. The lesson is rate of return matters
what exactly does jump the shark mean? Jumping the gun had a real-world image of a false start during the race, where a racer took off before the starting pistol fired. Hence jumping before the gun. Jumping the shark draws some really fucking perverse jack-be-nimble fairy tail images in my head. Do these sharks have freaking laser beams??
It means you don't understand an old meme from before the Internet. Jumping the shark is a reference to an episode of a TV sitcom called Happy Days. All you need to know is that 'jumping the shark' means doing something 1 time too many and something that worked before no longer will work. Basically, its the end of a meme's effectiveness in a given culture.
How is he supposed to know who is qualified for the job if he doesn't even understand what the job is?
No executive is an expert in every job of his subordinates.
There must be some way for people to be good at judging competence in areas they themselves are not expert in. Because it happens all the time.
I've heard this argument before and its 100% weapons grade BS. You are right that nobody can be an expert in anything. But you are forgetting about Dunning-Kruger where ability confers the ability to judge other's ability. How on earth could this computer illiterate possibly hope to be able to tell good cybersecurity from something that couldn't stop your average 15 yro?
This is why the myth of a pure manager needs to die. Skill in management itself is maybe 30% of the job in management. The strategy, talent assessment, and organization is far more important and those things require knowledge of what your team will be doing. That's why nobody believes this guy will be at all good at this job. The excuses we offer as to why this might not be so bad are more a psychological self-preservation technique than anything.
Then crack down on money laundering and you're pretty much set. This crack down is coming btw. Police are slow to react to new tech, but it's not hard to trace money laundering through Bitcoin. It works today because the police haven't caught up. They will in a few years. There's already been a few folks nailed for money laundering via bitcoin and they'll be more soon.
The AML laws came in after 9/11, about 17 years ago. They are very strict and evolving to be more strict. At first, the bank had to file a special form with the IRS for every transaction over $10,000. Then it became an issue if you made many transactions with values just less than $10,000. Now you must file these IRS forms for any aggregate set of transaction over a certain amount (I think something like $100K, not sure it changes frequently). Also, most criminals don't use BTC these days even if they do use various forms of crypto.
tampering without the large computation requirement (and matching power requirement)? And if it's not public why not just use a regular database?
I guess I still don't understand the point of blockchain by itself. I get the idea of having a distributed database. You can make your customers' computers do your database computation for you. It'd be like Bit Torrent for databases. You'd shift those costs onto your customers and they probably wouldn't notice since it's a few bucks a year in aggregate.
Because the blockchain isn't a distributed database and who ever told you it did doesn't know the first thing about blockchains. A blockchain solves a CS problem called the Byzantine Generals Problem. It solves problems involving trust. If you want a DB, use a DB. If you want to do solve some sort of trust problem, you use a blockchain. The two are not substitutes for each other.
Incidentally, while car drivers kill around 10 pedestrians a year jumping read lights, cyclists do not, which is the key difference.
The issue of pedestrian safety was highlighted earlier this year when cyclist Charlie Alliston, 20, was jailed for 18 months for knocking over and killing a woman as he sped through east London.
His victim Kim Briggs, 44, was crossing the street when she was struck by Allistonâ(TM)s racing bike, which it later emerged had no front brakes.
Its a man bits dog story. Its noteworthy exactly because its so rare. But good laws and policies are based upon the common occurrences, not the rare ones. Which is why biting a dog isn't a crime.
Certainly, the agrarian economy of the South wasn't going to keep up with the industrial north, but before the 18th century, farming was still the source of much of America's wealth.
And it may also be true that there were more poor white people per capita in the South, but there were also fantastically wealthy ones. Income inequality was the issue, not poverty, at least not in the context of national economic output.
The North had five times as many free people, yet the South spent just as much on th war. We weren't keeping good GDP numbers at the time, but that's pretty stark.
The North had five times as many free people, yet the South spent just as much on th war. We weren't keeping good GDP numbers at the time, but that's pretty stark.
I was going to mod you insightful until that last line. The North had 10x the people and 10x the estimated GDP (based upon 10x the railroads and exports). And out spent the South on the war by a wide margin.
