I don't know about that. Apple seems to almost go out of their way to make their products less or non-user serviceable. I've seen plenty of other gadgets, some of which even trying to be an Apple product clone, that are much easier to take apart or fix. The biggest worry here is that some of the parts they'd be using might be a little non-standard (I'm curious how the screen as speaker works for instance) so it might be difficult to get a replacement.
I can see what Yelp is against this, but I would think that they may want to be open to working with people in cases like these, because I as a potential consumer can't have as much confidence in the services that Yelp provides if I know that they may have reviews that even a court found to be outright libelous.
I think Yelp is kind of worthless as a service for this reason in a more general sense. It's always going to be subject to spam and fake reviews from people wanting to game the system or with an axe to grind. I've found that the best way to find a good place to eat if you're in an unfamiliar place is to just ask a local.
You don't, but then you need to find something to do for two minutes and dick with rewinding the stream when you miss part of it because you took longer than the exact amount of time that the commercial break ran for. Even if you're working minimum wage, the time wasted on commercials probably isn't worth your time if you consume enough content.
Unless you barely watch it, how little is your time worth to you to even consider it? You're paying $10 a month less, but if you watch about 4 hours of content, you'll wind up having to sit through about a hour of commercials if the streaming service uses the same ratio that television does.
Please explain how Medicare for All will save us more money than we currently spend on all forms of healthcare per year. $5 trillion is about 25% of the GDP of the country.
I agree with you that we should decriminalize all drugs, but you really ought to lay off them yourself because I can't think of what else might cause a person to pull numbers like that out of their ass.
Private prisons account for less than 10% of the overall prison population. We've had this problem far longer than we've had private prisons. It might be trendy to hate on companies, but they're hardly the only interested parties in keeping people locked up for silly reasons.
The rise in private prisons has merely been a direct result of the government owned facilities getting overcrowded and the inability for states to secure funding to build additional prisons. Of course these private prisons want guaranteed minimum occupancy rates so there's further incentive for the state to keep locking people up. There've even been a few stories of judges getting kickbacks, so the whole system is pretty much a racket.
I suspect that with marijuana being legalized in more and more states, we'll start to see a sharp decline in prison population. There are a sizable group of prisoners who are there for no other reason than possessing slightly too much of a particular plant or other substance. We're wasting a lot of money locking up people who could otherwise be paying taxes.
You'd think that you could include sensors that would allow it to make adjustments to keep it upright, much the same way that a person will naturally do this while riding a bicycle. I'd be more worried about the person riding it feeling disconnected from these adjustments and falling off or feeling discomforted instead.
If they're looking for a smaller vehicle, why not build something more like an auto rickshaw? There are plenty of times you need multiple passengers and these do take up a lot less road space. Even really fancy designs are far less expensive than a car and that's probably over-engineered for a simple taxi.
We should be comparing how good the AI is against what it would be replacing. We know that a computer won't be perfect, but it's pretty damned obvious that humans are far off mark as well. Human witnesses are also terrible at facial recognition as evidence by the number of wrongful incarcerations. There's one particular case, where an expert on eyewitness testimony was accused of a rape and picked out of a lineup by the victim, but was at the time of the crime on television, where he was talking about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony of all things.
At least with a computer, we'll be properly skeptical of it. With humans, we're too susceptible to being drawn in to what they say (regardless of whether they're genuinely mistaken or willfully deceptive) and people will continue to maintain some false recollection, even if they're not being malicious, long after other evidence should be sufficient to dismiss it. Worse still, other humans tend to gravitate towards whatever they've heard from someone else first and weight it disproportionately to information they receive later. That can still happen when interacting with computers, but I don't believe that we assign them the same amount of trust.
Sounds like another case of the Pareto principle where a small number of people (the elite few) find the majority of the quality bugs.
I don't know if these elite few are doing this full time, but I'd imagine that they aren't if they only make ~$35k. Most could easily get six figures doing security consulting work, and I would expect that a lot of them do and only do this as a hobby or for the added notoriety. I looked up the pwn2own contest and the main page reports one guy hauled in over $100,000 in the 2018 contest, so some can clearly make a good living doing nothing else if they don't want to. I don't know if those guys are the.1% or something, but I'm somewhat more skeptical about the claims that not even the elite can make it as bug bounty hunters.
