I am concerned that Google is attempting to act as a gatekeeper and arbiter of truth. While holocaust denial is certainly appalling, what else are they going to censor? What if China decides that Tiananmen Square is offensive?
Yes, if you lock down your browser you get them a lot. Basically, for Google, if they know where you live and your cat's name - then you don't get shown captchas.
Trump's offices were definitely not tapped unless
a) There was some damning evidence he was doing something very bad
or
b) Multiple high-ranking people collaborated to break serious laws.
I think you meant to say "Trump's offices were probably tapped because". I think there is good chance that both a) and b) are true.
Sure, but "exposure to the internet" is constantly getting redefined.
Put it this way, if previous generations minded their mail getting read by censors and fought hard to put the end to it, why are we now allowing this but "on computer" to come back?!
An automation tax dumped directly into basic income (also all the welfare aspects dumped into the same basic income) would solve everything and progress would continue.
It won't solve everything, but it will avert immediate apocalypse.
You forget wars in-between. Wars, collapse of empires and so on has equalizing and wealth distributing effect. Modern imperial wars will inevitably involve nukes, there won't be anything left to distribute afterwards.
Yes they would, and if you think that unwashed masses will simply take it lying down, you are going to be up to a very nasty surprises when more and worse Trumps get elected.
Robot tax is infeasible, as it is too easy to work around. For example, as an owner of fully autonomous factory I would have a single employee press 'Start' button once a day, and sit in the chair in front of dials Homer-style. Now I can claim that my system isn't fully automated and I don't have to pay tax.
Feasible solution is progressive taxation combined with guaranteed income. Fundamentally, it isn't 1% getting Ferengi-rich, it is that the rest of us are forced to play Jem'Hadar as a result.
Slightly over a month ago they were fined by the FTC for lying about the money drivers earn, lying about vehicle financing rates, lying about lease terms. Seeing a pattern here?
Let me turn it around on you. Do you think the driver has any responsibility over his decision to borrow $100K on a quickly depreciating asset to engage in no-guarantees gig? That is, your position is that he had no agency whatsoever over this. Along the lines of getting colorectal cancer - one day you wake up in pain and turns out you have $100K loan and you now have to drive UberBlack?
Why the fuck do you think it's reasonable to lie to such people and mislead them into a debt they're going to struggle terribly to pay off?
This is entirely separate argument from the specific conversation that happened between UberBlack driver and Uber CEO.
The argument was that Uber CEO should not lower pricing, because doing so makes it impossible to pay off $100K car loans. It is not about appropriateness of making such $100K loans to subprime drivers or any deception that took place in the process of securing loans. For all we know, UberBlack driver paid all-cash for the car. The topic was never brought up.
Do you have to use $100K car to drive for UberBlack? Are the only acceptable cars exclusively available through Uber? I don't think so.
Google tells me that car requirements are as follows: 1.Sedan or full-size SUV.
2.Black exterior and interior.
3.Vehicle should be at least 2010 or newer.
4.Must seat at least four passengers
Here is a reasonable way to go about driving for UberBlack. 1. Buy used reliable large sedan. For example, Lexus LS 460. Kelly Blue Book tells me 2012 Lexus LS 460 L is $28,827. 2. Start driving. 2a. If it doesn't work out, sell the car and move on. 2b. If it doesn't work out, keep driving the car, since there is no crazy depreciation on 2012.
The real issue is not that UberBlack is a bad deal. It might or might not be. I don't really know. The real issue that buying $100K car is a bad deal no matter what you intend to do with it. New $100K car will take 20% hit driving it off the lot. This is eye-watering $20K just to take delivery. How a cab driver could possibly afford such expense?!
Uber is currently losing about 3 billions per year.
I could somewhat justify complaints if Uber was making record profits while screwing over small guys. Instead, they are both equally screwed and are on the same train to bankruptcy.
Much worse, some drivers apparently were forced against their will to spend $97,000 on a limo that couldn't be used for any other purpose or could not be sold. This is how evil Uber is.
