Seems pretty unlikely to be the case. If you bothered to watch the interview this whole tempest in a tea pot stems from, it doesn't seem like he's much into smoking pot. He seems genuinely surprised when Rogan lights up spliff and asks if it's a cigar, isn't sure whether it's legal or not, and then takes a tiny drag that he doesn't seem to inhale.
Possibly still crazy, but not likely to be a stoner.
Hillary isn't going to jail. She may be utterly corrupt, but that just means she knows a lot of other utterly corrupt people who are still in office or some other government position, and not all of them are going to be Democrats either.
Everyone already knows that nothing will come of this. It's merely the next piece of political grandstanding.
This just sounds like a case of the tragedy of the commons waiting to happen. No one is going to have any reason to invest in updating the resource. If several companies want to spend large sums of money trying to make better and better maps because they think it's valuable, let them go ahead and do so. As the OP pointed out, there's already OpenStreetMap that anyone can commit to. If it isn't as good as the the maps from Google and others, that just shows you why the model of letting them all compete against each other works out better in the end.
It's also kind of pointless with a lot of data caps being as low as they are. It's like being sold a faster Ferrari that you can only drive on a 400 meter test track. Sure, it might get you to the end of the track that much faster, but the practical difference is almost nil since you can't go anywhere else with it.
I don't think you could have anyone, but the government do this kind of work on the kind of scale that is necessary. First of all, it's almost all illegal without permission, so only the government could get away doing it to organizations that don't ask. It might be a bit more hairy even then doing it companies, but the government could at the very least attempt to hack or social engineer other parts of the government. The government meanwhile, is never going to let a non-profit or any private organization get away with trying to hack them and won't even allow them to try in most circumstances.
There's also all kinds of difficult questions that need to be answered, or rather are really difficult to answer. For example, what responsibility does anyone doing this type of work have to report any crimes that they might uncover as a side effect of what they're doing? If they have to report anything, no one else is going to want any of this to happen and it will quickly be viewed (and actively used) as a tyrannical tool to suppress people the government doesn't like. I almost think you need to give it to some group that's independent enough within the government and probably doesn't care about small time tax cheats or other things like that.
Even though there are some good intentions behind this idea, or at least better ones that starting a cyber war with China, we're still playing with fire.
Any real AI (as in it's what we would classify as intelligent in the same way we might consider an animal intelligent) would have to be so general purpose that it could be adapted to the types of things that the government wouldn't want to sell, even if it didn't have that purpose originally. If you've got something that only works for a particular application (say NLP) but nothing else, it's not really artificially intelligent. It's just a very sophisticated algorithm (maybe that no one understands all that well), even if it was developed with so-called AI techniques.
Even then I don't think it will be a problem. Almost everything is being sold as a fucking cloud service these days, so unless foreign governments want to send potentially secret information to U.S. companies, I don't think there's a lot of worry about anyone exporting a lot of this stuff.
Instead of starting some kind of cyber war, why not have our guys act as white hats and target Anerican firms and government organizations. Find breaches and alert the concerned parties so they can get filled in.
It gives our guys practical experience and helps protect American citizens and businesses. It even affords a good job opportunity for the kind of mischievous minds that might otherwise cause some of that trouble.
It’s kind of funny to read about how the U.S. is dying when you still have loads of people trying to come here. All the funnier is that it’s often from of the same places where they implemented systems to try to solve that supposed greed reigns supreme problem you think the west has.
Tech jobs have seen wages grow, which suggests the problem is likely related in some way to an influx of low skill labor that will work cheap or even under the table for below minimum wage. This concern is hardly a red herring.
Anyone who wants to is already capable of paying extra taxes. The government won’t stop you from paying more in the form of a gift to the treasury.
Better yet, fund or start a charity with the money you are no longer having the government take. It will probably do a better job of using that money, and you don’t have to worry about any of it being wasted on government programs you don’t agree with.
