Actually, there is no race about strong AI. All experts in the field currently think that it cannot be done at all or would at least require a fundamental theoretical breakthrough (which you cannot accelerate and that is nowhere in sight).
Well, to be fair, the UK was already a "has been" before it joined the EU and got propped up. Apparently they now think they were on the right path back then and want to continue the downward way. The US is a bit newer in the club of "has beens", but this has been obvious for at least a decade or so as well.
I don't think China is the leader though. They are pretty mediocre in most areas. That puts them vastly ahead of the US, but behind the EU. (And no, the EU is not being overrun by barbarian hordes at the moment, the problem has been blown vastly out of proportion by the usual political profiteers...). In the end, I think it comes down to education. The US education system is pretty bad, but until 9/11, that could be compensated by importing well-educated foreigners. What the US now sees is the result of its more restrictive (and ultimately, suicidal) immigration policies. Now, a vast problem that China has is that its education system is also not really good. In particular it restricts independent thinking and that is a real killer for advancement in science and technology. Sure, they have money now and are buying a lot of companies, but ultimately, that has limited effect if you do not get the people that had the good ideas in the first place as part of the deal.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out, and the only important aspect is the long-term one. My prediction is that long-term, Europe and China will have a lot of mutual cooperation to get both the economic power (China) and the "tinkerer mindset" (Europe) combined. The US will become a backwater.
What you overlook is the little fact of _why_ they can do it. The problem is that the US economy of completely borked and, as a result, the Chinese have money to spend. A lot of it.
You can call it "stealing", but it will be an obvious lie. That is probably one of the reasons nobody really cares about their complaints: They start the discussion off in bad faith with a big fat lie. Disrespect your potential customers and they will disrespect you.
What is does is that nobody takes them seriously anymore, after all they are spreading blatant lies. Dealing honestly with potential customers looks differently.
Copyright is not intended to withhold content from people, yet that is what it often boils down to. For example, I cannot even get most of what I watch where I live (shows in original, non-dubbed form, I will not watch dubbed trash) from any sources approved by the content owners. Now I can either not watch their products at all or download them from the net somewhere (which happens to be legal here). But if there was a reasonable online offering by the content owners, I would of course use that, far simpler and easier. Yest, there is not. Do these people do not understand they have to make an offer in order to sell anything?
Note that "reasonable" includes: Original language, plays on any device and in particular on Linux (i.e. no Digital Restriction Management), good quality, can skip as I chose, no ads, can re-download any time I chose.
The root-cause for "piracy" is that the content owners are apparently unable or unwilling to make a reasonable offer. Hence nobody feels bad bypassing them. Or in other words: They are doing it to themselves.
Or have very bad standards in the first place. That way, you are going to enjoy all "Web Application Worst Practices" that people can think of. I am currently assisting a customer wading thorough such a mess.
Also nice: Fire people that created and understand the application after they have finished, but before anything is documented.
And to top it off: Declare the proof-of-concept to be the final application. It is much cheaper!
I think it is the changing buyer-population. People that want this tech have less and less of a clue about what they buy. Hence the market for computers and networked machinery has gone from professional to power-user to somewhat-knowledgeable to moron. It can be observed in different areas, IoT is just one. For example, in gaming everything has gotten far too easy and even professional reviews are now written by "gamers" that are simply incapable to play well. A recent review described partitioning in Debian 9 as "only for experts" (in actual reality it takes reading and understanding a few pages of not very complex material). "Makers" mistake themselves for actual engineers and think they have an understanding of things that is comparable. And so on.
With the general moronification come products aimed at these people on their level. For anybody with a clue these are then often bad jokes. But the market is large, and there will always be enough buyers to get sensible alternatives as well. Might take a while though.
Indeed. But for a long, long time there will be the option to buy something else or to modify these things, making them a bit more expensive and less functional, but hugely more reliable. Of course, that will require some engineering-skills.