I read linked article, and nothing in the transcript there stands out as wrong. You buy a $100K car to run Uber?! Take responsibility for your actions if it doesn't work out.
Yes, Uber shits on everyone. Yes, Uber isn't socially responsible company. No, in this case CEO wasn't wrong in pointing out that it was driver, and not Uber that f-up.
If its reaction is modeled on human behavior, some kind of high-tech equivalent to SIM's delete the pool ladder and watch them drown. Probably, the entire humanity.
Go shopping for a TV - see if you can easily find one that doesn't spy on you. Go shop for a mobile phone, I don't think you could find one that doesn't spy on you. Try to sign up for an online social group or communication tool, good luck finding one that doesn't stalk you across internet and sells your information to the highest bidder. Now tell me that ANY of this is driven by consumer demand.
I might agree that we reached diminishing return within existing computing silicon transistor technology. However, we have not reached limits of physics. Limits will be along Computronium lines, and clearly, we are nowhere near that. Work on 3D layouts, 10nm die, quantum computing are all very promising. Don't confuse with lack of competition allowing Intel to stop (or likely hoard) innovation with actual stagnation. Once AMD gets back into the game, we will see return of 90s-era progress.
This can be easily explained by a corporate shift from offering innovative products that fulfill consumer needs to offering products that exploit consumers in innovative ways. 20 years ago what we consider mundane "information sharing" would cause congressional hearings and indictments of CEOs.
80 and 90s we get a great deal of consumer electronics and computing products that were sold on merits. Late 2000s and into 2010s we have dominance of software that spies and manipulates user behavior for profit. Mid 2010s and we started to see "spies and manipulates" getting pushed into hardware under ruse of IoT.
Negative tone is a result of "You can't fool everyone all the time" playing out.
Slashdot Mirror
Get off my genetic lawn!
I am concerned that Google is attempting to act as a gatekeeper and arbiter of truth. While holocaust denial is certainly appalling, what else are they going to censor? What if China decides that Tiananmen Square is offensive?
Speak for yourself. Insofar as Google knows, I am a dog.
Yes, if you lock down your browser you get them a lot. Basically, for Google, if they know where you live and your cat's name - then you don't get shown captchas.
Trump's offices were definitely not tapped unless
a) There was some damning evidence he was doing something very bad
or
b) Multiple high-ranking people collaborated to break serious laws.
I think you meant to say "Trump's offices were probably tapped because". I think there is good chance that both a) and b) are true.
Sure, but "exposure to the internet" is constantly getting redefined.
Put it this way, if previous generations minded their mail getting read by censors and fought hard to put the end to it, why are we now allowing this but "on computer" to come back?!
Do these physicist get to collect some money from Ray?
Walled mine is a logical continuation of a walled garden concept.
I don't understand why this is needed.
An automation tax dumped directly into basic income (also all the welfare aspects dumped into the same basic income) would solve everything and progress would continue.
It won't solve everything, but it will avert immediate apocalypse.
You forget wars in-between. Wars, collapse of empires and so on has equalizing and wealth distributing effect. Modern imperial wars will inevitably involve nukes, there won't be anything left to distribute afterwards.
Yes they would, and if you think that unwashed masses will simply take it lying down, you are going to be up to a very nasty surprises when more and worse Trumps get elected.
Robot tax is infeasible, as it is too easy to work around. For example, as an owner of fully autonomous factory I would have a single employee press 'Start' button once a day, and sit in the chair in front of dials Homer-style. Now I can claim that my system isn't fully automated and I don't have to pay tax.
Feasible solution is progressive taxation combined with guaranteed income. Fundamentally, it isn't 1% getting Ferengi-rich, it is that the rest of us are forced to play Jem'Hadar as a result.
Norwegian new digital surveillance law mandating quiz taking is an outrage!
Slightly over a month ago they were fined by the FTC for lying about the money drivers earn, lying about vehicle financing rates, lying about lease terms. Seeing a pattern here?
