If these did become popular, it's not too hard to imagine buildings installing a dumbwaiter that could be used by these robots. If it's a building that already has an elevator, there's no reason you could program the robot to use that and develop a way for them to interface with existing systems. Another alternative is that a robot can deliver it to a particular location and a drone can always carry it up to a balcony assuming it's not anything too heavy.
Perhaps this is a bit trollish, but just to illustrate how difficult the core issue is, does that freedom also include being able to abort your unborn daughter or son?
They're all fundamentally arguments that test the freedoms of a parent concerning the health and welfare of their child and the extent to which a state can interfere in those decisions. I think the interesting part is that you'll have people who have contradictory answers: e.g., it's morally wrong to abort, circumcision should be up to the parents, but every kid has to be vaccinated. Sure we can try to understand the reasoning, or recognize the rationale given to explain those reasons (e.g., abortion deals with a fetus that has no rights as a person) but I've always found it interesting how inconsistent people tend to be when it comes down to how much or little the government can interfere in the life of its citizens.
Most of their profit comes from the iPhone, which is much less expensive than their other hardware. What really made them profitable was having a highly streamlined product line which makes their costs lower than other companies. They also own their own software stack which means that they don't have any direct competitors comparable to the different companies selling Android or Windows devices. They almost died back in the 90's because of the Mac clones. There's also usually not room for more than a few luxury brands.
World hunger is simple when tackled using recursion. Just take half of the current hungry people and feed them to the other half. Algorithm terminates upon reaching the base case of 0 hungry people in the world remaining.
If you were a code monkey maybe, since the modern frameworks and IDEs can do a lot of the lifting for you, but that's only because a lot of that code has become boilerplate. But we certainly aren't anywhere close to not needing developers.
If he went to a small school, it's highly probable that no one committed suicide at any of his schools, while he was in school. Elementary school children are really unlikely to kill themselves, same for people in middle school. The current rate for teen suicide (in boys at least) is only around 14 per 100,000 according to most sources I could find. Napkin math says you'd need a little over 1,000 boys in your high school before it becomes as likely as not for one of them to commit suicide while you're in high school.
According to the CDC, teen suicide rate is up, but it's a matter of what time scale you're looking at. If you measure from the mid-2000's, the suicide rate is up, but if you compare it to the late-1980's and early-1990's, the suicide rate is down. It had a harder time finding good data that goes way back, but sources suggest the rates were lower in the 1960's, but I can't find much that goes back further than that, at least not for teenagers.
I also didn't have anyone commit suicide in my elementary, middle, or high school while growing up. I don't really see how I can prove that to you though since you'd be asking me to prove a negative. I mean I suppose I could try to get a record of everyone who attended at the same time as me and try to show a lack of any death certificates for those people in that span of time, but that would be kind of hard to cite.
Assuming that we're no longer around, it's a fairly safe bet that any civilization capable of recovering the discs will be able to extract the information. It's hard to imagine aliens capable of traveling across the galaxy that are confounded by primitive data. Fully comprehending the information may be another matter, but I imagine they'll be able to puzzle out accessing it. We do live in the same physical universe, so it's not a stretch to imagine that they would have developed and used (or still use) similar technology themselves.
Why is this being called review bombing, when no one has reviewed the film yet? If you go to the Rotten Tomatoes page linked in the summary, they indicate that there aren't any reviews ("Tomatometer Not Available...") and the 28% (29% when I'm viewing the page) is for "Want To See".
If people are running bots to tank the results, who really cares since it doesn't affect anything. I rarely use Rotten Tomatoes to determine if I should see a film or not based on critic reviews. I wasn't even aware that this audience interest thing even existed up until now. I can't imagine anyone actually basing their decision of whether or not to see a movie based on a number on the internet that only expresses whether or not other people claim that they are interested.
I have a feeling this is going to have a Streisand like effect and blow up in the face of the people complaining about it. When a group of people are acting like jackasses on the internet, it's better to just ignore them. Giving them attention only validates their behavior and makes them do it even more. Once you feed a troll, they know that they've got you pissed off. I'm not familiar with the website comicbook.com or the author of this article, but I already think they're a plonker for getting the basics wrong.
