I understand that above suggestion to "saw their heads off" was likely made in jest, but there is grain of truth to it.
We live in an era where people in charge have very little accountability to the masses. "The Mob" no longer puts fear into politicians or business community. As such "maybe I shouldn't do this nefarious yet legal deed because it could end up with guillotine" check is no longer there.
Sides are not equally wrong, and truth is not somewhere in the middle. There is a very clear wrong side - Russian equipment operated by Russian-sponsored terrorists and/or Russian military misidentifying civilian aircraft and shooting it down. Anything else is intentional misinformation.
Lining up to get sexually assaulted, lining up to pay predatory fees, and then suffering many hours on a dirty plane in sardines-in-a-box seating plan are main concerns.
If the problems above solved, I would gladly register using CLI, if necessary.
Great generation defeated Nazis, landed on the moon; Baby Boomer generation built Internet and tackled racial and gender issues. What are we doing other that building surveillance state and wealth inequality?
These "free" games use the same addiction mechanisms, called operant conditioning, as gambling. I am surprised targeting these at minors is even allowed.
Ok, so best-case scenario is that OpenBSD has additional sources of randomness and that issue simply weakened crypto instead of outright breaking it.
For ignoramus that downmoded my GPP - all cryptographic functions heavily rely on random numbers being both unpredictable and computationally indistinguishable from true random. It can break two ways - first by broken seeding, where it becomes predictable. Second by having algorithm that has non-uniform (e.g. some numbers have higher chance than 1/u). Both of these can be exploited to break strongest crypto. Why? Because all our crypto is deterministic.
Incorrect. If your PRNG is garbage, all crypto is also garbage.
A car analogy - if I know where and when you started driving I can make fairly accurate guesses of your location without having to rely on GPS tracking.
As an engineer, I can tell you have not considered all definitions of future. What about dystopian futures where access to technology is luxury and sustenance farming in increasingly arid climate rules the day?
Common dangers to your career and wages are:
1. Outsourcing
2. Automation
3. Disruptive innovation
4. Boom and bust economic cycles
Ways to protect your career and wages are:
1. Merit and Knowledge
2. Restricted professions & credentials
3. Union or government position
Not all dangers are avoidable, for example disruptive innovation is all but unavoidable, but boom and bust cycles are easier to survive in a bigger industry.
Not all way to protect career are available to everyone, for example merit and knowledge is unobtainable goal for significant portion of population (merit, by definition, it is zero-sum game). Additionally some have drawbacks - proximity to government or union usually has negative effect on one's maximum earning potential.
Now for more practical advice - a technical profession that interfaces with government, requires accreditation, and deals with local or critical infrastructure would be most stable long-term position. Civil engineer, food inspector, dentist are some typical example.
Yes, gathering bananas and chasing tail. Intelligence does not increase your reproductive fitness past some baseline number, as a result we see regression to the mean. Why mean? Because it used to be optimal. It still might be optimal, because you don't see driven, successful people out-reproducing average bears.
They are not a pipe dream in Silicon Valley, and may not be a pipe dream on dedicated highways that only allow automated cars.
You are mostly correct, any Google car that lacks manual controls will be grounded during bad weather and/or novel conditions since 'autonomous' parts heavily relies on detailed mapped and predictable environment.
Traditional car makers (e.g. Detroit 3) are not always wrong and in this case Google should not be simply assumed to be correct. Since I was not part of these meetings, I can only form my opinions based on what was reported. Still, there are some things that concern me with Google/Tesla approach to autos:
* Unwillingness to finalize the product is part of Silicon culture. When I buy a car, I expect final product with very rare instance of patching (e.g. recalls) and no instances of altered or added functionality. The fact that when you buy Tesla you are subjected to "patch Tuesday" tinkering greatly worries me. * No defined model years. With traditional cars you usually know that parts from years X-Y models A-Z are interchangeable. Not so much with Tesla - where mid-model changes are commonplace. What going to happen when 10+ year old Tesla needs a new part? Always buy new, because no two of them are ever the same? * Used car market. For electric cars it doesn't exists. This means that depreciation on these is largely unknown.
To science denialists above, I hope you apply equal skepticism to medicine and health and food safety aspects of scientific knowledge. This way your views will have self-correcting, instead of humanity-correcting impact.
CO2, a greenhouse gas, is tied to climate change but is also expected and always-present part of our atmosphere. Why do we need satellite to know this?
Libertarian market driven approaches of 'perfectly informed' customers having access to 'flexible supply' are only workable on paper. Sure, it would be nice if we could get there, but meanwhile our situation continuing to deteriorate. Time to abandon this quixotic quest.
What we need is "mostly works for most people most of the time", and to get there we need policy with teeth that mandates Net Neutrality. Sure, it won't prevent all abuses, but we only need to prevent worst of them and let the rest play out in courts.
Slashdot Mirror
Poster above is absolutely correct, I have my butler tape monocles and glasses of chardonnay to my S-class steering wheel.
This is optimization error in the compiler of our simulated universe.
Could someone explain this to me with a car analogy?
I understand that above suggestion to "saw their heads off" was likely made in jest, but there is grain of truth to it.
We live in an era where people in charge have very little accountability to the masses. "The Mob" no longer puts fear into politicians or business community. As such "maybe I shouldn't do this nefarious yet legal deed because it could end up with guillotine" check is no longer there.