The problem with training a bot against other bots is that it might not be good against human players. With a poker bot, you can always find some human players to pit it against, maybe even some professionals who think they can win some easy money.
You can't do the same quite as easily with a military bot though. Sure you can have it play against humans in field exercises, but you're having it play against your own army. In a certain way you're actually creating the best possible bot your enemy could want. You can try to get around this by attempting to emulate your enemies tactics, but that's always imprecise and surely something that the enemy already expects.
The "different choices" argument is often made, but it's not really fair to claim that all these things are choices.
Are there laws mandating any of these things? I wasn't aware. They're still very much choices.
It also doesn't matter that many women would like it if their husbands took time off. The point is that if you took a large sample of individuals who were the ones primarily in charge of care of young children, you'd probably find more women than men who would prefer to be doing it. That doesn't mean that there aren't some men who would prefer to do. It's the same as sampling anything else where sex plays a role. You can even do it with height. No one is saying that you can't find a woman who is 200 cm tall, only that you won't find as many people who are 200 cm tall that are also women.
"Statistics already show that wages are already almost entirely unrelated to demographics"
Really, being born into a poor family has no impact on future earnings?
I think you could have been more disingenuous with your argument if you'd used quadriplegics or people born mentally disabled.
I'm a little uneasy about this. I'm also uncertain as to how you necessarily go about training this. With poker it's not particularly hard to find real opponents who will legitimately play their best. With this it seems like all you really do is train to to be really good at beating your own army.
I'm not sure that most of your reasoning is valid.
If everyone is producing shorter songs, it means that over some amount of time a user streams, they're more likely to have played some artist's song. All artists cooperatively adopting this strategy means that everyone gets paid more. You also assume that longer song lengths result in greater occupation of listener's attention (whatever that means), which even if true, doesn't result in more revenue (at least not directly) for the artists. Maybe you could claim it generates album sales, but you'd need to prove the hypothesis that longer songs do a better job of this.
Consumers of the service pay a flat rate. They spend a certain amount of time listening regardless of how many songs play. There's no indication that they prefer songs of any particular length, but it seems reasonable there's a time range that most people enjoy since we neither have lots of 2 minute songs or lots of 10 minute songs. I believe that there are streaming services that still offer free ad-supported options. That means that the streaming platform would support shorter songs based on your comparison with AM radio, but contradicts your earlier claim that they would support longer songs as it means fewer payments on their part.
Do they even have any real competition? The only other streaming platform I know about is Twitch, but I would imagine that they have the same kind of policies that YouTube has. It doesn't matter if you've blown your own foot off if every other competitor has done the same as well.
I think the takeaway that even though people believe Oracle is evil, they're simply more skeptical about wage gap bull crap.
I'll believe that Oracle will try to fuck over anyone they can, but I'd have to ask why they aren't also fucking over their male employees?
We all get they're evil, but are they the kind of chaotic evil such that they have intentionally chosen to fuck over men slightly less than they otherwise could just for shits and giggles? Do they get more evil utility out of stirring the pot to piss off feminists or something like that?
The issue is that the demographics make different choices that impact pay, and it's not just a simple matter of trying to encourage them or use other socialization tactics to make it all go away. To a certain degree men and women are just wired differently, and this is physically observable by looking at the physical brain. Even ignoring any differences that might cause, the male body can handle greater physical stress and so there are always going to be a category of jobs that men are going to dominate as a demographic. Some of those jobs will pay better than other jobs. Some will pay worse. You're not going to be able to achieve some ultimate equality where a brick layer and a neurosurgeon make the same pay.
Statistics already show that wages are already almost entirely unrelated to demographics, so we've reached the goal that you want. If there are some people who want to work themselves harder than everyone else, I'm not going to try to stand in their way. If more of those people tend to be men than women, I'm not going to care. The people who are trying to adjust all of these outcomes to fit their notions of how the world should be are playing with something that they don't understand well at all and they can't even begin to imagine the unintended consequences.
I think that you're leaving out something even more important which is that for a lot of devices, the update will never be made available nor are there even any plans to make it available that only end up getting canceled. At some point all hardware hits end of life, but for a lot of Android phones that's artificially lower than it should be.