I know what "statically typed" means and at that time I am not interested in yet-another-niche-language. I have done real work in around 20 different languages by now and none of the "magic" languages that do the same as some of those that have proven themselves over time but "better" have ever lived up to that claim. And of course, I am quite able to embed C if I need performance.
The thing is that for a while strong static typing was hailed as the one true "silver bullet" that would right all wrongs with code. Of course, that is nonsense, as all the other "magic solutions" that have come before and after are, but this thing is stills strong in many people's minds. The thing that most of these people do not understand is that Python actually has strong typing in the sense that everything has an exactly defined type and that you can determine that type at run-time. It is just not a static-type (i.e. type of the variable), but a dynamic one (i.e. type of what the variable contains). The other thing these people miss is that while static type-safety determined by a compiler sounds nice, it turns out that you find basically all dynamic type-errors in any testing that deserves the name anyways, because testing for type-errors is far less difficult than testing for implementation errors. Hence what the compiler can do is not really worth much, but that is not readily obvious to most people.
Altogether, strong dynamic typing is very nice indeed, but is is not really a thing for beginners. But real-world size projects and the code that comes with them are not for beginners either.
Basically, with regards to overdoses these are less dangerous than Paracetamol, if medical-grade. But since the anti-fun fascists have decided that people have no right to medical-grade clean and affordable drugs, the illegal market did arise. And that one does kill people by impurities, varying substance contents, new replacement drugs that are much more dangerous than necessary, etc.
By now, anybody rational can see that this is just another utterly failed prohibition and just another attempt to tell people by application of force how they have to live. The whole thing originally comes from religious extremism, where nothing except prayer is allowed to be fun. The damage to society from this continued stupidity is extreme and far worse than drugs could ever be.
Python is pretty cool. The lack of a real type system makes me write a lot of assertions I don't want but ultimately protect me from stupid mistakes later on.
That is as it should be. OO and in particular, polymorphism is not all it is cracked up to be. Limit it yourself whenever needed.
How can it look and feel like Python if it is statically typed? Not being statically typed is one of the most important features of Python. Not so easy to handle, but powerful in the hands of an expert.
Don't get me wrong, I like Python and have done quite a few things with it, including performance-critical Python classes in C. But I think writing good Python code is something that requires a lot of experience, including with other languages. Python is a language that does not stand in your way to an extreme degree. That means in many cases you have to do things yourself that other languages do for you, for example type checks (yes, they are needed sometimes) and decisions when doing inheritance. Do them wrong or not do them at all and you end up with an unmaintainable mess. There is also quite a bit of stuff you have to test at run-time that compiled languages probably find at compile-time. That requires good testing and a design-by-contract approach helps a lot.
One the other hand, for actual experienced experts, glue-code and "business logic" does not get much better than what Python offers, and embedding C-code is easy once you have understood the idea. It definitely has a long-term future.
Well, the human rights thing is really staggering. It does not get much more evil than that without actually starting to kill people in larger numbers. That a country-leader in the west could even say such a thing shows how much things have gone to hell and how much people have forgotten the sheer amount of blood that was spilled to get the freedoms we (still, mostly) have today.
This is about "weak AI", i.e. the one with no actual intelligence in it. It basically is just combining linear classificators and that is not enough to recognize dupes reliably.
- No working backup - Excessive access for the new person - CTO is incompetent and cannot admit to mistake
This is an accident waiting to happen. And the new person has zero responsibility for it. Might be better off to be out of that fucked up company though.
Ah, so you really are _that_ stupid. Fascinating. Explaining anything to you is then just a complete waste of time as you do not have any capacity for understanding.
Or rather, they cannot go along with this. For starters, they would use all permission to process credit-card bookings. SOX compliance may also go out the window. And there are other problems, namely that the "security" services never have been able to actually keep backdoors secure on their side.
Apparently, that idea is too difficult to understand for many, many people, including the current British PM. It seems "stupid" is now an acceptable mainstream state-of-mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there is no race about strong AI. All experts in the field currently think that it cannot be done at all or would at least require a fundamental theoretical breakthrough (which you cannot accelerate and that is nowhere in sight).
