what the survey results actually say is that people who choose / have to to code in swift like it more than people who choose / have to code in some other language X. they don't say that everyone loves swift, or that swift IS the best language. self-selection.
but I predict a switch to private cloud services (e.g. cloud service running on a set of hardware and software belonging to a corporation) in about 5-10 years. whoever comes up with a best offer, will dominate the field for the following 20 years or so.
of course they care about selling new product, and usability certainly has been a huge part of their brand during jobs times. not so much today, but they still are ahead of their competitors on many points.
and, I don't quite agree that design "always" trumps functionality. what often happens is that given a functionality set, investing in design is more profitable than investing in developing said feature set further. it is especially true since functionality and design require different skillsets, and most functionality-focused teams don't really have the usability-focused mindset. this will correct itself with time, but not in the short term.
"you have to chose between this cool new feature or this broken thing fixed" is a false dichotomy. there is no reason apple wouldn't be able to accomplish things that are not mutually competing for power consumption, physical space, or cost. there is a point in making priority lists but fixing what shouldn't be broken in the first place don't belong there.
I'm fine with it. by this time and age I am quite capable of telling a slashdot ad article by myself, and I trained myself to ignore ads in many forms where I can't turn them off. I come here for the comments sections as well as I'm sure many others also do anyways, so if a Microsoft product story sparks some insightful conversation - sure why not?
it works as a place to store your resume and link to it conveniently. it also works as a place to find a specialist in your 2nd circle so you know you can call your contact and ask for real feedback rather than go through all that recommendation bullshit.
the owners however seem to be very much intent to scope-creep it into a facebook of sorts, a place for people to log in every day. IMO that contradicts the whole idea of a job hunting service. compare it to a dating site: if you're on a dating site all the time, it means you're really unhappy with your current relationship, or you can't start one - either way there's something wrong with you, and you should probably be avoided. I login there every once in a while, see all that useless "ace that job interview" or "how to make the best first impression" spam and wonder who even reads these.
>It was the common view of the time: All of the solar system's big, interesting things -- the sun and the nine planets -- were behind Pioneer 10.
At the time, i.e. in June 1983, there were nine astral bodies considered planets. I'm fairly sure whoever wrote the article put that sentence in there as a bait.
so there’s no word as to whether they are selling round trip tickets or learning from experience and starting with one-way fares."
actually, that works the other way round - if they "learned from experience", they should push for round trip tickets, because otherwise they may have a little problem selling return fares a little later:p
Either would shut a lot of starting indie games developers out of the system, thus preventing said developers and the gaming industry in general from making future hits. Basically, all new games are either essentially reskins/clones of existing games, or trying new mechanics and/or interactions, and sometimes (rarely) stories and characters. Given the typical indie level production values are garbage, in general, only the ones that try to innovate actually do have some value for the industry. However, first, there's no good formal way to distinguish between the two (and for the last 5 years or so Steam no longer wants to be the judge). And second, since vast majority of games belong to the first category, the ones who do innovate would be scared off and not even bother with the platform. So I'm with Valve on this one - better to pick up bad apples one by one but still let the crowd spot the few jewels in the torrent of junk games.
I understand very well what you mean, but differences in perception of "what is best for them" by citizens of different nations aren't really important here. I take it without any doubt that each state is in general capable of creating the best business environment according to that state's citizens' tastes. It's true that there are states that have a long history of free market ideology, so they are doing kind of OK-ish in this regard. But at this stage in humanity in general the wind blows the other way; most states make changes in their economy according to what the rich people in those states want (well if you discount states that act in US or Chinese corporations' interests that is). So in old-school-capitalist countries new market regulations are usually being passed against the interest of the public, and in developing countries the trend is also towards more authoritarian and protectionist economy. You'd be hard pressed to find a single "big" country within last 20-30 years or so that succeeded at creating the kind of business environment necessary for innovation-based businesses to proliferate. The best examples are city-states like Singapore and Hong Kong, which obviously wouldn't apply to India (hence my "big" qualifier). I think the best role model for India is China, the ultimate in protectionism.
I think of it this way. As a government, you could:
- pass state-level programmes that help innovation-based businesses, take a hit in taxes, and HOPE that it will be worth it one day
or
- copycat existing products that are proven to work, at the local rich people's coin, and/or - make it hard for said product owners' to compete, as an option even going China way while all the same time rooting for the population to "support your country - switch to local services"
which would they choose?