Maybe they're just trying to spare Linux users from their awful software. Everyone knew that iTunes used to suck horribly on Windows, but it's become a giant flaming pile of shit on Macs now as well. Hopefully Apple will extend this blocking to users of other operating systems so that everyone is spared the misfortune of using that wretched mess.
Which all but guarantees that this will be weaponized. Don't like a video or a content creator on YouTube? Why bother with a well-released response or making a video of your own, when you can leave comments designed to get them demonetized. Pretty soon creators will be forced to disable comments entirely because they can't take the risk if their content production has become their livelihood.
I think most companies have realized that when you offshore using cheap foreign labor to replace domestic programmers that you get what you pay for. The people who are actually capable developers living in India, China, etc. are rapidly seeing their wages increase and eventually it will reach equilibrium. Computer science and other Engineering disciplines continue to remain in high demand despite increases in the number of H1-B positions. You could even argue that the cap was increased specifically because there's so much demand that's being unsatisfied, probably because idiots keep running around screaming how the sky is falling.
You could also argue that if you wanted to target people with advertisements about getting yourself out of a hate group, you'd specifically want to aim it at people who are most likely to be in one.
Your other point could be applied to any group. I could target people who are pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-gun, etc. and get them riled up. You'd need to explain what's so special about neo-Nazi skinheads that makes them different. I'm not particularly sure that they are that special and anyone tripping over themselves to try to stop those idiots is themselves a fool that's paving a path to hell in a misguided attempt to appear virtuous.
You forgot one, the trolls. They make claims like that the social engineers want everyone to "live off the land". But all wealth is derived from the land, so we all live off the land already.
That's a gross oversimplification. You might as well say that because the energy was ultimately derived from the sun, coal is really just solar power. Wealth is derived from human ingenuity and creativity. Most land was barely fit to survive on until someone figured out how to cultivate it and harness the resources it contained. We've gotten so far that people who develop computer algorithms are now among those who are capable of creating the most wealth. But the ties between that activity and the land are as tenuous as that between the sun and a lump of coal.
We live on the land though, and that should be good enough reason to keep it in good condition. But don't pretend that there aren't groups of people who will use any moral panic they can find in order to further there own agendas. The Green New Deal was full of all manner of handouts and other ideological bullshit that has absolutely nothing to do with humanity being better stewards of the earth.
Humans were never reasonable. The only difference is that in the past, the guy from your town who was a complete nutter mainly kept to himself and no one else paid him any mind. Now, that nutter can go on Facebook or other websites and connect with nutters from the next town over or even on the other side of the country. Now you've got a big collection of nutters and since they don't have jobs or real hobbies, they've got more time than any sane individual to go around spewing their bullshit or acting on it in ways that they couldn't before.
Try avoid looking back at the world through rose tinted glasses and thinking that things were so much better. It usually wasn't and people tend to tunnel on one or two small areas that were pretty good while forgetting all of the things that weren't.
It’s not quite correct but it has been researched. Zebras’ stripes do help them evade lions but not because lions can only see black and white, but because the stripe pattern makes it difficult for lions to identify a single zebra among the herd. The pattern makes them all blend together and confuses the lion enough to let a zebra escape when the lion hesitates or miscalculates.
To test this theory some researchers painted a big stripe (I think it was red) on one zebra in a herd. The lions had no problem killing that one because it stood out and they could track it in isolation even when it was among other Zebras. There may be other benefits to Zebras having stripes, but we do know that it is an adaptation against primary predators.
Basically nothing. The idiots that wrote the law never stopped to consider how badly it would be abused. In this case the people involved were lucky to be famous enough that they could get anyone to care. Unless you're already a big name on YouTube, good luck ever reaching a human being at Google regardless of problem.
At least The Verge will be rightly pilloried over this. I don't know if it will affect their readership though. I quit going to their site shortly after it launched because it was a bloated pile of shit that was utter hell on my slightly old hardware at the time. When will tech press realize that they just need a decent simple layout that doesn't distract from their actual content?
I remember Patel from Engadget back in the day. He has a law degree and should know better than to make such an asinine comment about this being anywhere close to copyright infringement.