Let me turn it around on you. Do you think the driver has any responsibility over his decision to borrow $100K on a quickly depreciating asset to engage in no-guarantees gig? That is, your position is that he had no agency whatsoever over this. Along the lines of getting colorectal cancer - one day you wake up in pain and turns out you have $100K loan and you now have to drive UberBlack?
Why the fuck do you think it's reasonable to lie to such people and mislead them into a debt they're going to struggle terribly to pay off?
This is entirely separate argument from the specific conversation that happened between UberBlack driver and Uber CEO.
The argument was that Uber CEO should not lower pricing, because doing so makes it impossible to pay off $100K car loans. It is not about appropriateness of making such $100K loans to subprime drivers or any deception that took place in the process of securing loans. For all we know, UberBlack driver paid all-cash for the car. The topic was never brought up.
Do you have to use $100K car to drive for UberBlack? Are the only acceptable cars exclusively available through Uber? I don't think so.
Google tells me that car requirements are as follows:
1.Sedan or full-size SUV. 2.Black exterior and interior.
3.Vehicle should be at least 2010 or newer.
4.Must seat at least four passengers
Here is a reasonable way to go about driving for UberBlack.
1. Buy used reliable large sedan. For example, Lexus LS 460. Kelly Blue Book tells me 2012 Lexus LS 460 L is $28,827.
2. Start driving.
2a. If it doesn't work out, sell the car and move on.
2b. If it doesn't work out, keep driving the car, since there is no crazy depreciation on 2012.
The real issue is not that UberBlack is a bad deal. It might or might not be. I don't really know. The real issue that buying $100K car is a bad deal no matter what you intend to do with it. New $100K car will take 20% hit driving it off the lot. This is eye-watering $20K just to take delivery. How a cab driver could possibly afford such expense?!
Uber is currently losing about 3 billions per year.
I could somewhat justify complaints if Uber was making record profits while screwing over small guys. Instead, they are both equally screwed and are on the same train to bankruptcy.
Much worse, some drivers apparently were forced against their will to spend $97,000 on a limo that couldn't be used for any other purpose or could not be sold. This is how evil Uber is.
I read linked article, and nothing in the transcript there stands out as wrong. You buy a $100K car to run Uber?! Take responsibility for your actions if it doesn't work out.
Yes, Uber shits on everyone. Yes, Uber isn't socially responsible company. No, in this case CEO wasn't wrong in pointing out that it was driver, and not Uber that f-up.
However, in another 100 years you will also be dead, while Dr. Bedford's prognosis might improve.
If its reaction is modeled on human behavior, some kind of high-tech equivalent to SIM's delete the pool ladder and watch them drown. Probably, the entire humanity.
Go shopping for a TV - see if you can easily find one that doesn't spy on you. Go shop for a mobile phone, I don't think you could find one that doesn't spy on you. Try to sign up for an online social group or communication tool, good luck finding one that doesn't stalk you across internet and sells your information to the highest bidder. Now tell me that ANY of this is driven by consumer demand.
I might agree that we reached diminishing return within existing computing silicon transistor technology. However, we have not reached limits of physics. Limits will be along Computronium lines, and clearly, we are nowhere near that.
Work on 3D layouts, 10nm die, quantum computing are all very promising. Don't confuse with lack of competition allowing Intel to stop (or likely hoard) innovation with actual stagnation. Once AMD gets back into the game, we will see return of 90s-era progress.
This can be easily explained by a corporate shift from offering innovative products that fulfill consumer needs to offering products that exploit consumers in innovative ways. 20 years ago what we consider mundane "information sharing" would cause congressional hearings and indictments of CEOs.
80 and 90s we get a great deal of consumer electronics and computing products that were sold on merits. Late 2000s and into 2010s we have dominance of software that spies and manipulates user behavior for profit. Mid 2010s and we started to see "spies and manipulates" getting pushed into hardware under ruse of IoT.
Negative tone is a result of "You can't fool everyone all the time" playing out.