Seems like a great idea to outsource to third parties for everything.
If it's less expensive why not? I mean, I suppose you could decide to let the taxpayers keep all of their money and not spend anything, but once you've decided to spend, find the least expensive option.
I'm sure that you change your own oil, do your own electrical wiring, grow all of your own food, prepare your own medications and remedies, assemble your own furniture, and so on, but the rest of us poor bastards are going to need to outsource a lot of what we do to third parties. We beg your understanding on this matter.
Convince? Why not just go the route of another story and use it as a penal colony? If history is anything to go by, it works out pretty well over the long run, but they might develop a slightly funny, but charming accent.
I don't think she cared all that much, and the move to bring everyone back in-house was just a way to get some people to quit so Yahoo could downsize without having to fire people and offer severance packages.
The article you linked to makes a terrible mistake in that it looks at funding per student instead of the overall cost. I'd suggest this article in the NY Times which does a good job of explaining the flaws in the reasoning in the article you've presented. I'd link to other articles, but you have a tendency of dismissing the source without bothering to read it so you get the Times, which if you could successfully dismiss as "right wing" would constitute such an amazing display of mental gymnastics that even the fucking Russian judge would have to give you a 10.
Someone also has to maintain the Jeeps, cool the meals, and all manner of other tasks that might allow someone to earn a living. There are some people who are blessed with a brain that lets them be a programmer or engineer, but even if they are and are so descriminated against that they can’t get any other funding, the army won’t turn down talent. Also, the army won’t accept the absolute bottom who are incapable. Read up about McNamara’s 100,000.
And yes it’s publically funded. It’s one of the few things the constitution actually says the government is allowed to do. I think our armed forces are larger than they need to be, but if you don’t rely on voluntary participants that means conscription. Some countries do this and I’m not sure it’s entirely bad, but that’s another argument. However there’s nothing “free” about that education and if you’re signing up to die for your country (or the misguided fools who run it) then I don’t mind paying for it. Really, they should get more for what many of them give up. At least the Roman senators made their sons commanders.
But if you think all the military teaches you is to kill, you’re sadly misinformed. If that’s what ours did and practiced, no one would be talking about overpopulation.
What were you expecting? This guy sounds like a tech journalist who has no technology background or interest in doing deep dives into hardware so he has to cover the human side of it. Since he’s a tech journalist with no real technical ability, it pretty much means he’s fallen so far down the rung of respectable journalism positions you probably shouldn’t expect much. So of course he’s going to chase down any new fad, since that’s all he’s got. About the only lower you can get is video game journalist
If college loans were handled like anything else, where there was a possibility of default, then lenders would be forced to evaluate where students want to attend and what majors they wanted to pursue. I expect that the net effect would be fewer people majoring in some form of underwater basket weaving. Similarly, students might take their college experience a little more seriously if they learned that receiving additional loans was contingent on doing well in their classes.
For those who truly are coming from nothing and can't get any bank to lend you money, the U.S. armed services will gladly pay for a college education. Not only that, they'll likely give you some practical real world experience along the way. Better yet, ignore college entirely and go to a trade school, or even failing all of that, get a job and start building up some financial capital. There are a large number of jobs in the U.S. that require no college education of any form, and life is much easier if you don't have a staggering loan debt with payments that will constitute a significant percentage of your monthly expenses for many years to come.
You're welcome to go work for the college at a reduced rate so that they can lower their costs. I'm guessing that whatever company you work for admits or maintains customers on the basis of their ability to pay.
The line from the summary indicating that "Currently, 44% of Johns Hopkins students graduate with some form of debt averaging $24,000" which assuming that it's saying the other 56% graduate with no debt at all, would suggest that students who attend that college graduate with significantly less debt on average than students at most other universities.