And these are not even mutually exclusive; it's perfectly possible to start setting up local innovation business scene by using the revenue created by someone else's ideas. So sorry, but I don't really see how it is possible NOT having ulterior motives in this matter.
Oh I certainly am a fan of the concept of a state acting in the interests of their citizens. But does this really happen in today's world, in large countries?
I guess I am jaded, and would love to be wrong on this one, but not really holding my breath much.
"Indians use these services, but profits from these services go overseas. And I just happen to have some wealthy local friends who would like a slice of this pie. And, being a politician, I am playing a patriotism card for them, to pave the way for the popular movement to support local product-to-be."
Nothing wrong or even unusual about it though; it's about as ethical (or unethical, depending on one's PoV) as the "eat locally grown food" slogan. In theory, if they are capable of creating an alternative to (at least some subset of) Google services, some new competition is always good for the market and so good for everyone. But what usually happens is they start applying external pressure by putting services in unequal conditions by subsidizing locals or even doing darker things like throttling traffic at state level or limiting their capability to earn revenue through regulatory measures. Eh, I'm not a globalization fan either, so whatever.
Why do you keep conflating technical availability and consumption preferences? No information network is of much use without a discovery mechanism, which can be either curated (webring / portal) or automated to some extent (search engine). People who are interested in a topic will find a way to create such an mechanism, and use it as long as it suits their goals; it's entirely opt-in and demand driven, so no single person or company gets to decide what qualifies as "wallowing in the filth" and what doesn't - not any different from the way it works today.
As for the content you wouldn't like to see hosted somewhere, I personally feel it's a lost cause. Deepfakes, from what I understand, aren't principally much different from stand-in cutouts, so there will eventually be a service where you can take any existing video, have it analyzed where faces and possibly skin colors / body types on the picture in each frame are, then feed it pictures of an existing person, and get a deepfake video with the person you need. In fact I'm fairly sure this already exists today somewhere for shady purposes, but technology for mass production is not there yet; at current rates money is placed on deep learning, I give it 10-ish years to appear.
I believe the way we would be fighting this as would be more about automated crypto-signing of video streams on hardware level, and then restricting video players to only display content from white-listed sources, which has the advantage of not having to fight those who produce and host the offending material. There are problems with that approach as well, but as long as there is a way to opt out, it should be fine. And as for people who would be happy to consume fake content, well, like I said, to me this is a lost cause, and we have to get over it.
Actually, there is no need for a complete reset. The mere fact that someone publicly went against globalists and won, changed the rules of the game. The people en masse realized you don't actually have to be in the Wall St pocket to make a change, so there is a good chance next time they will vote in someone much more reasonable.
There are two sides of this story - hypothetical as in "how a hypothetical society would work if it was free of gender-related stereotypes and prejudices, including antifeminine (must be hearthkeepet) and antimasculine (must be breadwinner)", and pragmatic as in "how would the society that there is here today with all its legacy but slowly improving nevertheless react to these concrete people going against the abovementioned stereotypes". I, as a male, feel the onus is on me not to expect my wife to behave according to society's stereotypes regarding females", especially since that our combined income is enough for our lifestyle, so we can afford it. Whether there are enough families in a similar situation so that should they all adopt a similar attitude, society would start to change, I don't know. Perhaps not, but that is not an excuse; I have been taught to "always start with myself". My position is - let's just have those who can afford it do it for our wives and gfs and see where it can take is as a society.
There may be hidden sexism in the statement that women "want to start a family" IF that kind of implies they would be doing more of the family-related stuff than their hypothetical future husbands, well other than bearing and breastfeeding obviously. If we want a true gender equality, perhaps a good look at traditional family roles is due. If said women could realistically expect they would be in a family with a man who would do their half willingly perhaps they would have made different life choices. Or maybe they wouldn't, what do I know, I'm not a woman, but I personally feel I have to take over what I can do (nappies bottles putting to sleep etc) regardless. But then where we live there are good opportunities for both of us. It will likely be a couple generations until it is true for most people in most of the (western at least) world.
I was born and raised in USSR, well known for its research institutes. Roughly 50% of folks in science were female, partly because the Soviet government aimed to treat men and women equally, and there was absolutely zero bias again women in lab coats. Except in leadership positions obviously - these rightfully belong to the Party.
