Suppose I tell you that I've got a secret weapon that can destroy your house at the push of a button. How are you supposed to go about stopping it if that's all you know about it? I'm sure there are a lot of things that you could do, but the majority of them may be wasted effort.
Hell, maybe I just wanted you to spend time and resources trying to protect your house against destruction when what I'm really going to do is steal your car. You might be too preoccupied elsewhere to notice. Or maybe I'm not interested in your car at all, but I want to make AC nervous about the fact that I might be able to destroy his house as well, so maybe he'd better return my lawn mower like I've been asking before I train the secret weapon on him instead.
Perhaps my reasoning is far more complex or sinister than any of that. I wouldn't take anything in politics at face value.
Would they be sharing their concerns if Hillary Clinton was president right now?
No, but there would be a different group of people filing the law suits for much the same reason. A solid part of any electorate is more tribal than anything. To them, anything is permissible as long as their side is the one doing it. If it occurred to any of these people that eventually someone else might get to wield the power that they've created, we wouldn't have at least half of the mess we constantly find ourselves in.
Yeah, the way to get back at the short sellers isn't to sink to the same level of mudslinging and misinformation. The best way is to make the company successful. Musk might not get to drag their names through the mud, but he can take comfort knowing that he caused them to lose a lot of money, which those types of slimy weasels probably care much more about than their reputation anyways.
If he does release the source code, I don't even consider it a complete failure. There's nothing preventing anyone who's interested from picking up the project and trying to finish it. Maybe even the original developer will come back after some time off.
If they can't get it to work in Excel, do you really think that their database design and any associated code will be any better? You'll probably get a mess of stitched together Frankenstein code from half a dozen different stack overflow questions and a database schema that just might be classifiable as -1NF.
The reason that Excel gets used by all of these people is that it's simple enough for most people to use and almost everyone has had classes on how to use spreadsheet software at some point in their life these days.
Sounds more like the crony capitalism that people like to complain about all of the time.
If Musk wanted to spend his own money or the private capital of others to get into space, that's his own business. Once the government starts deciding what and what doesn't get funded, it starts turning into corporate hand outs. I have a strong feel that you wouldn't view the government hand outs to oil companies as socialism. You wouldn't even dare phrase that as "pumping money into the economy", which is itself a bad line of reasoning as it would already be in the economy if the government hadn't taken in the first place.
Or is it only socialism when it's good, but crony capitalism when you don't like it? If you're so in favor of increasing the government spending, do you think it would turn out any different than the military-industrial complex in the U.S.? Should the government start pumping money into the economy by funding Tesla as well?
I'm not sure if this is even a problem. First, the results they suggest are based on the assumption that 100% of our power needs are generated via wind, which is unreasonable. That would mean at no point do we get any energy from natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, or geothermal. That's absurd to entertain. They also indicate that the effects would be more localized, and depending on the region may actually be desirable.
This is interesting in an academic sense, but unlikely to be a practical concern.
Is it really any different than the usual AC spam on any given story? It's not even unique to Trump since there were 8 years of the same kind of stuff while Obama was president. At least he's willing to tie his account to it so someone can make it easier to ignore him if they want to, which is more than you can say of most AC's that post even worse crap on a regular basis.
Spare me the rants against capitalism. I'm sure the customer response in the Soviet Union was just great.
The reality of free market capitalism isn't that it makes everything rainbows and puppy dogs, it's that it gives consumers what they are willing to pay to pay for. Every day customers vote with their wallets and if they continue to give their business to companies with what they regard as poor customer service, whose fault is that really? They might value customer service, but what they value more is lower cost, and that's what companies must strive to deliver if they want to stay in business.
Metroid has always been a red-headed step child as far as Nintendo's love has been concerned. I don't know if I fully fault them either as despite the Prime series being great, they weren't enough to justify the kind of investment that fans of the series want. Zelda and Mario games are close to an order of magnitude better in terms of sales. Pokemon put even those heavy hitters to shame and is pretty much a fucking printing press.
I almost want to dig the Wii out of the closet so I can play the Prime trilogy again.
Iâ(TM)m sure there is some way to objectively measure accuracy, but that itâ(TM)s prohibitively expensive or time consuming which is why there are other, simpler measures used for evaluation. The brain scans probably track closer to that best objective measure than the existing evaluation that is used. However, Iâ(TM)m guessing the brain scan method is also probitively expensive, but at least thereâ(TM)s some results to suggest the technology could be useful if the costs could be brought down.