If the U.S. education system is broken it is precisely because it will gladly loan anyone money to go to college regardless of their likelihood of being successful there, the ability for their degree to allow them to earn a living or pay back their loan, or any other sensible metric. Given the surprising number of college students who cannot even pass the high-school level math courses necessary to take college algebra, I suspect that these loans are being given to people who have no real understanding of compound interest or who have given any thoughts as to how their degree might enable a career. It is morally reprehensible to shackle young people with a debt that they cannot discharge through bankruptcy.
Systematic literature reviews are actually the most useful ways of analyzing some hypothesis. Consolidating results and looking at the entire body of science is what needs to be done. It's certainly possible that they can draw the wrong conclusion, but it's much less likely than any individual study. Any one study might have been badly designed or have an outcome due to chance, but combining the results from multiple studies reduces the likelihood of such errors.
I don't think it's quite that simple. If it were, the same greedy Wall Street types would stand to make more money recognizing this pattern and stopping their cash cow from dying. Sure, a new product, company, or even industry will come along, but that requires finding a new winner which isn't always obvious. Also, some would probably just demand that no additional features be added to the product either (at least as long as it doesn't allow for greater monitization), as that's money that could be invested elsewhere or returned to shareholders.
As much as the Wall Street fat cats are responsible for various maladies, software bloat and feature creep is the work another group, or perhaps even several others. I think that it's mostly that the people who make software, often fail to understand what actually makes it great.
Sure you can draw parallels, but I don't recall my computer processes having constitutional rights, so excuse me if I don't feel quite the same emotional stir over bounds checking as I might when the police state does something untoward.
Pretty much. I wonder if they ever thought to take pay cuts so that the grips, gaffers, and other set crew could be paid more. Shouldn’t they make just as much as the director or the actors?
After all, if anyone should own the means of production, it would be the crew of a film set.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems pretty unlikely to be the case. If you bothered to watch the interview this whole tempest in a tea pot stems from, it doesn't seem like he's much into smoking pot. He seems genuinely surprised when Rogan lights up spliff and asks if it's a cigar, isn't sure whether it's legal or not, and then takes a tiny drag that he doesn't seem to inhale.
Possibly still crazy, but not likely to be a stoner.
Hillary isn't going to jail. She may be utterly corrupt, but that just means she knows a lot of other utterly corrupt people who are still in office or some other government position, and not all of them are going to be Democrats either.
Everyone already knows that nothing will come of this. It's merely the next piece of political grandstanding.
This just sounds like a case of the tragedy of the commons waiting to happen. No one is going to have any reason to invest in updating the resource. If several companies want to spend large sums of money trying to make better and better maps because they think it's valuable, let them go ahead and do so. As the OP pointed out, there's already OpenStreetMap that anyone can commit to. If it isn't as good as the the maps from Google and others, that just shows you why the model of letting them all compete against each other works out better in the end.
It's also kind of pointless with a lot of data caps being as low as they are. It's like being sold a faster Ferrari that you can only drive on a 400 meter test track. Sure, it might get you to the end of the track that much faster, but the practical difference is almost nil since you can't go anywhere else with it.
I don't think you could have anyone, but the government do this kind of work on the kind of scale that is necessary. First of all, it's almost all illegal without permission, so only the government could get away doing it to organizations that don't ask. It might be a bit more hairy even then doing it companies, but the government could at the very least attempt to hack or social engineer other parts of the government. The government meanwhile, is never going to let a non-profit or any private organization get away with trying to hack them and won't even allow them to try in most circumstances.
There's also all kinds of difficult questions that need to be answered, or rather are really difficult to answer. For example, what responsibility does anyone doing this type of work have to report any crimes that they might uncover as a side effect of what they're doing? If they have to report anything, no one else is going to want any of this to happen and it will quickly be viewed (and actively used) as a tyrannical tool to suppress people the government doesn't like. I almost think you need to give it to some group that's independent enough within the government and probably doesn't care about small time tax cheats or other things like that.
Even though there are some good intentions behind this idea, or at least better ones that starting a cyber war with China, we're still playing with fire.