But the richest state in the country at the time was Mississippi, not New York. Some parts of the south were very poor and that offset the wealth of the cotton growing areas when you look at total GDP. Also, the wealth due to cotton was increasing rapidly in the 1850s just before the war due to rapid increase in demand caused by industrialization of English fabric production.
What you say about income inequality was very much true but that mattered much less in a time when land was cheap and plentiful and the environment was virgin. You could still buy some rural land and feed a large family from it without much dependence upon the outside. Southern poverty is very much a result of Reconstruction and its effects linger 150 years after the Civil War. Couldn't imagine for the life of me why people who live there that wouldn't vote for who you think they should.
As a side note, why do people want to rewrite history so much these days? Its the scariest part of the new left.
Imagine there are 3 episodes. Possible orders are 123, 132, 213, 231, 312, 321. As you say, 3! = 6 orders. But if I watch the episodes 1231321312 I've covered all six in an overlapping way.
If memory serves (it's been 30 years) these are called tuples, and can be handy as hell. I had a friend who forgot her answering machines login, took me 5-10 minutes to break into it (3 digits).
They are called permutations and the shortened sequence is a superpermutation. The superpermutations are constructed via an asymmetric version of the Traveling Salesman Problem. Basically the tails of some permutation can do double duty by serving also as the head of the next permutation. Tuples are simply typed lists of data e.g. a database row. A fixed size list of integers is a tuple but so is 121 which isn't a permutation.
Earth didn't develop complex life until things calmed down here. From our current working sample set (size: 1) it's reasonable to assume that you need a less chaotic environment to develop life. You might need a moon to stir things up, though.
It's just another kind of goldilocks zone.
The moon actually keeps things calm down here on Earth. Its a self-balancing mechanism that prevents the Earth's movements from doing anything too radical.
if you have a Minsky machine (named after the founder of modern AI)
Marvin Minsky ABSOLUTELY didn't found modern AI. He was a successful author but none of his lines of research panned out and nothing in AI currently is based upon his ideas. MIT's AI labs floundered terribly under his leadership and he is a big reason why for all of MIT's success, its AI labs aren't up to the standards of the rest of the CS dept there. I can tell you haven't spent any time in academic AI if you think this at all. In fact, this is one way we use to filter out the fakers.
I know they're doing a few electric cars here and there. They're not particular serious about it, as far as I can tell. 25% by 2030 is much too slow, in my opinion. They need to get on it.
The problem with your opinion is that it isn't realistic.
As GM is in the business of making money, and not losing it, they have to be realistic.
If GM announced tomorrow that all of their vehicles would be electric going forward, they would next be announcing that they are going out of business due to lack of sales.
Electric cars are cool and all, but for most people they are not an option.
You are right, its not realistic that GM will a major part of an EV market with 25% of the US market. But that's not because the EV market isn't growing or there isn't pent-up demand for EV. Its because GM is a traditional car company and has a cultural aversion to EVs that prevent them from making a good faith attempt at making a marketable EV they make a profit on. I'm on my second Volt and its a nice car but GM loses $9,000 on each one they sell and its unlikely that they have the bandwidth to scale up production on the Volt or Bolt to the point where they make a profit. Why? Because they don't make their own batteries and can't get them cheaply enough (or enough of them) on the open market. This is because GM has no real expertise in making batteries and has failed to build up such a skill set in its workforce.
I expect this is yet another half-hearted attempt by GM to dip their toe into EVs in a way that gives them some return so they can learn how to manufacture their own EV batteries. But its a few years late and about $5b short of what they need to be doing to have a long term future when and if EVs achieve mass market sales.
You keep thinking that. I'll keep collecting my rather large pay cheques for being engaged in machine learning research all day.
Then you aren't doing data science. Data science is applied ML. You are either inventing new algorithms (ML research) or data science (applied ML). Which is it?
It could be that it is too late to learn that at medical school. Nerves have lost the needed flexibility. Perhaps it is like a foreign language: most people can learn another language perfectly only if they start at early age. Start in your twenties and you can never pronounce it like a native, even if your vocabulary and grammar are ok.
Steve Jobs was fired. He was 'the founder' and often in many growing businesses, 'the founder' becomes an encumbrance.
I've worked at companies like that, I am sure a lot of us have. Dude pops in on meetings and totally disrupts the ability to have productive discussions.