Could well be both. Muscle memory isn't terribly useful if your conscious decision making is wrong about which memories should be used. Similarly, knowing what to do is of limited value if you're not capable of doing it.
Here it sounds like the experienced surgeons rely more on muscle memory, whereas the novices need to do more active thinking. If you're trying to assess how ready someone is, you'd probably want to go with the person who's working from muscle memory more, all else being equal.
I think it would be really interesting to do similar types of brain scans of musicians while having them play music in different ways or asking them to improvise as part of a group.
Or they've just been around a long time and promoted people into management instead of having some kind of dual ladder that allows people to be promoted as engineers or other roles. People come and go, but the management tends to stick around well past the best by date or gets promoted into yet another rung of middle management. One day they wake up and it's seven layers of management between anyone making a decision and anyone who can actually carry it out and a fun game of telephone in between. I'm sure that some of them have people skills though.
I think banks do it to make the customers feel more important. If you're sitting down the with VP of blah blah, you probably feel a lot more important as a customer than if you're talking to a manager, or worse yet a lowly clerk. It doesn't matter that in reality it's probably the same person (or one of the wunch) no matter what title they have.
Looks like a low cost, more enclosed cab that you already see on all types of machinery. If you're operating a forklift, they already have what's called a safety cage if it's being used to lift people. This one just looks a lot more idiot proof.
This is probably true in the case of anyone for whom this is an hourly pay increase. However, if you're salaried you might prefer the option for bonuses (if you think you're more productive than your peers) or stock options (if you're younger and expect the company to grow a lot over the next several years) as opposed to a flat increase in base salary.
There's the problem with making laws or setting rules that allow for an autocrat to have too much control. It's all well and good when it's your guy or some responsible leader that's more a figment of the imagination than anything, but this is precisely why you don't ever allow for those kinds of powers, even if they seem innocent enough or even good intentioned. Eventually it won't be your guy, or it will be someone quite reprehensible (and Trump's more of a buffoon than malicious, so consider yourself lucky), and likely eventually someone downright evil. That kind of power seems to be a natural magnate for exactly the worst sort of people.
I don't know the exact nature of the job, but if I were them, I would have hired you to see what else you could automate. Perhaps the reason they fired you is that you didn't tell anyone about it, so perhaps the real lesson here is that you should keep management informed. It's pretty unlikely that they'll be so foolish as to remove someone who just saved them a lot of money when the potential of more savings are possible.
There's an opposite end to the spectrum. For every driven, highly motivated type, that wants to work 60+ hours a week and is always looking for new things to busy themselves with once they get existing ones under control, there's someone who really just wants to do nothing, or as close to it as possible. Maybe there are some who fall into that soul-crushing pit and just become accustomed to it, but I think there are a few people who are just wired that way to begin with.
Like anything, most people fall into the middle. I can't really understand anyone at either extreme. I mean that I've done some 60+ hour weeks, and there have been weeks where I've done practically nothing as well, but they're not the norm and I can't understand how anyone would want either of those to be the norm, but I suspect that they'd just look at me in turn and wonder how the hell anyone can want things they way I like them.
It really does depend where you live. There are some places in the country where $40k will buy you a decent sized house and others where it will barely let you rent a glorified broom closet for a year.
To anyone who wants everyone to earn a living wage, find something that you can pay them to do that will afford them that living. The sad truth is that there are some people who lack the skills, aptitude, or desire to be able to earn a living. It's not a mater of personal failing either, unless you think people choose to be born mentally retarded or otherwise disabled that prohibits work. I suspect that most people are more than willing to help the truly incapable, but there are lot of people who are in that situation entirely by choice, either a refusal to work jobs they're capable of (but somehow they think are beneath them) or through a history a poor decisions that have left them with nothing.
Why is it a shame? Let's suppose, for example, that this is completely bunk and doesn't pan out. It appears that the people who are receiving the funding are using it to actually put their theories to the test. Assuming they're real scientists and not grifters, then after running their tests and finding that their theories do not work, they would devote their time to studying something else. You can't know whether or not some hypothesis is false until it has been tested. If it only takes a little over a million dollars to put this idea to rest, that's quite inexpensive compared to a lot of physics research.
You're acting as though you've got a perfect oracle that has given you the correct answer in advance. The theory might seem strange or unlikely, but the universe is a strange and unlikely place. Physics is rife with discovers that made no sense based on our existing understanding of the universe.
Slashdot Mirror
Suppose I tell you that I've got a secret weapon that can destroy your house at the push of a button. How are you supposed to go about stopping it if that's all you know about it? I'm sure there are a lot of things that you could do, but the majority of them may be wasted effort.