Look I totes get it, surveillance state yadda yadda. I hate it as much as the next guy here. But why try to stop the progress? This is just algorithms and database, if Amazon can offer such a service but is talked out of it somehow then someone else will. If you want to stop this, there has to be legislation against this kind of service, rather than pushback against isolated incidents. And even then someone would eventually make "black" version if the AI scraping off public databases. Either way privacy is kinda screwed so I'd rather see this kind of service regulated and public.
You still seem to be under the delusion that manufacturers actually give a shit about what consumers want. They don't. They care about what makes them the most money.
Eh, "what makes them the most money" is exactly the same thing as "what the market wants". You could argue whether any particular idea of theirs in this regard is right or wrong, but they're most certainly studying their markets and trying to guess what consumers want, to get most money. And since they can't satisfy everyone, they go for the largest group, so there you go.
And as for what the "features" no one asked for, like no headphone jack, or screen resolution that doesn't make any more sense, again, if people are willing to pay for this, they are the market, and they decide. Call them dumb, call them gullible, call them anything, but if it works for them, as long as Apple products sell well, what are you going to do.
>I don't want thin, either. Give me a larger, replaceable battery, not some phone that's hard to not drop.
You do realize it's the market that wants thin, and not Apple? The reason the likes of you and I aren't getting what we want is because we're a minority, and not because Apple is so anti-us. If people actually cared about batteries more than about thin I expect Apple would have delivered.
you do realize autoplay exists and proliferates for the similar reason that e-mail spam does? because, much to our chagrin, pages with autoplay DO perform better than those without!
I hate autoplay probably as much as almost everyone on Slashdot, and close almost instantly every page that does it. but as long as majority of visitors sticks around longer, click on ads etc. with autoplay, as long as that behavior stays prevalent, it's going to only get worse.
Slashdot Mirror
what the survey results actually say is that people who choose / have to to code in swift like it more than people who choose / have to code in some other language X. they don't say that everyone loves swift, or that swift IS the best language. self-selection.
but I predict a switch to private cloud services (e.g. cloud service running on a set of hardware and software belonging to a corporation) in about 5-10 years. whoever comes up with a best offer, will dominate the field for the following 20 years or so.
of course they care about selling new product, and usability certainly has been a huge part of their brand during jobs times. not so much today, but they still are ahead of their competitors on many points.
and, I don't quite agree that design "always" trumps functionality. what often happens is that given a functionality set, investing in design is more profitable than investing in developing said feature set further. it is especially true since functionality and design require different skillsets, and most functionality-focused teams don't really have the usability-focused mindset. this will correct itself with time, but not in the short term.
"you have to chose between this cool new feature or this broken thing fixed" is a false dichotomy. there is no reason apple wouldn't be able to accomplish things that are not mutually competing for power consumption, physical space, or cost. there is a point in making priority lists but fixing what shouldn't be broken in the first place don't belong there.
I'm fine with it. by this time and age I am quite capable of telling a slashdot ad article by myself, and I trained myself to ignore ads in many forms where I can't turn them off. I come here for the comments sections as well as I'm sure many others also do anyways, so if a Microsoft product story sparks some insightful conversation - sure why not?
https://twitter.com/Louis_Alld...
@Louis_Allday
This is too perfect.
Anti-Maduro Venezuelan on 19 January: "I'm living in the cutest apartment in Paris studying fashion... life is good"
24 January: "I live here [Venezuela]. I live this. live with having rationed food, toilet paper, basic human necessities."
it works as a place to store your resume and link to it conveniently. it also works as a place to find a specialist in your 2nd circle so you know you can call your contact and ask for real feedback rather than go through all that recommendation bullshit.
the owners however seem to be very much intent to scope-creep it into a facebook of sorts, a place for people to log in every day. IMO that contradicts the whole idea of a job hunting service. compare it to a dating site: if you're on a dating site all the time, it means you're really unhappy with your current relationship, or you can't start one - either way there's something wrong with you, and you should probably be avoided. I login there every once in a while, see all that useless "ace that job interview" or "how to make the best first impression" spam and wonder who even reads these.
>It was the common view of the time: All of the solar system's big, interesting things -- the sun and the nine planets -- were behind Pioneer 10.