Could someone explain to me, why would I want my phone to have capability to track my face? With a car analogy?
False equivalence.
Sides are not equally wrong, and truth is not somewhere in the middle. There is a very clear wrong side - Russian equipment operated by Russian-sponsored terrorists and/or Russian military misidentifying civilian aircraft and shooting it down. Anything else is intentional misinformation.
Lining up to get sexually assaulted, lining up to pay predatory fees, and then suffering many hours on a dirty plane in sardines-in-a-box seating plan are main concerns.
If the problems above solved, I would gladly register using CLI, if necessary.
Great generation defeated Nazis, landed on the moon; Baby Boomer generation built Internet and tackled racial and gender issues. What are we doing other that building surveillance state and wealth inequality?
These "free" games use the same addiction mechanisms, called operant conditioning, as gambling. I am surprised targeting these at minors is even allowed.
Can someone explain this with a car analogy?
Translation: Slash 18K jobs, apply for 18K H-1B visas.
Ok, so best-case scenario is that OpenBSD has additional sources of randomness and that issue simply weakened crypto instead of outright breaking it.
For ignoramus that downmoded my GPP - all cryptographic functions heavily rely on random numbers being both unpredictable and computationally indistinguishable from true random. It can break two ways - first by broken seeding, where it becomes predictable. Second by having algorithm that has non-uniform (e.g. some numbers have higher chance than 1/u). Both of these can be exploited to break strongest crypto. Why? Because all our crypto is deterministic.
Incorrect. If your PRNG is garbage, all crypto is also garbage.
A car analogy - if I know where and when you started driving I can make fairly accurate guesses of your location without having to rely on GPS tracking.
As an engineer, I can tell you have not considered all definitions of future. What about dystopian futures where access to technology is luxury and sustenance farming in increasingly arid climate rules the day?
Skills become obsolete or can be automated. If you rely on skills you have to dedicate yourself to a lifetime of learning.
Common dangers to your career and wages are:
1. Outsourcing
2. Automation
3. Disruptive innovation
4. Boom and bust economic cycles
Ways to protect your career and wages are:
1. Merit and Knowledge
2. Restricted professions & credentials
3. Union or government position
Not all dangers are avoidable, for example disruptive innovation is all but unavoidable, but boom and bust cycles are easier to survive in a bigger industry.
Not all way to protect career are available to everyone, for example merit and knowledge is unobtainable goal for significant portion of population (merit, by definition, it is zero-sum game). Additionally some have drawbacks - proximity to government or union usually has negative effect on one's maximum earning potential.
Now for more practical advice - a technical profession that interfaces with government, requires accreditation, and deals with local or critical infrastructure would be most stable long-term position. Civil engineer, food inspector, dentist are some typical example.
Yes, gathering bananas and chasing tail. Intelligence does not increase your reproductive fitness past some baseline number, as a result we see regression to the mean. Why mean? Because it used to be optimal. It still might be optimal, because you don't see driven, successful people out-reproducing average bears.
This just in, intelligence also highly heritable in humans. Only it isn't politically correct to talk about.
This would imply that they are decelerating on the approaching trajectory.
They are not a pipe dream in Silicon Valley, and may not be a pipe dream on dedicated highways that only allow automated cars.
You are mostly correct, any Google car that lacks manual controls will be grounded during bad weather and/or novel conditions since 'autonomous' parts heavily relies on detailed mapped and predictable environment.
Traditional car makers (e.g. Detroit 3) are not always wrong and in this case Google should not be simply assumed to be correct. Since I was not part of these meetings, I can only form my opinions based on what was reported. Still, there are some things that concern me with Google/Tesla approach to autos:
* Unwillingness to finalize the product is part of Silicon culture. When I buy a car, I expect final product with very rare instance of patching (e.g. recalls) and no instances of altered or added functionality. The fact that when you buy Tesla you are subjected to "patch Tuesday" tinkering greatly worries me.
* No defined model years. With traditional cars you usually know that parts from years X-Y models A-Z are interchangeable. Not so much with Tesla - where mid-model changes are commonplace. What going to happen when 10+ year old Tesla needs a new part? Always buy new, because no two of them are ever the same?
* Used car market. For electric cars it doesn't exists. This means that depreciation on these is largely unknown.
To science denialists above, I hope you apply equal skepticism to medicine and health and food safety aspects of scientific knowledge. This way your views will have self-correcting, instead of humanity-correcting impact.
CO2, a greenhouse gas, is tied to climate change but is also expected and always-present part of our atmosphere. Why do we need satellite to know this?
Can we have a better summary?
No, "most sane people" will not comply, because everyone is 'above average skill' drivers, and car wrecks happen to 'other people'.
Don't underestimate addictiveness of "always connected" lifestyle and power to rationalize away your bad decisions.
Libertarian market driven approaches of 'perfectly informed' customers having access to 'flexible supply' are only workable on paper. Sure, it would be nice if we could get there, but meanwhile our situation continuing to deteriorate. Time to abandon this quixotic quest.
What we need is "mostly works for most people most of the time", and to get there we need policy with teeth that mandates Net Neutrality. Sure, it won't prevent all abuses, but we only need to prevent worst of them and let the rest play out in courts.