16:9 is a shit resolution for anything other than HD TV content and it’s not even great for that purpose since a lot of films end up getting letterboxed since they’re not natively 16:9. At least you can buy 16:10 monitors. I still use 4:3 monitors for secondary displays. Anything I’d want to do on them would be wasted on anything wider. I know some people turn the sideways so you’ve essentially got a 9:16 which is actually pretty decent for a lot of documents.
There is some issue over whether or not you can trust that it's actually disabled. If you wanted to be certain, you'd need to disable it in hardware and require that such action not invalidate the warranty.
How much better is it though? They omit that detail from the summary and leave your mind to make some assumption that probably inflates the difference. It appears as though that's a result that was observed after the fact rather than a hypothesis that was considered initially. As such, it warrants a controlled study specifically designed to test only that hypothesis. Otherwise you run the risk of odd results showing up that aren't really being studied.
For example, if they tracked hair or eye color for all participants, they may have discovered that men with blonde hair and brown eyes only needed to do 20 push-ups to get the same results. Not because those characteristics actually influence anything, but because if you have enough factors under observation you're more likely to see the occurrence of events with a low statistical probability as a result of random chance.
That was my thought as well. I suspect that the categories are somewhat arbitrary as well. I haven't looked any farther into the study data, but the summary fails to indicate how much better of a predictor the push-up test is as opposed to the treadmill test and whether it holds true for other categories (say people who can do 11 - 39 push-ups) as well. You'd probably want to extend it further (say 60 push-ups) just to see if this holds. Otherwise it's probably some statistical aberration or the result of doing an experiment and picking out the good results without forming the hypothesis at the onset.
The troubling part is that this apparently came out of Harvard. Maybe I'm guilty of buying too much into branding, but this doesn't come across as meeting the standards of what one would expect from a university of that caliber.
Slashdot Mirror
Why stop there? YouTube comments are some of the worst on the internet. Disable them for all videos. Nothing of value will be lost.
Sure you can delete it, but apparently it's quite an involved process.
If these did become popular, it's not too hard to imagine buildings installing a dumbwaiter that could be used by these robots. If it's a building that already has an elevator, there's no reason you could program the robot to use that and develop a way for them to interface with existing systems. Another alternative is that a robot can deliver it to a particular location and a drone can always carry it up to a balcony assuming it's not anything too heavy.
Perhaps this is a bit trollish, but just to illustrate how difficult the core issue is, does that freedom also include being able to abort your unborn daughter or son?
They're all fundamentally arguments that test the freedoms of a parent concerning the health and welfare of their child and the extent to which a state can interfere in those decisions. I think the interesting part is that you'll have people who have contradictory answers: e.g., it's morally wrong to abort, circumcision should be up to the parents, but every kid has to be vaccinated. Sure we can try to understand the reasoning, or recognize the rationale given to explain those reasons (e.g., abortion deals with a fetus that has no rights as a person) but I've always found it interesting how inconsistent people tend to be when it comes down to how much or little the government can interfere in the life of its citizens.
Most of their profit comes from the iPhone, which is much less expensive than their other hardware. What really made them profitable was having a highly streamlined product line which makes their costs lower than other companies. They also own their own software stack which means that they don't have any direct competitors comparable to the different companies selling Android or Windows devices. They almost died back in the 90's because of the Mac clones. There's also usually not room for more than a few luxury brands.
So what? I can do that.
My predictions rarely turn out to be correct, but that's besides the point.
World hunger is simple when tackled using recursion. Just take half of the current hungry people and feed them to the other half. Algorithm terminates upon reaching the base case of 0 hungry people in the world remaining.
If you were a code monkey maybe, since the modern frameworks and IDEs can do a lot of the lifting for you, but that's only because a lot of that code has become boilerplate. But we certainly aren't anywhere close to not needing developers.
If he went to a small school, it's highly probable that no one committed suicide at any of his schools, while he was in school. Elementary school children are really unlikely to kill themselves, same for people in middle school. The current rate for teen suicide (in boys at least) is only around 14 per 100,000 according to most sources I could find. Napkin math says you'd need a little over 1,000 boys in your high school before it becomes as likely as not for one of them to commit suicide while you're in high school.