At the time, i.e. in June 1983, there were nine astral bodies considered planets. I'm fairly sure whoever wrote the article put that sentence in there as a bait.
so there’s no word as to whether they are selling round trip tickets or learning from experience and starting with one-way fares."
actually, that works the other way round - if they "learned from experience", they should push for round trip tickets, because otherwise they may have a little problem selling return fares a little later :p
Either would shut a lot of starting indie games developers out of the system, thus preventing said developers and the gaming industry in general from making future hits. Basically, all new games are either essentially reskins/clones of existing games, or trying new mechanics and/or interactions, and sometimes (rarely) stories and characters. Given the typical indie level production values are garbage, in general, only the ones that try to innovate actually do have some value for the industry. However, first, there's no good formal way to distinguish between the two (and for the last 5 years or so Steam no longer wants to be the judge). And second, since vast majority of games belong to the first category, the ones who do innovate would be scared off and not even bother with the platform. So I'm with Valve on this one - better to pick up bad apples one by one but still let the crowd spot the few jewels in the torrent of junk games.
Yes, and the American people already made their minds up when they elected Trump a president.
I understand very well what you mean, but differences in perception of "what is best for them" by citizens of different nations aren't really important here. I take it without any doubt that each state is in general capable of creating the best business environment according to that state's citizens' tastes. It's true that there are states that have a long history of free market ideology, so they are doing kind of OK-ish in this regard. But at this stage in humanity in general the wind blows the other way; most states make changes in their economy according to what the rich people in those states want (well if you discount states that act in US or Chinese corporations' interests that is). So in old-school-capitalist countries new market regulations are usually being passed against the interest of the public, and in developing countries the trend is also towards more authoritarian and protectionist economy. You'd be hard pressed to find a single "big" country within last 20-30 years or so that succeeded at creating the kind of business environment necessary for innovation-based businesses to proliferate. The best examples are city-states like Singapore and Hong Kong, which obviously wouldn't apply to India (hence my "big" qualifier). I think the best role model for India is China, the ultimate in protectionism.
I think of it this way. As a government, you could:
- pass state-level programmes that help innovation-based businesses, take a hit in taxes, and HOPE that it will be worth it one day
or
- copycat existing products that are proven to work, at the local rich people's coin, and/or
- make it hard for said product owners' to compete, as an option even going China way
while all the same time rooting for the population to "support your country - switch to local services"
which would they choose?
And these are not even mutually exclusive; it's perfectly possible to start setting up local innovation business scene by using the revenue created by someone else's ideas. So sorry, but I don't really see how it is possible NOT having ulterior motives in this matter.
Oh I certainly am a fan of the concept of a state acting in the interests of their citizens. But does this really happen in today's world, in large countries?
I guess I am jaded, and would love to be wrong on this one, but not really holding my breath much.
"Indians use these services, but profits from these services go overseas. And I just happen to have some wealthy local friends who would like a slice of this pie. And, being a politician, I am playing a patriotism card for them, to pave the way for the popular movement to support local product-to-be."
Nothing wrong or even unusual about it though; it's about as ethical (or unethical, depending on one's PoV) as the "eat locally grown food" slogan. In theory, if they are capable of creating an alternative to (at least some subset of) Google services, some new competition is always good for the market and so good for everyone. But what usually happens is they start applying external pressure by putting services in unequal conditions by subsidizing locals or even doing darker things like throttling traffic at state level or limiting their capability to earn revenue through regulatory measures. Eh, I'm not a globalization fan either, so whatever.
Why do you keep conflating technical availability and consumption preferences? No information network is of much use without a discovery mechanism, which can be either curated (webring / portal) or automated to some extent (search engine). People who are interested in a topic will find a way to create such an mechanism, and use it as long as it suits their goals; it's entirely opt-in and demand driven, so no single person or company gets to decide what qualifies as "wallowing in the filth" and what doesn't - not any different from the way it works today.
As for the content you wouldn't like to see hosted somewhere, I personally feel it's a lost cause. Deepfakes, from what I understand, aren't principally much different from stand-in cutouts, so there will eventually be a service where you can take any existing video, have it analyzed where faces and possibly skin colors / body types on the picture in each frame are, then feed it pictures of an existing person, and get a deepfake video with the person you need. In fact I'm fairly sure this already exists today somewhere for shady purposes, but technology for mass production is not there yet; at current rates money is placed on deep learning, I give it 10-ish years to appear.