Hell, maybe I just wanted you to spend time and resources trying to protect your house against destruction when what I'm really going to do is steal your car. You might be too preoccupied elsewhere to notice. Or maybe I'm not interested in your car at all, but I want to make AC nervous about the fact that I might be able to destroy his house as well, so maybe he'd better return my lawn mower like I've been asking before I train the secret weapon on him instead.
Perhaps my reasoning is far more complex or sinister than any of that. I wouldn't take anything in politics at face value.
Would they be sharing their concerns if Hillary Clinton was president right now?
No, but there would be a different group of people filing the law suits for much the same reason. A solid part of any electorate is more tribal than anything. To them, anything is permissible as long as their side is the one doing it. If it occurred to any of these people that eventually someone else might get to wield the power that they've created, we wouldn't have at least half of the mess we constantly find ourselves in.
Yeah, the way to get back at the short sellers isn't to sink to the same level of mudslinging and misinformation. The best way is to make the company successful. Musk might not get to drag their names through the mud, but he can take comfort knowing that he caused them to lose a lot of money, which those types of slimy weasels probably care much more about than their reputation anyways.
Slamming too many Hamms will give you a bad case of the Schlitz.
If he does release the source code, I don't even consider it a complete failure. There's nothing preventing anyone who's interested from picking up the project and trying to finish it. Maybe even the original developer will come back after some time off.
If they can't get it to work in Excel, do you really think that their database design and any associated code will be any better? You'll probably get a mess of stitched together Frankenstein code from half a dozen different stack overflow questions and a database schema that just might be classifiable as -1NF.
The reason that Excel gets used by all of these people is that it's simple enough for most people to use and almost everyone has had classes on how to use spreadsheet software at some point in their life these days.
Normally you want to use a robot (or some other form of automation) because it is strong than a human or several dozens of them.
Sounds more like the crony capitalism that people like to complain about all of the time.
If Musk wanted to spend his own money or the private capital of others to get into space, that's his own business. Once the government starts deciding what and what doesn't get funded, it starts turning into corporate hand outs. I have a strong feel that you wouldn't view the government hand outs to oil companies as socialism. You wouldn't even dare phrase that as "pumping money into the economy", which is itself a bad line of reasoning as it would already be in the economy if the government hadn't taken in the first place.
Or is it only socialism when it's good, but crony capitalism when you don't like it? If you're so in favor of increasing the government spending, do you think it would turn out any different than the military-industrial complex in the U.S.? Should the government start pumping money into the economy by funding Tesla as well?
I'm not sure if this is even a problem. First, the results they suggest are based on the assumption that 100% of our power needs are generated via wind, which is unreasonable. That would mean at no point do we get any energy from natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, or geothermal. That's absurd to entertain. They also indicate that the effects would be more localized, and depending on the region may actually be desirable.
This is interesting in an academic sense, but unlikely to be a practical concern.
Is it really any different than the usual AC spam on any given story? It's not even unique to Trump since there were 8 years of the same kind of stuff while Obama was president. At least he's willing to tie his account to it so someone can make it easier to ignore him if they want to, which is more than you can say of most AC's that post even worse crap on a regular basis.
You don't need a permit, at least not if you're in Kentucky and only blast the drones that come onto your property.
Spare me the rants against capitalism. I'm sure the customer response in the Soviet Union was just great.
The reality of free market capitalism isn't that it makes everything rainbows and puppy dogs, it's that it gives consumers what they are willing to pay to pay for. Every day customers vote with their wallets and if they continue to give their business to companies with what they regard as poor customer service, whose fault is that really? They might value customer service, but what they value more is lower cost, and that's what companies must strive to deliver if they want to stay in business.
Metroid has always been a red-headed step child as far as Nintendo's love has been concerned. I don't know if I fully fault them either as despite the Prime series being great, they weren't enough to justify the kind of investment that fans of the series want. Zelda and Mario games are close to an order of magnitude better in terms of sales. Pokemon put even those heavy hitters to shame and is pretty much a fucking printing press.
I almost want to dig the Wii out of the closet so I can play the Prime trilogy again.
Iâ(TM)m sure there is some way to objectively measure accuracy, but that itâ(TM)s prohibitively expensive or time consuming which is why there are other, simpler measures used for evaluation. The brain scans probably track closer to that best objective measure than the existing evaluation that is used. However, Iâ(TM)m guessing the brain scan method is also probitively expensive, but at least thereâ(TM)s some results to suggest the technology could be useful if the costs could be brought down.