According to the CDC, teen suicide rate is up, but it's a matter of what time scale you're looking at. If you measure from the mid-2000's, the suicide rate is up, but if you compare it to the late-1980's and early-1990's, the suicide rate is down. It had a harder time finding good data that goes way back, but sources suggest the rates were lower in the 1960's, but I can't find much that goes back further than that, at least not for teenagers.
I also didn't have anyone commit suicide in my elementary, middle, or high school while growing up. I don't really see how I can prove that to you though since you'd be asking me to prove a negative. I mean I suppose I could try to get a record of everyone who attended at the same time as me and try to show a lack of any death certificates for those people in that span of time, but that would be kind of hard to cite.
If they can sell them to people in the United States for more than consumers in China would pay, why wouldn't they export them?
Assuming that we're no longer around, it's a fairly safe bet that any civilization capable of recovering the discs will be able to extract the information. It's hard to imagine aliens capable of traveling across the galaxy that are confounded by primitive data. Fully comprehending the information may be another matter, but I imagine they'll be able to puzzle out accessing it. We do live in the same physical universe, so it's not a stretch to imagine that they would have developed and used (or still use) similar technology themselves.
Why is this being called review bombing, when no one has reviewed the film yet? If you go to the Rotten Tomatoes page linked in the summary, they indicate that there aren't any reviews ("Tomatometer Not Available...") and the 28% (29% when I'm viewing the page) is for "Want To See".
If people are running bots to tank the results, who really cares since it doesn't affect anything. I rarely use Rotten Tomatoes to determine if I should see a film or not based on critic reviews. I wasn't even aware that this audience interest thing even existed up until now. I can't imagine anyone actually basing their decision of whether or not to see a movie based on a number on the internet that only expresses whether or not other people claim that they are interested.
I have a feeling this is going to have a Streisand like effect and blow up in the face of the people complaining about it. When a group of people are acting like jackasses on the internet, it's better to just ignore them. Giving them attention only validates their behavior and makes them do it even more. Once you feed a troll, they know that they've got you pissed off. I'm not familiar with the website comicbook.com or the author of this article, but I already think they're a plonker for getting the basics wrong.
Maybe they're just trying to spare Linux users from their awful software. Everyone knew that iTunes used to suck horribly on Windows, but it's become a giant flaming pile of shit on Macs now as well. Hopefully Apple will extend this blocking to users of other operating systems so that everyone is spared the misfortune of using that wretched mess.
Which all but guarantees that this will be weaponized. Don't like a video or a content creator on YouTube? Why bother with a well-released response or making a video of your own, when you can leave comments designed to get them demonetized. Pretty soon creators will be forced to disable comments entirely because they can't take the risk if their content production has become their livelihood.
I think most companies have realized that when you offshore using cheap foreign labor to replace domestic programmers that you get what you pay for. The people who are actually capable developers living in India, China, etc. are rapidly seeing their wages increase and eventually it will reach equilibrium. Computer science and other Engineering disciplines continue to remain in high demand despite increases in the number of H1-B positions. You could even argue that the cap was increased specifically because there's so much demand that's being unsatisfied, probably because idiots keep running around screaming how the sky is falling.
You could also argue that if you wanted to target people with advertisements about getting yourself out of a hate group, you'd specifically want to aim it at people who are most likely to be in one.
Your other point could be applied to any group. I could target people who are pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-gun, etc. and get them riled up. You'd need to explain what's so special about neo-Nazi skinheads that makes them different. I'm not particularly sure that they are that special and anyone tripping over themselves to try to stop those idiots is themselves a fool that's paving a path to hell in a misguided attempt to appear virtuous.
Tell me about it. Here I was thinking I had problems.
You forgot one, the trolls. They make claims like that the social engineers want everyone to "live off the land". But all wealth is derived from the land, so we all live off the land already.