I believe the way we would be fighting this as would be more about automated crypto-signing of video streams on hardware level, and then restricting video players to only display content from white-listed sources, which has the advantage of not having to fight those who produce and host the offending material. There are problems with that approach as well, but as long as there is a way to opt out, it should be fine. And as for people who would be happy to consume fake content, well, like I said, to me this is a lost cause, and we have to get over it.
(agreed with the first two paragraphs)
Actually, there is no need for a complete reset. The mere fact that someone publicly went against globalists and won, changed the rules of the game. The people en masse realized you don't actually have to be in the Wall St pocket to make a change, so there is a good chance next time they will vote in someone much more reasonable.
https://xkcd.com/162/
There are two sides of this story - hypothetical as in "how a hypothetical society would work if it was free of gender-related stereotypes and prejudices, including antifeminine (must be hearthkeepet) and antimasculine (must be breadwinner)", and pragmatic as in "how would the society that there is here today with all its legacy but slowly improving nevertheless react to these concrete people going against the abovementioned stereotypes". I, as a male, feel the onus is on me not to expect my wife to behave according to society's stereotypes regarding females", especially since that our combined income is enough for our lifestyle, so we can afford it. Whether there are enough families in a similar situation so that should they all adopt a similar attitude, society would start to change, I don't know. Perhaps not, but that is not an excuse; I have been taught to "always start with myself". My position is - let's just have those who can afford it do it for our wives and gfs and see where it can take is as a society.
There may be hidden sexism in the statement that women "want to start a family" IF that kind of implies they would be doing more of the family-related stuff than their hypothetical future husbands, well other than bearing and breastfeeding obviously. If we want a true gender equality, perhaps a good look at traditional family roles is due. If said women could realistically expect they would be in a family with a man who would do their half willingly perhaps they would have made different life choices. Or maybe they wouldn't, what do I know, I'm not a woman, but I personally feel I have to take over what I can do (nappies bottles putting to sleep etc) regardless. But then where we live there are good opportunities for both of us. It will likely be a couple generations until it is true for most people in most of the (western at least) world.
I was born and raised in USSR, well known for its research institutes. Roughly 50% of folks in science were female, partly because the Soviet government aimed to treat men and women equally, and there was absolutely zero bias again women in lab coats. Except in leadership positions obviously - these rightfully belong to the Party.
Look I totes get it, surveillance state yadda yadda. I hate it as much as the next guy here. But why try to stop the progress? This is just algorithms and database, if Amazon can offer such a service but is talked out of it somehow then someone else will. If you want to stop this, there has to be legislation against this kind of service, rather than pushback against isolated incidents. And even then someone would eventually make "black" version if the AI scraping off public databases. Either way privacy is kinda screwed so I'd rather see this kind of service regulated and public.
You still seem to be under the delusion that manufacturers actually give a shit about what consumers want. They don't. They care about what makes them the most money.
Eh, "what makes them the most money" is exactly the same thing as "what the market wants". You could argue whether any particular idea of theirs in this regard is right or wrong, but they're most certainly studying their markets and trying to guess what consumers want, to get most money. And since they can't satisfy everyone, they go for the largest group, so there you go.
And as for what the "features" no one asked for, like no headphone jack, or screen resolution that doesn't make any more sense, again, if people are willing to pay for this, they are the market, and they decide. Call them dumb, call them gullible, call them anything, but if it works for them, as long as Apple products sell well, what are you going to do.
>I don't want thin, either. Give me a larger, replaceable battery, not some phone that's hard to not drop.
You do realize it's the market that wants thin, and not Apple? The reason the likes of you and I aren't getting what we want is because we're a minority, and not because Apple is so anti-us. If people actually cared about batteries more than about thin I expect Apple would have delivered.
Facebook and Twitter employees breathe same air as casino employees! cheeky bastards!
people advertising their products use every psychological trick they know to make consumers actually like their products. boo friggin' hoo. news at 11
you do realize autoplay exists and proliferates for the similar reason that e-mail spam does? because, much to our chagrin, pages with autoplay DO perform better than those without!
I hate autoplay probably as much as almost everyone on Slashdot, and close almost instantly every page that does it. but as long as majority of visitors sticks around longer, click on ads etc. with autoplay, as long as that behavior stays prevalent, it's going to only get worse.