Well, to be fair, the UK was already a "has been" before it joined the EU and got propped up. Apparently they now think they were on the right path back then and want to continue the downward way. The US is a bit newer in the club of "has beens", but this has been obvious for at least a decade or so as well.
I don't think China is the leader though. They are pretty mediocre in most areas. That puts them vastly ahead of the US, but behind the EU. (And no, the EU is not being overrun by barbarian hordes at the moment, the problem has been blown vastly out of proportion by the usual political profiteers...). In the end, I think it comes down to education. The US education system is pretty bad, but until 9/11, that could be compensated by importing well-educated foreigners. What the US now sees is the result of its more restrictive (and ultimately, suicidal) immigration policies. Now, a vast problem that China has is that its education system is also not really good. In particular it restricts independent thinking and that is a real killer for advancement in science and technology. Sure, they have money now and are buying a lot of companies, but ultimately, that has limited effect if you do not get the people that had the good ideas in the first place as part of the deal.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out, and the only important aspect is the long-term one. My prediction is that long-term, Europe and China will have a lot of mutual cooperation to get both the economic power (China) and the "tinkerer mindset" (Europe) combined. The US will become a backwater.
What you overlook is the little fact of _why_ they can do it. The problem is that the US economy of completely borked and, as a result, the Chinese have money to spend. A lot of it.
It is politics. As only complete morons that are unable to listen to experts go into politics, of course it makes no sense.
You can call it "stealing", but it will be an obvious lie. That is probably one of the reasons nobody really cares about their complaints: They start the discussion off in bad faith with a big fat lie. Disrespect your potential customers and they will disrespect you.
What is does is that nobody takes them seriously anymore, after all they are spreading blatant lies. Dealing honestly with potential customers looks differently.
Copyright is not intended to withhold content from people, yet that is what it often boils down to. For example, I cannot even get most of what I watch where I live (shows in original, non-dubbed form, I will not watch dubbed trash) from any sources approved by the content owners. Now I can either not watch their products at all or download them from the net somewhere (which happens to be legal here). But if there was a reasonable online offering by the content owners, I would of course use that, far simpler and easier. Yest, there is not. Do these people do not understand they have to make an offer in order to sell anything?
Note that "reasonable" includes: Original language, plays on any device and in particular on Linux (i.e. no Digital Restriction Management), good quality, can skip as I chose, no ads, can re-download any time I chose.
The root-cause for "piracy" is that the content owners are apparently unable or unwilling to make a reasonable offer. Hence nobody feels bad bypassing them. Or in other words: They are doing it to themselves.
Got some inadequacy issues to deal with?
Or have very bad standards in the first place. That way, you are going to enjoy all "Web Application Worst Practices" that people can think of. I am currently assisting a customer wading thorough such a mess.
Also nice: Fire people that created and understand the application after they have finished, but before anything is documented.
And to top it off: Declare the proof-of-concept to be the final application. It is much cheaper!
I think it is the changing buyer-population. People that want this tech have less and less of a clue about what they buy. Hence the market for computers and networked machinery has gone from professional to power-user to somewhat-knowledgeable to moron. It can be observed in different areas, IoT is just one. For example, in gaming everything has gotten far too easy and even professional reviews are now written by "gamers" that are simply incapable to play well. A recent review described partitioning in Debian 9 as "only for experts" (in actual reality it takes reading and understanding a few pages of not very complex material). "Makers" mistake themselves for actual engineers and think they have an understanding of things that is comparable. And so on.
With the general moronification come products aimed at these people on their level. For anybody with a clue these are then often bad jokes. But the market is large, and there will always be enough buyers to get sensible alternatives as well. Might take a while though.
Indeed. But for a long, long time there will be the option to buy something else or to modify these things, making them a bit more expensive and less functional, but hugely more reliable. Of course, that will require some engineering-skills.
I know what "statically typed" means and at that time I am not interested in yet-another-niche-language. I have done real work in around 20 different languages by now and none of the "magic" languages that do the same as some of those that have proven themselves over time but "better" have ever lived up to that claim. And of course, I am quite able to embed C if I need performance.