But on the flip side, I don't think you get to 0 without having the same kind of control that Apple exhibits, and I'm not sure that's something that would be good for Android. If you're careful with your own personal choice of which device to buy, you can get that immediately availability for yourself. It may require extra effort on your part, but that's the cost of the greater freedom that Android affords.
I'm not sure if that article does a good job of convincing me of the point it's trying to make.
Not so for her. Ledesma graduated from college four years ago. After moving through a series of jobs, she now earns $18,000 making pizza at Classic Slice in Milwaukee, shares a two-bedroom apartment with her boyfriend and has $33,000 in student debt.
Her mother Cheryl Romanowski, 55, was making about $10,000 a year at her age working at a bank without a college education. In today's dollars, that income would be equal to roughly $19,500.
So, her mother was making about the same amount of money, but just didn't have the added debt. I don't know what Ms. Ledesma chose to major in while she was in college, but I'd bet money it was some useless degree. She should be thankful that the price of that education has only come out to $33,000 as there are plenty of people who've accumulated six figure debts that they realistically have no hope of ever paying off.
The article also points out that the 20% figure only applies to white millennials, whereas black millennials are about break even (-1.4%) but latino millennials are actually better off (+29%) than their parents were. Although they're a small part of the population, I'd bet the Asian Americans are also up, possibly even more than 29%. People who buy into the notion of white privilege should be happy as it appears that's worth a lot less than it used to be. Otherwise it just looks like economic osmosis.
Given what example solutions you posted, I don't expect you to agree with this, but I did notice that anything about preventing or curtailing illegal immigration. What do you think happens to wages and the value of unskilled labor when the supply of it increases? I don't want to come off as disparaging these immigrants, as they're often hard workers and not really all that much different in most ways than the majority of our own ancestors who at some point came to this country in hopes of a better life, but most estimates put the number of people who are here illegally at around 10 million, though some are much higher. I don't think it's in any way feasible to even try to "round up" or deport everyone who's here illegally, but I suspect that it would have more of an affect on wages for low or unskilled labor than any of the suggestions that you're proposed.
So my question is do you care about this particular problem, or are you just using this particular problem as a vehicle to shove your agenda?
They're not necessarily behaving illogically until they realize that their extra work isn't translating into additional pay, at which point they shouldn't stick around. If they leave, the only ones who remain are the people who did come out ahead, which just means that the next batch of new employees only see examples of employees who worked extra hard and made big bonuses, further incentivizing this behavior.
I think Oracle knows exactly what it's doing, and from the perspective of a newly hired employee putting in extra work appears to be a really good idea.
Given that social media is practically a public utility, I think it is worth considering more aggressive strategies, including government subsidies.
Oh fuck no.
Regardless of whether you think government spending is too high or too low, I think we can all agree that none if should be going to goddamn social media.
I wouldn't call it a modern invention by any means. Orwell wrote a fairly well known essay about fascism in 1944 where he concluded the word was almost useless since he had seen it applied to just about any group of people across the political and economic spectrum.
All that people can really agree on is that fascists are bad and that it's probably a good idea to call your opponents fascist or insinuate that they have fascist tendencies. It seems like no one adopts the name as part of their political party, and the only group that springs to mind that touches it is Antifa (being short for anti-fascist) who are regarded by some as being quite fascist in nature themselves.
There are estimates that about three million people have fled the country because of how bad it is there. That's closing in on about 10% of the population in the last three years. All of this economic interference from the government has made it impossible for many people to live in Venezuela.
So does this mean that Venezuela has proven capitalism to be bankrupt?
You would have to explain why countries like Vietnam and China that instituted capitalist reforms to move away from their even more socialistic policies have seem massive growth instead of downward collapse. Shouldn't the U.S. which is also a capitalist country have collapsed in a similar manner to Venezuela? Why aren't Hong Kong and Singapore the most deplorable little capitalist hellholes on the planet given that they some of the freest markets on the planet?