Yes, because workers are total productive after they are laid off due to poor sales. This is probably a bad example, perhaps try again with someone who didn't save Apple and make it a trillion dollar company.
I have worked with people with Microsoft, Google, AOL (when it was a thing).... And for the most part they are not any better then those guys who worked at small companies, or even in Government.
Actually people from small companies, are actually much better, because they know how to do more with less.
Damn, I already posted so I can't mod you up. I couldn't agree more and only HR drones who wouldn't know a well run tech company from a tire fire wouldn't know this. For everyone else, you have no excuse for not knowing this. Working at Google these days should be a black mark, not a sign of quality. 10 years ago it would be different but that was a different Google.
You are doubly wrong about this. 1) scotch is for rich assholes who think spending a lot on something means its better and 2) bourbon (learn to spell cheekyboy) is the hot hipster spirit now, not scotch. This isn't the 80's
It was [Reagan's] mental health hachetjob that lead us to where we are today, first in California then the US as a whole, with both the far left and far right being people who should have been institutionalized years ago for violent or antisocial tendencies.
You mean the Community Mental Health Act, passed in 1963 when Reagan was a private citizen (JFK's interest in the subject is obvious)?
"Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.
He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization."
Read the actual statement, nothing about "unity" on "gun control" or "immigration", that's added by selective ABC quoting:
From the statement:
"We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies"
Kavanaugh ruled in 2012 that it is OK for foreign governments to buy influence in elections, as long as they don't try to get individual politicians elected. The UAE alone spent $600 million, via a GOP fundraiser called Elliot Broidy (Google him), according to Kavanaughs decision that would be legal. I disagree. It *should* be *illegal* for the flow of vast amounts of PAC money to buy influence, and politicians seeking foreign help in winning elections.
Citizens united was a disaster, and foreign owned Delaware corps it created, is the inevitable result.
You should *not* be visiting Moscow or Riyadh seeking help in the USA elections, you should be visiting your constituency.
"...disseminating foreign propaganda."
Is it true? Or is it fake?
Did those 15 Saudi military officers, *accidentally* choke the Washington Post journalist as he fist-fought them, or did they they go to the embassy, equipped with bone saws, and a torture doctor, and dismember him while he was alive. Because my Occams Razor says if you take a bone saw to an embassy, you plan on dissecting someone, and if you have a doctor there, you plan on keeping him alive as you do it. Whereas if he died accidentally during a choke hold, you don't cut up the body, smuggle it out of the embassy and hide it. Yet this is the story Trump believes. One side it propaganda. One side is a lie.
Just to be sure, I'd like them to find the body parts, and I'd like the release of the evidence the Turkish say they have. The Turkish story has not changed, and if it was false, the Saudi's would know they didn't have the evidence they claimed and wouldn't admit it. The Saudi story has changed and they have admitted it, so I know that the Turkish claim is true and the Saudi one false. See? Occams Razor.
The logic is right there in the previous paragraphs for you to check or disagree with.
"causing divisions on social issues such as immigration and gun control"
This is added spin by selective quoting of ABC. I'll bite.
I'm still waiting for that vast army of immigrants heading for the border that only a wall can stop. Did they arrive yet? No? There's majority on immigration, nobody of either party is funding the wall. Neither party wants kids taken from parents, stuck in army camps, and forced to sign waivers of their legal rights. So how is there division? Where exactly is the split? Between Trump+Hannity vs the people + rest of the executive+ judicial + legislative branches. That's amazing unity!
80% want gun control, that's unity. NRA doesn't, gets Russian funding from a fake pro-gun lobby, that's not-unity. There is unity, but there isn't action.
You didn't mention healthcare? Can grandma get cancer treatment? Yes she can, that's unity, the repeal vote failed, even Republicans won't vote to cancel it. So why is it being defunded, when there's so much unity?
Mitch McConnell got booed out of a restaurant yesterday. How dare they! Mitch McConnell won't schedule votes if he doesn't want the legislation, even if the majrity of the Senate wants it. Do you think perhaps the undermining of the democracy has something to do with them not voicing their concerns via the democracy?
end rant.
Since I don't have mod points today, this is the best I can do...
A shortage of chocolate, coffee and wine will provoke riots in the streets. Stock up while you can!