Any real AI (as in it's what we would classify as intelligent in the same way we might consider an animal intelligent) would have to be so general purpose that it could be adapted to the types of things that the government wouldn't want to sell, even if it didn't have that purpose originally. If you've got something that only works for a particular application (say NLP) but nothing else, it's not really artificially intelligent. It's just a very sophisticated algorithm (maybe that no one understands all that well), even if it was developed with so-called AI techniques.
Even then I don't think it will be a problem. Almost everything is being sold as a fucking cloud service these days, so unless foreign governments want to send potentially secret information to U.S. companies, I don't think there's a lot of worry about anyone exporting a lot of this stuff.
Instead of starting some kind of cyber war, why not have our guys act as white hats and target Anerican firms and government organizations. Find breaches and alert the concerned parties so they can get filled in.
It gives our guys practical experience and helps protect American citizens and businesses. It even affords a good job opportunity for the kind of mischievous minds that might otherwise cause some of that trouble.
It’s kind of funny to read about how the U.S. is dying when you still have loads of people trying to come here. All the funnier is that it’s often from of the same places where they implemented systems to try to solve that supposed greed reigns supreme problem you think the west has.
Tech jobs have seen wages grow, which suggests the problem is likely related in some way to an influx of low skill labor that will work cheap or even under the table for below minimum wage. This concern is hardly a red herring.
Anyone who wants to is already capable of paying extra taxes. The government won’t stop you from paying more in the form of a gift to the treasury.
Better yet, fund or start a charity with the money you are no longer having the government take. It will probably do a better job of using that money, and you don’t have to worry about any of it being wasted on government programs you don’t agree with.
Seems like a great idea to outsource to third parties for everything.
If it's less expensive why not? I mean, I suppose you could decide to let the taxpayers keep all of their money and not spend anything, but once you've decided to spend, find the least expensive option.
I'm sure that you change your own oil, do your own electrical wiring, grow all of your own food, prepare your own medications and remedies, assemble your own furniture, and so on, but the rest of us poor bastards are going to need to outsource a lot of what we do to third parties. We beg your understanding on this matter.
Convince? Why not just go the route of another story and use it as a penal colony? If history is anything to go by, it works out pretty well over the long run, but they might develop a slightly funny, but charming accent.
I don't think she cared all that much, and the move to bring everyone back in-house was just a way to get some people to quit so Yahoo could downsize without having to fire people and offer severance packages.
The article you linked to makes a terrible mistake in that it looks at funding per student instead of the overall cost. I'd suggest this article in the NY Times which does a good job of explaining the flaws in the reasoning in the article you've presented. I'd link to other articles, but you have a tendency of dismissing the source without bothering to read it so you get the Times, which if you could successfully dismiss as "right wing" would constitute such an amazing display of mental gymnastics that even the fucking Russian judge would have to give you a 10.
That’s exactly the problem. It’s hardly any surprise that predatory organizations like that crop up when there’s easy money on the table.
Someone also has to maintain the Jeeps, cool the meals, and all manner of other tasks that might allow someone to earn a living. There are some people who are blessed with a brain that lets them be a programmer or engineer, but even if they are and are so descriminated against that they can’t get any other funding, the army won’t turn down talent. Also, the army won’t accept the absolute bottom who are incapable. Read up about McNamara’s 100,000.
And yes it’s publically funded. It’s one of the few things the constitution actually says the government is allowed to do. I think our armed forces are larger than they need to be, but if you don’t rely on voluntary participants that means conscription. Some countries do this and I’m not sure it’s entirely bad, but that’s another argument. However there’s nothing “free” about that education and if you’re signing up to die for your country (or the misguided fools who run it) then I don’t mind paying for it. Really, they should get more for what many of them give up. At least the Roman senators made their sons commanders.
But if you think all the military teaches you is to kill, you’re sadly misinformed. If that’s what ours did and practiced, no one would be talking about overpopulation.