Those countries aren't socialist though. If you don't believe me, take it from the mouth of their Prime Minister. Up until Trump's tax cuts, they also all had lower corporate tax rates than the United States. Sweden has loads of charter schools, which are obviously a well known feature of socialism.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about that. Apple seems to almost go out of their way to make their products less or non-user serviceable. I've seen plenty of other gadgets, some of which even trying to be an Apple product clone, that are much easier to take apart or fix. The biggest worry here is that some of the parts they'd be using might be a little non-standard (I'm curious how the screen as speaker works for instance) so it might be difficult to get a replacement.
I can see what Yelp is against this, but I would think that they may want to be open to working with people in cases like these, because I as a potential consumer can't have as much confidence in the services that Yelp provides if I know that they may have reviews that even a court found to be outright libelous.
I think Yelp is kind of worthless as a service for this reason in a more general sense. It's always going to be subject to spam and fake reviews from people wanting to game the system or with an axe to grind. I've found that the best way to find a good place to eat if you're in an unfamiliar place is to just ask a local.
You don't, but then you need to find something to do for two minutes and dick with rewinding the stream when you miss part of it because you took longer than the exact amount of time that the commercial break ran for. Even if you're working minimum wage, the time wasted on commercials probably isn't worth your time if you consume enough content.
Unless you barely watch it, how little is your time worth to you to even consider it? You're paying $10 a month less, but if you watch about 4 hours of content, you'll wind up having to sit through about a hour of commercials if the streaming service uses the same ratio that television does.
Please explain how Medicare for All will save us more money than we currently spend on all forms of healthcare per year. $5 trillion is about 25% of the GDP of the country.
I agree with you that we should decriminalize all drugs, but you really ought to lay off them yourself because I can't think of what else might cause a person to pull numbers like that out of their ass.
Private prisons account for less than 10% of the overall prison population. We've had this problem far longer than we've had private prisons. It might be trendy to hate on companies, but they're hardly the only interested parties in keeping people locked up for silly reasons.
The rise in private prisons has merely been a direct result of the government owned facilities getting overcrowded and the inability for states to secure funding to build additional prisons. Of course these private prisons want guaranteed minimum occupancy rates so there's further incentive for the state to keep locking people up. There've even been a few stories of judges getting kickbacks, so the whole system is pretty much a racket.
I suspect that with marijuana being legalized in more and more states, we'll start to see a sharp decline in prison population. There are a sizable group of prisoners who are there for no other reason than possessing slightly too much of a particular plant or other substance. We're wasting a lot of money locking up people who could otherwise be paying taxes.
You'd think that you could include sensors that would allow it to make adjustments to keep it upright, much the same way that a person will naturally do this while riding a bicycle. I'd be more worried about the person riding it feeling disconnected from these adjustments and falling off or feeling discomforted instead.
If they're looking for a smaller vehicle, why not build something more like an auto rickshaw? There are plenty of times you need multiple passengers and these do take up a lot less road space. Even really fancy designs are far less expensive than a car and that's probably over-engineered for a simple taxi.
We should be comparing how good the AI is against what it would be replacing. We know that a computer won't be perfect, but it's pretty damned obvious that humans are far off mark as well. Human witnesses are also terrible at facial recognition as evidence by the number of wrongful incarcerations. There's one particular case, where an expert on eyewitness testimony was accused of a rape and picked out of a lineup by the victim, but was at the time of the crime on television, where he was talking about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony of all things.
At least with a computer, we'll be properly skeptical of it. With humans, we're too susceptible to being drawn in to what they say (regardless of whether they're genuinely mistaken or willfully deceptive) and people will continue to maintain some false recollection, even if they're not being malicious, long after other evidence should be sufficient to dismiss it. Worse still, other humans tend to gravitate towards whatever they've heard from someone else first and weight it disproportionately to information they receive later. That can still happen when interacting with computers, but I don't believe that we assign them the same amount of trust.
Sounds like another case of the Pareto principle where a small number of people (the elite few) find the majority of the quality bugs.
.1% or something, but I'm somewhat more skeptical about the claims that not even the elite can make it as bug bounty hunters.
I don't know if these elite few are doing this full time, but I'd imagine that they aren't if they only make ~$35k. Most could easily get six figures doing security consulting work, and I would expect that a lot of them do and only do this as a hobby or for the added notoriety. I looked up the pwn2own contest and the main page reports one guy hauled in over $100,000 in the 2018 contest, so some can clearly make a good living doing nothing else if they don't want to. I don't know if those guys are the
The problem with training a bot against other bots is that it might not be good against human players. With a poker bot, you can always find some human players to pit it against, maybe even some professionals who think they can win some easy money.