Could well be both. Muscle memory isn't terribly useful if your conscious decision making is wrong about which memories should be used. Similarly, knowing what to do is of limited value if you're not capable of doing it.
Here it sounds like the experienced surgeons rely more on muscle memory, whereas the novices need to do more active thinking. If you're trying to assess how ready someone is, you'd probably want to go with the person who's working from muscle memory more, all else being equal.
I think it would be really interesting to do similar types of brain scans of musicians while having them play music in different ways or asking them to improvise as part of a group.
Or they've just been around a long time and promoted people into management instead of having some kind of dual ladder that allows people to be promoted as engineers or other roles. People come and go, but the management tends to stick around well past the best by date or gets promoted into yet another rung of middle management. One day they wake up and it's seven layers of management between anyone making a decision and anyone who can actually carry it out and a fun game of telephone in between. I'm sure that some of them have people skills though.
I think banks do it to make the customers feel more important. If you're sitting down the with VP of blah blah, you probably feel a lot more important as a customer than if you're talking to a manager, or worse yet a lowly clerk. It doesn't matter that in reality it's probably the same person (or one of the wunch) no matter what title they have.
Looks like a low cost, more enclosed cab that you already see on all types of machinery. If you're operating a forklift, they already have what's called a safety cage if it's being used to lift people. This one just looks a lot more idiot proof.
This is probably true in the case of anyone for whom this is an hourly pay increase. However, if you're salaried you might prefer the option for bonuses (if you think you're more productive than your peers) or stock options (if you're younger and expect the company to grow a lot over the next several years) as opposed to a flat increase in base salary.
They can probably just ask the NSA. They probably would know.
There's the problem with making laws or setting rules that allow for an autocrat to have too much control. It's all well and good when it's your guy or some responsible leader that's more a figment of the imagination than anything, but this is precisely why you don't ever allow for those kinds of powers, even if they seem innocent enough or even good intentioned. Eventually it won't be your guy, or it will be someone quite reprehensible (and Trump's more of a buffoon than malicious, so consider yourself lucky), and likely eventually someone downright evil. That kind of power seems to be a natural magnate for exactly the worst sort of people.
I don't know the exact nature of the job, but if I were them, I would have hired you to see what else you could automate. Perhaps the reason they fired you is that you didn't tell anyone about it, so perhaps the real lesson here is that you should keep management informed. It's pretty unlikely that they'll be so foolish as to remove someone who just saved them a lot of money when the potential of more savings are possible.
There's an opposite end to the spectrum. For every driven, highly motivated type, that wants to work 60+ hours a week and is always looking for new things to busy themselves with once they get existing ones under control, there's someone who really just wants to do nothing, or as close to it as possible. Maybe there are some who fall into that soul-crushing pit and just become accustomed to it, but I think there are a few people who are just wired that way to begin with.
Like anything, most people fall into the middle. I can't really understand anyone at either extreme. I mean that I've done some 60+ hour weeks, and there have been weeks where I've done practically nothing as well, but they're not the norm and I can't understand how anyone would want either of those to be the norm, but I suspect that they'd just look at me in turn and wonder how the hell anyone can want things they way I like them.
It really does depend where you live. There are some places in the country where $40k will buy you a decent sized house and others where it will barely let you rent a glorified broom closet for a year.
To anyone who wants everyone to earn a living wage, find something that you can pay them to do that will afford them that living. The sad truth is that there are some people who lack the skills, aptitude, or desire to be able to earn a living. It's not a mater of personal failing either, unless you think people choose to be born mentally retarded or otherwise disabled that prohibits work. I suspect that most people are more than willing to help the truly incapable, but there are lot of people who are in that situation entirely by choice, either a refusal to work jobs they're capable of (but somehow they think are beneath them) or through a history a poor decisions that have left them with nothing.
Why is it a shame? Let's suppose, for example, that this is completely bunk and doesn't pan out. It appears that the people who are receiving the funding are using it to actually put their theories to the test. Assuming they're real scientists and not grifters, then after running their tests and finding that their theories do not work, they would devote their time to studying something else. You can't know whether or not some hypothesis is false until it has been tested. If it only takes a little over a million dollars to put this idea to rest, that's quite inexpensive compared to a lot of physics research.
You're acting as though you've got a perfect oracle that has given you the correct answer in advance. The theory might seem strange or unlikely, but the universe is a strange and unlikely place. Physics is rife with discovers that made no sense based on our existing understanding of the universe.