This is more insightful than maybe you know. Laws and shortages relating to beer have causes violence on multiple occasions in the US and Europe. Often in less developed countries, a beer shortage can cause riots and civil unrest although often this happens in concert with other shortages including food shortages. Couple this with the fact that beer is a substitute for potable water and keeping the beer flowing is often a serious matter. Also, its a good message in the US where the beer drinking crowd is often against environmental causes.
Slashdot Mirror
The bottom line is that relatively few people have right combination of aptitude, temperament and specific ambitions to excel in these fields (ambitions like sitting on you ass all day staring at a computer).
CS has exploded since the first dot-com boom, with the majority of people chasing a âoegood careerâ, not the logical conclusion of their own abilities.
Efforts to increase diversity in the field have been a good thing, because talent is too scarce to let illogical, arbitrary factors like race, gender and nationality distort the market.
But has it? I've seen over the last 20 years loads of money and diversity efforts applied to CS. To an industry that already was way ahead of the game when it came to utilizing folks who weren't from the mainstream US (either folks who were from other places, other demographic groups, etc). The result I've seen is more poorly trained programmers who cause more harm than good but are cheap which the companies love.
We've forgotten every single lesson of Fred Brooks in favor of factory style methods of programming that often cause more harm than good. The shitty engineering at the last company for which I worked was costing them around $1b a year of lost revenue due to the poor latency of their site (which was the only way they made revenue). They did employee 400 engineers but for a task that should have taken at most 50 and since they paid poorly they only got mediocre engineers who didn't understand what they were doing.
If they had instead paid 2x the industry average they could have easily hired those 50 skilled engineers they needed, saved money, and increased revenue. And this is the current mode of operations in SV.
What happens when someone in a suit figures out how flawed all this is and these company get rid of all these cut rate engineers (or a competitor figures it out and they go out of biz)? What are we going to do with several million poorly trained CS grads who can't program well and we no longer need (or they are turfed out at 40 per corporate policy)? They've all been told as long as they learn programming they will be fine and feel like their (probably liberal) teachers lied to them and swing to the right much like blue collar workers have been doing for decades. Its like we are trying to breed political instability.
Big investors don't care when something dies. They sell long before then.
They care primarily about the 2nd derivative. When growth stop accelerating, they start making their plans to bail out...
This wasn't how investment analysis used to work. Steady growth of an asset over an extended period of time is a good bet to beat virtually any fast-buck strategy.
The claim that Peter Minuit bought Manhattan from the Lenape people for $24 is probably apocryphal, but if the tribe had received that amount in the year claimed and simply banked it at two percent compound interest, their stake would now be worth more than Manhattan itself.
Not quite. 1.02 ^ 392 ~= 2351.1 so $24 x 1.02 ^ 392 = $56,425.91 which is obviously far less than Manhattan is worth today.
However increasing the rate helps a lot
So the natives would need between a 6% and 7% annual return to make a profit. The lesson is rate of return matters
what exactly does jump the shark mean? Jumping the gun had a real-world image of a false start during the race, where a racer took off before the starting pistol fired. Hence jumping before the gun. Jumping the shark draws some really fucking perverse jack-be-nimble fairy tail images in my head. Do these sharks have freaking laser beams??
It means you don't understand an old meme from before the Internet. Jumping the shark is a reference to an episode of a TV sitcom called Happy Days. All you need to know is that 'jumping the shark' means doing something 1 time too many and something that worked before no longer will work. Basically, its the end of a meme's effectiveness in a given culture.
ANY language where whitespace has more significance than separating words is fundamentally broken.
Mod up!!!
How is he supposed to know who is qualified for the job if he doesn't even understand what the job is?
No executive is an expert in every job of his subordinates.
There must be some way for people to be good at judging competence in areas they themselves are not expert in. Because it happens all the time.
I've heard this argument before and its 100% weapons grade BS. You are right that nobody can be an expert in anything. But you are forgetting about Dunning-Kruger where ability confers the ability to judge other's ability. How on earth could this computer illiterate possibly hope to be able to tell good cybersecurity from something that couldn't stop your average 15 yro?
This is why the myth of a pure manager needs to die. Skill in management itself is maybe 30% of the job in management. The strategy, talent assessment, and organization is far more important and those things require knowledge of what your team will be doing. That's why nobody believes this guy will be at all good at this job. The excuses we offer as to why this might not be so bad are more a psychological self-preservation technique than anything.