What were you expecting? This guy sounds like a tech journalist who has no technology background or interest in doing deep dives into hardware so he has to cover the human side of it. Since he’s a tech journalist with no real technical ability, it pretty much means he’s fallen so far down the rung of respectable journalism positions you probably shouldn’t expect much. So of course he’s going to chase down any new fad, since that’s all he’s got. About the only lower you can get is video game journalist
If the colleges would cut the useless administrative bloat (see The Changing of the Guard: The Political Economy of Administrative Bloat in American Higher Education) that they've acquired, I suspect that government funding could even be decreased further. Tax payers are uninterested in funding the expensive adult daycare that college has become for a large number of students.
If the government would get out of the student loan business, this problem would likely become self-correcting.
If college loans were handled like anything else, where there was a possibility of default, then lenders would be forced to evaluate where students want to attend and what majors they wanted to pursue. I expect that the net effect would be fewer people majoring in some form of underwater basket weaving. Similarly, students might take their college experience a little more seriously if they learned that receiving additional loans was contingent on doing well in their classes.
For those who truly are coming from nothing and can't get any bank to lend you money, the U.S. armed services will gladly pay for a college education. Not only that, they'll likely give you some practical real world experience along the way. Better yet, ignore college entirely and go to a trade school, or even failing all of that, get a job and start building up some financial capital. There are a large number of jobs in the U.S. that require no college education of any form, and life is much easier if you don't have a staggering loan debt with payments that will constitute a significant percentage of your monthly expenses for many years to come.
You're welcome to go work for the college at a reduced rate so that they can lower their costs. I'm guessing that whatever company you work for admits or maintains customers on the basis of their ability to pay.
The line from the summary indicating that "Currently, 44% of Johns Hopkins students graduate with some form of debt averaging $24,000" which assuming that it's saying the other 56% graduate with no debt at all, would suggest that students who attend that college graduate with significantly less debt on average than students at most other universities.
If the U.S. education system is broken it is precisely because it will gladly loan anyone money to go to college regardless of their likelihood of being successful there, the ability for their degree to allow them to earn a living or pay back their loan, or any other sensible metric. Given the surprising number of college students who cannot even pass the high-school level math courses necessary to take college algebra, I suspect that these loans are being given to people who have no real understanding of compound interest or who have given any thoughts as to how their degree might enable a career. It is morally reprehensible to shackle young people with a debt that they cannot discharge through bankruptcy.
Systematic literature reviews are actually the most useful ways of analyzing some hypothesis. Consolidating results and looking at the entire body of science is what needs to be done. It's certainly possible that they can draw the wrong conclusion, but it's much less likely than any individual study. Any one study might have been badly designed or have an outcome due to chance, but combining the results from multiple studies reduces the likelihood of such errors.
90% of 0 is 0. Math checks out on your claim.
I don't think it's quite that simple. If it were, the same greedy Wall Street types would stand to make more money recognizing this pattern and stopping their cash cow from dying. Sure, a new product, company, or even industry will come along, but that requires finding a new winner which isn't always obvious. Also, some would probably just demand that no additional features be added to the product either (at least as long as it doesn't allow for greater monitization), as that's money that could be invested elsewhere or returned to shareholders.
As much as the Wall Street fat cats are responsible for various maladies, software bloat and feature creep is the work another group, or perhaps even several others. I think that it's mostly that the people who make software, often fail to understand what actually makes it great.
Sure you can draw parallels, but I don't recall my computer processes having constitutional rights, so excuse me if I don't feel quite the same emotional stir over bounds checking as I might when the police state does something untoward.
Pretty much. I wonder if they ever thought to take pay cuts so that the grips, gaffers, and other set crew could be paid more. Shouldn’t they make just as much as the director or the actors?
After all, if anyone should own the means of production, it would be the crew of a film set.
Only true Scotsmen will ever be able to live in a real socialist country.