You can't do the same quite as easily with a military bot though. Sure you can have it play against humans in field exercises, but you're having it play against your own army. In a certain way you're actually creating the best possible bot your enemy could want. You can try to get around this by attempting to emulate your enemies tactics, but that's always imprecise and surely something that the enemy already expects.
The "different choices" argument is often made, but it's not really fair to claim that all these things are choices.
Are there laws mandating any of these things? I wasn't aware. They're still very much choices.
It also doesn't matter that many women would like it if their husbands took time off. The point is that if you took a large sample of individuals who were the ones primarily in charge of care of young children, you'd probably find more women than men who would prefer to be doing it. That doesn't mean that there aren't some men who would prefer to do. It's the same as sampling anything else where sex plays a role. You can even do it with height. No one is saying that you can't find a woman who is 200 cm tall, only that you won't find as many people who are 200 cm tall that are also women.
"Statistics already show that wages are already almost entirely unrelated to demographics" Really, being born into a poor family has no impact on future earnings?
I think you could have been more disingenuous with your argument if you'd used quadriplegics or people born mentally disabled.
I'm a little uneasy about this. I'm also uncertain as to how you necessarily go about training this. With poker it's not particularly hard to find real opponents who will legitimately play their best. With this it seems like all you really do is train to to be really good at beating your own army.
I'm not sure that most of your reasoning is valid.
If everyone is producing shorter songs, it means that over some amount of time a user streams, they're more likely to have played some artist's song. All artists cooperatively adopting this strategy means that everyone gets paid more. You also assume that longer song lengths result in greater occupation of listener's attention (whatever that means), which even if true, doesn't result in more revenue (at least not directly) for the artists. Maybe you could claim it generates album sales, but you'd need to prove the hypothesis that longer songs do a better job of this.
Consumers of the service pay a flat rate. They spend a certain amount of time listening regardless of how many songs play. There's no indication that they prefer songs of any particular length, but it seems reasonable there's a time range that most people enjoy since we neither have lots of 2 minute songs or lots of 10 minute songs. I believe that there are streaming services that still offer free ad-supported options. That means that the streaming platform would support shorter songs based on your comparison with AM radio, but contradicts your earlier claim that they would support longer songs as it means fewer payments on their part.
Wait, why are you backing away? Offer to sell him a bridge or something.
Do they even have any real competition? The only other streaming platform I know about is Twitch, but I would imagine that they have the same kind of policies that YouTube has. It doesn't matter if you've blown your own foot off if every other competitor has done the same as well.
I think the takeaway that even though people believe Oracle is evil, they're simply more skeptical about wage gap bull crap.
I'll believe that Oracle will try to fuck over anyone they can, but I'd have to ask why they aren't also fucking over their male employees?
We all get they're evil, but are they the kind of chaotic evil such that they have intentionally chosen to fuck over men slightly less than they otherwise could just for shits and giggles? Do they get more evil utility out of stirring the pot to piss off feminists or something like that?
The issue is that the demographics make different choices that impact pay, and it's not just a simple matter of trying to encourage them or use other socialization tactics to make it all go away. To a certain degree men and women are just wired differently, and this is physically observable by looking at the physical brain. Even ignoring any differences that might cause, the male body can handle greater physical stress and so there are always going to be a category of jobs that men are going to dominate as a demographic. Some of those jobs will pay better than other jobs. Some will pay worse. You're not going to be able to achieve some ultimate equality where a brick layer and a neurosurgeon make the same pay.
Statistics already show that wages are already almost entirely unrelated to demographics, so we've reached the goal that you want. If there are some people who want to work themselves harder than everyone else, I'm not going to try to stand in their way. If more of those people tend to be men than women, I'm not going to care. The people who are trying to adjust all of these outcomes to fit their notions of how the world should be are playing with something that they don't understand well at all and they can't even begin to imagine the unintended consequences.
I think that you're leaving out something even more important which is that for a lot of devices, the update will never be made available nor are there even any plans to make it available that only end up getting canceled. At some point all hardware hits end of life, but for a lot of Android phones that's artificially lower than it should be.