That's a gross oversimplification. You might as well say that because the energy was ultimately derived from the sun, coal is really just solar power. Wealth is derived from human ingenuity and creativity. Most land was barely fit to survive on until someone figured out how to cultivate it and harness the resources it contained. We've gotten so far that people who develop computer algorithms are now among those who are capable of creating the most wealth. But the ties between that activity and the land are as tenuous as that between the sun and a lump of coal.
We live on the land though, and that should be good enough reason to keep it in good condition. But don't pretend that there aren't groups of people who will use any moral panic they can find in order to further there own agendas. The Green New Deal was full of all manner of handouts and other ideological bullshit that has absolutely nothing to do with humanity being better stewards of the earth.
Humans were never reasonable. The only difference is that in the past, the guy from your town who was a complete nutter mainly kept to himself and no one else paid him any mind. Now, that nutter can go on Facebook or other websites and connect with nutters from the next town over or even on the other side of the country. Now you've got a big collection of nutters and since they don't have jobs or real hobbies, they've got more time than any sane individual to go around spewing their bullshit or acting on it in ways that they couldn't before.
Try avoid looking back at the world through rose tinted glasses and thinking that things were so much better. It usually wasn't and people tend to tunnel on one or two small areas that were pretty good while forgetting all of the things that weren't.
It’s not quite correct but it has been researched. Zebras’ stripes do help them evade lions but not because lions can only see black and white, but because the stripe pattern makes it difficult for lions to identify a single zebra among the herd. The pattern makes them all blend together and confuses the lion enough to let a zebra escape when the lion hesitates or miscalculates.
To test this theory some researchers painted a big stripe (I think it was red) on one zebra in a herd. The lions had no problem killing that one because it stood out and they could track it in isolation even when it was among other Zebras. There may be other benefits to Zebras having stripes, but we do know that it is an adaptation against primary predators.
Basically nothing. The idiots that wrote the law never stopped to consider how badly it would be abused. In this case the people involved were lucky to be famous enough that they could get anyone to care. Unless you're already a big name on YouTube, good luck ever reaching a human being at Google regardless of problem.
At least The Verge will be rightly pilloried over this. I don't know if it will affect their readership though. I quit going to their site shortly after it launched because it was a bloated pile of shit that was utter hell on my slightly old hardware at the time. When will tech press realize that they just need a decent simple layout that doesn't distract from their actual content?
I remember Patel from Engadget back in the day. He has a law degree and should know better than to make such an asinine comment about this being anywhere close to copyright infringement.
16:9 is a shit resolution for anything other than HD TV content and it’s not even great for that purpose since a lot of films end up getting letterboxed since they’re not natively 16:9. At least you can buy 16:10 monitors. I still use 4:3 monitors for secondary displays. Anything I’d want to do on them would be wasted on anything wider. I know some people turn the sideways so you’ve essentially got a 9:16 which is actually pretty decent for a lot of documents.
There is some issue over whether or not you can trust that it's actually disabled. If you wanted to be certain, you'd need to disable it in hardware and require that such action not invalidate the warranty.
How much better is it though? They omit that detail from the summary and leave your mind to make some assumption that probably inflates the difference. It appears as though that's a result that was observed after the fact rather than a hypothesis that was considered initially. As such, it warrants a controlled study specifically designed to test only that hypothesis. Otherwise you run the risk of odd results showing up that aren't really being studied.
For example, if they tracked hair or eye color for all participants, they may have discovered that men with blonde hair and brown eyes only needed to do 20 push-ups to get the same results. Not because those characteristics actually influence anything, but because if you have enough factors under observation you're more likely to see the occurrence of events with a low statistical probability as a result of random chance.
That was my thought as well. I suspect that the categories are somewhat arbitrary as well. I haven't looked any farther into the study data, but the summary fails to indicate how much better of a predictor the push-up test is as opposed to the treadmill test and whether it holds true for other categories (say people who can do 11 - 39 push-ups) as well. You'd probably want to extend it further (say 60 push-ups) just to see if this holds. Otherwise it's probably some statistical aberration or the result of doing an experiment and picking out the good results without forming the hypothesis at the onset.
The troubling part is that this apparently came out of Harvard. Maybe I'm guilty of buying too much into branding, but this doesn't come across as meeting the standards of what one would expect from a university of that caliber.