Then crack down on money laundering and you're pretty much set. This crack down is coming btw. Police are slow to react to new tech, but it's not hard to trace money laundering through Bitcoin. It works today because the police haven't caught up. They will in a few years. There's already been a few folks nailed for money laundering via bitcoin and they'll be more soon.
The AML laws came in after 9/11, about 17 years ago. They are very strict and evolving to be more strict. At first, the bank had to file a special form with the IRS for every transaction over $10,000. Then it became an issue if you made many transactions with values just less than $10,000. Now you must file these IRS forms for any aggregate set of transaction over a certain amount (I think something like $100K, not sure it changes frequently). Also, most criminals don't use BTC these days even if they do use various forms of crypto.
tampering without the large computation requirement (and matching power requirement)? And if it's not public why not just use a regular database? I guess I still don't understand the point of blockchain by itself. I get the idea of having a distributed database. You can make your customers' computers do your database computation for you. It'd be like Bit Torrent for databases. You'd shift those costs onto your customers and they probably wouldn't notice since it's a few bucks a year in aggregate.
Because the blockchain isn't a distributed database and who ever told you it did doesn't know the first thing about blockchains. A blockchain solves a CS problem called the Byzantine Generals Problem. It solves problems involving trust. If you want a DB, use a DB. If you want to do solve some sort of trust problem, you use a blockchain. The two are not substitutes for each other.
Incidentally, while car drivers kill around 10 pedestrians a year jumping read lights, cyclists do not, which is the key difference.
The issue of pedestrian safety was highlighted earlier this year when cyclist Charlie Alliston, 20, was jailed for 18 months for knocking over and killing a woman as he sped through east London.
His victim Kim Briggs, 44, was crossing the street when she was struck by Allistonâ(TM)s racing bike, which it later emerged had no front brakes.
https://www.express.co.uk/news...
Its a man bits dog story. Its noteworthy exactly because its so rare. But good laws and policies are based upon the common occurrences, not the rare ones. Which is why biting a dog isn't a crime.
Or souther poverty is just a myth: https://www.abbevilleinstitute...
Certainly, the agrarian economy of the South wasn't going to keep up with the industrial north, but before the 18th century, farming was still the source of much of America's wealth.
And it may also be true that there were more poor white people per capita in the South, but there were also fantastically wealthy ones. Income inequality was the issue, not poverty, at least not in the context of national economic output.
The North had five times as many free people, yet the South spent just as much on th war. We weren't keeping good GDP numbers at the time, but that's pretty stark.
The North had five times as many free people, yet the South spent just as much on th war. We weren't keeping good GDP numbers at the time, but that's pretty stark.
I was going to mod you insightful until that last line. The North had 10x the people and 10x the estimated GDP (based upon 10x the railroads and exports). And out spent the South on the war by a wide margin.
But the richest state in the country at the time was Mississippi, not New York. Some parts of the south were very poor and that offset the wealth of the cotton growing areas when you look at total GDP. Also, the wealth due to cotton was increasing rapidly in the 1850s just before the war due to rapid increase in demand caused by industrialization of English fabric production.
What you say about income inequality was very much true but that mattered much less in a time when land was cheap and plentiful and the environment was virgin. You could still buy some rural land and feed a large family from it without much dependence upon the outside. Southern poverty is very much a result of Reconstruction and its effects linger 150 years after the Civil War. Couldn't imagine for the life of me why people who live there that wouldn't vote for who you think they should.
As a side note, why do people want to rewrite history so much these days? Its the scariest part of the new left.
How is 93,884,313,611 the lower bound? 14! is 87,178,291,200
Because its not 14!, its 14! * 14 which is much larger than 14! * 13! * 12! * 11 which is the lower bound (93,884,313,611).
Oops, that should read 14! + 13! + 12! + 11
How is 93,884,313,611 the lower bound? 14! is 87,178,291,200
Because its not 14!, its 14! * 14 which is much larger than 14! * 13! * 12! * 11 which is the lower bound (93,884,313,611).
Imagine there are 3 episodes. Possible orders are 123, 132, 213, 231, 312, 321. As you say, 3! = 6 orders. But if I watch the episodes 1231321312 I've covered all six in an overlapping way.