But on the flip side, I don't think you get to 0 without having the same kind of control that Apple exhibits, and I'm not sure that's something that would be good for Android. If you're careful with your own personal choice of which device to buy, you can get that immediately availability for yourself. It may require extra effort on your part, but that's the cost of the greater freedom that Android affords.
Not so for her. Ledesma graduated from college four years ago. After moving through a series of jobs, she now earns $18,000 making pizza at Classic Slice in Milwaukee, shares a two-bedroom apartment with her boyfriend and has $33,000 in student debt.
Her mother Cheryl Romanowski, 55, was making about $10,000 a year at her age working at a bank without a college education. In today's dollars, that income would be equal to roughly $19,500.
So, her mother was making about the same amount of money, but just didn't have the added debt. I don't know what Ms. Ledesma chose to major in while she was in college, but I'd bet money it was some useless degree. She should be thankful that the price of that education has only come out to $33,000 as there are plenty of people who've accumulated six figure debts that they realistically have no hope of ever paying off.
The article also points out that the 20% figure only applies to white millennials, whereas black millennials are about break even (-1.4%) but latino millennials are actually better off (+29%) than their parents were. Although they're a small part of the population, I'd bet the Asian Americans are also up, possibly even more than 29%. People who buy into the notion of white privilege should be happy as it appears that's worth a lot less than it used to be. Otherwise it just looks like economic osmosis.
Given what example solutions you posted, I don't expect you to agree with this, but I did notice that anything about preventing or curtailing illegal immigration. What do you think happens to wages and the value of unskilled labor when the supply of it increases? I don't want to come off as disparaging these immigrants, as they're often hard workers and not really all that much different in most ways than the majority of our own ancestors who at some point came to this country in hopes of a better life, but most estimates put the number of people who are here illegally at around 10 million, though some are much higher. I don't think it's in any way feasible to even try to "round up" or deport everyone who's here illegally, but I suspect that it would have more of an affect on wages for low or unskilled labor than any of the suggestions that you're proposed.
So my question is do you care about this particular problem, or are you just using this particular problem as a vehicle to shove your agenda?
They're not necessarily behaving illogically until they realize that their extra work isn't translating into additional pay, at which point they shouldn't stick around. If they leave, the only ones who remain are the people who did come out ahead, which just means that the next batch of new employees only see examples of employees who worked extra hard and made big bonuses, further incentivizing this behavior.
I think Oracle knows exactly what it's doing, and from the perspective of a newly hired employee putting in extra work appears to be a really good idea.
Given that social media is practically a public utility, I think it is worth considering more aggressive strategies, including government subsidies.
Oh fuck no.
Regardless of whether you think government spending is too high or too low, I think we can all agree that none if should be going to goddamn social media.
I wouldn't call it a modern invention by any means. Orwell wrote a fairly well known essay about fascism in 1944 where he concluded the word was almost useless since he had seen it applied to just about any group of people across the political and economic spectrum.
All that people can really agree on is that fascists are bad and that it's probably a good idea to call your opponents fascist or insinuate that they have fascist tendencies. It seems like no one adopts the name as part of their political party, and the only group that springs to mind that touches it is Antifa (being short for anti-fascist) who are regarded by some as being quite fascist in nature themselves.
There are estimates that about three million people have fled the country because of how bad it is there. That's closing in on about 10% of the population in the last three years. All of this economic interference from the government has made it impossible for many people to live in Venezuela.
So does this mean that Venezuela has proven capitalism to be bankrupt?
You would have to explain why countries like Vietnam and China that instituted capitalist reforms to move away from their even more socialistic policies have seem massive growth instead of downward collapse. Shouldn't the U.S. which is also a capitalist country have collapsed in a similar manner to Venezuela? Why aren't Hong Kong and Singapore the most deplorable little capitalist hellholes on the planet given that they some of the freest markets on the planet?
They instead have a capitalist system
I suppose it's all privately owned right up until the government decides to nationalize it.
Those countries aren't socialist though. If you don't believe me, take it from the mouth of their Prime Minister. Up until Trump's tax cuts, they also all had lower corporate tax rates than the United States. Sweden has loads of charter schools, which are obviously a well known feature of socialism.