The thing is that for a while strong static typing was hailed as the one true "silver bullet" that would right all wrongs with code. Of course, that is nonsense, as all the other "magic solutions" that have come before and after are, but this thing is stills strong in many people's minds. The thing that most of these people do not understand is that Python actually has strong typing in the sense that everything has an exactly defined type and that you can determine that type at run-time. It is just not a static-type (i.e. type of the variable), but a dynamic one (i.e. type of what the variable contains). The other thing these people miss is that while static type-safety determined by a compiler sounds nice, it turns out that you find basically all dynamic type-errors in any testing that deserves the name anyways, because testing for type-errors is far less difficult than testing for implementation errors. Hence what the compiler can do is not really worth much, but that is not readily obvious to most people.
Altogether, strong dynamic typing is very nice indeed, but is is not really a thing for beginners. But real-world size projects and the code that comes with them are not for beginners either.
Basically, with regards to overdoses these are less dangerous than Paracetamol, if medical-grade. But since the anti-fun fascists have decided that people have no right to medical-grade clean and affordable drugs, the illegal market did arise. And that one does kill people by impurities, varying substance contents, new replacement drugs that are much more dangerous than necessary, etc.
By now, anybody rational can see that this is just another utterly failed prohibition and just another attempt to tell people by application of force how they have to live. The whole thing originally comes from religious extremism, where nothing except prayer is allowed to be fun. The damage to society from this continued stupidity is extreme and far worse than drugs could ever be.
Python is pretty cool. The lack of a real type system makes me write a lot of assertions I don't want but ultimately protect me from stupid mistakes later on.
That is as it should be. OO and in particular, polymorphism is not all it is cracked up to be. Limit it yourself whenever needed.
How can it look and feel like Python if it is statically typed? Not being statically typed is one of the most important features of Python. Not so easy to handle, but powerful in the hands of an expert.
Don't get me wrong, I like Python and have done quite a few things with it, including performance-critical Python classes in C. But I think writing good Python code is something that requires a lot of experience, including with other languages. Python is a language that does not stand in your way to an extreme degree. That means in many cases you have to do things yourself that other languages do for you, for example type checks (yes, they are needed sometimes) and decisions when doing inheritance. Do them wrong or not do them at all and you end up with an unmaintainable mess. There is also quite a bit of stuff you have to test at run-time that compiled languages probably find at compile-time. That requires good testing and a design-by-contract approach helps a lot.
One the other hand, for actual experienced experts, glue-code and "business logic" does not get much better than what Python offers, and embedding C-code is easy once you have understood the idea. It definitely has a long-term future.
Well, the human rights thing is really staggering. It does not get much more evil than that without actually starting to kill people in larger numbers. That a country-leader in the west could even say such a thing shows how much things have gone to hell and how much people have forgotten the sheer amount of blood that was spilled to get the freedoms we (still, mostly) have today.
This is about "weak AI", i.e. the one with no actual intelligence in it. It basically is just combining linear classificators and that is not enough to recognize dupes reliably.
I mean, come on:
- No working backup
- Excessive access for the new person
- CTO is incompetent and cannot admit to mistake
This is an accident waiting to happen. And the new person has zero responsibility for it. Might be better off to be out of that fucked up company though.
Ah, so you really are _that_ stupid. Fascinating. Explaining anything to you is then just a complete waste of time as you do not have any capacity for understanding.
Well done. It is hard to get the sarcasm this close to sounding like you actually mean it!
Or rather, they cannot go along with this. For starters, they would use all permission to process credit-card bookings. SOX compliance may also go out the window. And there are other problems, namely that the "security" services never have been able to actually keep backdoors secure on their side.
Apparently, that idea is too difficult to understand for many, many people, including the current British PM. It seems "stupid" is now an acceptable mainstream state-of-mind.
You don't plan for the impossible, do you?
Well no, but actually competent people do not mess up the evaluation what is impossible and what is not.