If memory serves (it's been 30 years) these are called tuples, and can be handy as hell. I had a friend who forgot her answering machines login, took me 5-10 minutes to break into it (3 digits).
They are called permutations and the shortened sequence is a superpermutation. The superpermutations are constructed via an asymmetric version of the Traveling Salesman Problem. Basically the tails of some permutation can do double duty by serving also as the head of the next permutation. Tuples are simply typed lists of data e.g. a database row. A fixed size list of integers is a tuple but so is 121 which isn't a permutation.
Earth didn't develop complex life until things calmed down here. From our current working sample set (size: 1) it's reasonable to assume that you need a less chaotic environment to develop life. You might need a moon to stir things up, though.
It's just another kind of goldilocks zone.
The moon actually keeps things calm down here on Earth. Its a self-balancing mechanism that prevents the Earth's movements from doing anything too radical.
if you have a Minsky machine (named after the founder of modern AI)
Marvin Minsky ABSOLUTELY didn't found modern AI. He was a successful author but none of his lines of research panned out and nothing in AI currently is based upon his ideas. MIT's AI labs floundered terribly under his leadership and he is a big reason why for all of MIT's success, its AI labs aren't up to the standards of the rest of the CS dept there. I can tell you haven't spent any time in academic AI if you think this at all. In fact, this is one way we use to filter out the fakers.
I know they're doing a few electric cars here and there. They're not particular serious about it, as far as I can tell. 25% by 2030 is much too slow, in my opinion. They need to get on it.
The problem with your opinion is that it isn't realistic.
As GM is in the business of making money, and not losing it, they have to be realistic.
If GM announced tomorrow that all of their vehicles would be electric going forward, they would next be announcing that they are going out of business due to lack of sales.
Electric cars are cool and all, but for most people they are not an option.
You are right, its not realistic that GM will a major part of an EV market with 25% of the US market. But that's not because the EV market isn't growing or there isn't pent-up demand for EV. Its because GM is a traditional car company and has a cultural aversion to EVs that prevent them from making a good faith attempt at making a marketable EV they make a profit on. I'm on my second Volt and its a nice car but GM loses $9,000 on each one they sell and its unlikely that they have the bandwidth to scale up production on the Volt or Bolt to the point where they make a profit. Why? Because they don't make their own batteries and can't get them cheaply enough (or enough of them) on the open market. This is because GM has no real expertise in making batteries and has failed to build up such a skill set in its workforce.
I expect this is yet another half-hearted attempt by GM to dip their toe into EVs in a way that gives them some return so they can learn how to manufacture their own EV batteries. But its a few years late and about $5b short of what they need to be doing to have a long term future when and if EVs achieve mass market sales.
You keep thinking that. I'll keep collecting my rather large pay cheques for being engaged in machine learning research all day.
Then you aren't doing data science. Data science is applied ML. You are either inventing new algorithms (ML research) or data science (applied ML). Which is it?
It could be that it is too late to learn that at medical school. Nerves have lost the needed flexibility. Perhaps it is like a foreign language: most people can learn another language perfectly only if they start at early age. Start in your twenties and you can never pronounce it like a native, even if your vocabulary and grammar are ok.
Don't have mod points today....
Steve Jobs was fired. He was 'the founder' and often in many growing businesses, 'the founder' becomes an encumbrance.
I've worked at companies like that, I am sure a lot of us have. Dude pops in on meetings and totally disrupts the ability to have productive discussions.
Yes, because workers are total productive after they are laid off due to poor sales. This is probably a bad example, perhaps try again with someone who didn't save Apple and make it a trillion dollar company.
I have worked with people with Microsoft, Google, AOL (when it was a thing).... And for the most part they are not any better then those guys who worked at small companies, or even in Government. Actually people from small companies, are actually much better, because they know how to do more with less.
Damn, I already posted so I can't mod you up. I couldn't agree more and only HR drones who wouldn't know a well run tech company from a tire fire wouldn't know this. For everyone else, you have no excuse for not knowing this. Working at Google these days should be a black mark, not a sign of quality. 10 years ago it would be different but that was a different Google.
all cool people LOVE good scotch, not burbon
You are doubly wrong about this. 1) scotch is for rich assholes who think spending a lot on something means its better and 2) bourbon (learn to spell cheekyboy) is the hot hipster spirit now, not scotch. This isn't the 80's
You mean the Community Mental Health Act, passed in 1963 when Reagan was a private citizen (JFK's interest in the subject is obvious)?
"Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.
He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization."
From: here
What's the mass of the electrodynamic tether compared to that of the Earth?
Small constant thrust adds up fast.
But its not constant, its varying over a 1 day period. I did learn something from you (about EDT) even if you're off about your comment. So thanks....
Read the actual statement, nothing about "unity" on "gun control" or "immigration", that's added by selective ABC quoting:
From the statement: "We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies"
Kavanaugh ruled in 2012 that it is OK for foreign governments to buy influence in elections, as long as they don't try to get individual politicians elected. The UAE alone spent $600 million, via a GOP fundraiser called Elliot Broidy (Google him), according to Kavanaughs decision that would be legal. I disagree. It *should* be *illegal* for the flow of vast amounts of PAC money to buy influence, and politicians seeking foreign help in winning elections.
Citizens united was a disaster, and foreign owned Delaware corps it created, is the inevitable result.
You should *not* be visiting Moscow or Riyadh seeking help in the USA elections, you should be visiting your constituency.
"...disseminating foreign propaganda."
Is it true? Or is it fake? Did those 15 Saudi military officers, *accidentally* choke the Washington Post journalist as he fist-fought them, or did they they go to the embassy, equipped with bone saws, and a torture doctor, and dismember him while he was alive. Because my Occams Razor says if you take a bone saw to an embassy, you plan on dissecting someone, and if you have a doctor there, you plan on keeping him alive as you do it. Whereas if he died accidentally during a choke hold, you don't cut up the body, smuggle it out of the embassy and hide it. Yet this is the story Trump believes. One side it propaganda. One side is a lie.
Just to be sure, I'd like them to find the body parts, and I'd like the release of the evidence the Turkish say they have. The Turkish story has not changed, and if it was false, the Saudi's would know they didn't have the evidence they claimed and wouldn't admit it. The Saudi story has changed and they have admitted it, so I know that the Turkish claim is true and the Saudi one false. See? Occams Razor.
The logic is right there in the previous paragraphs for you to check or disagree with.
"causing divisions on social issues such as immigration and gun control" This is added spin by selective quoting of ABC. I'll bite.
I'm still waiting for that vast army of immigrants heading for the border that only a wall can stop. Did they arrive yet? No? There's majority on immigration, nobody of either party is funding the wall. Neither party wants kids taken from parents, stuck in army camps, and forced to sign waivers of their legal rights. So how is there division? Where exactly is the split? Between Trump+Hannity vs the people + rest of the executive+ judicial + legislative branches. That's amazing unity!
80% want gun control, that's unity. NRA doesn't, gets Russian funding from a fake pro-gun lobby, that's not-unity. There is unity, but there isn't action.
You didn't mention healthcare? Can grandma get cancer treatment? Yes she can, that's unity, the repeal vote failed, even Republicans won't vote to cancel it. So why is it being defunded, when there's so much unity?
Mitch McConnell got booed out of a restaurant yesterday. How dare they! Mitch McConnell won't schedule votes if he doesn't want the legislation, even if the majrity of the Senate wants it. Do you think perhaps the undermining of the democracy has something to do with them not voicing their concerns via the democracy?
end rant.
Since I don't have mod points today, this is the best I can do...
Fill your basement with 1000000 cases of beer now.
Worst-case scenario: you sell at huge profit when the disaster strikes.
Best-case: no need to leave the house for the rest of your life.
This is dumb. Beer degrades and its quality is often linked to its freshness.
A shortage of chocolate, coffee and wine will provoke riots in the streets. Stock up while you can!
This is more insightful than maybe you know. Laws and shortages relating to beer have causes violence on multiple occasions in the US and Europe. Often in less developed countries, a beer shortage can cause riots and civil unrest although often this happens in concert with other shortages including food shortages. Couple this with the fact that beer is a substitute for potable water and keeping the beer flowing is often a serious matter. Also, its a good message in the US where the beer drinking crowd is often against environmental causes.