Yep, judging by this flagrant hit piece Google's Kubernetes must really really be struggling to make any headway,
Docker is the defacto industry standard for containerisation, and is backed by Amazon and Microsoft for their respective cloud services, given that they're the only two cloud services that really matter I'd say it's Kubernetes that desperately needs to worry.
The real question this desperate hit piece begs is if Google is getting this deseprate, can Google's cloud offering survive Microsoft and Amazon's? Their cloud revenue is $6.8bn and $3.7bn respectively compared to Google's relatively paltry $1.8bn.
Given this I'd say Docker is in pretty safe hands, the real news here is that Google is sufficiently shitting bricks about it's failure to make substantial inroads into the cloud market that it's willing to fund drivel like this. For what it's worth even IBM's cloud business is more than twice the size of Google's - at this point Google and it's Kubernetes are basically an also ran in the cloud business. Maybe they should stick to what they're good at rather than running shitty hit pieces with the assumption that the Slashdot community is dumb enough to fall for it.
"Wow. Wake up man, it's just amusement, nothing serious."
Sorry Mr Internet Police, I didn't realise you were banning people from stating negative opinions about a film. I'll make sure I take the internet far more seriously from now on so as not to offend you.
"Please, that was abysmal. All of them movies have those moments."
There's a difference between a few bad moments, and a generally bad film with only a few good moments in, which was the case here.
"Second, there is no book burning. The books are not in the tree anymore when Yoda burns it. Maybe you weren't paying attention."
Right, but that wasn't known at the time, hence Yoda's comment about them not being real page turners anyway.
"Third, this movie is on par with the others. SW movies are like any movie. You need to be in the right mood to enjoy them. I went with my kids and the entire family loved it. That's how those movies are supposed to be consumed. They are entertainment. Don't take them as seriously as you do, and everything will be fine."
Sure, you're welcome to your opinion, I liked every other Star Wars film to date other than this one, that's my opinion.
None of which changes the fact that this film has been overwhelmingly slated - and that's the point. It's not about your opinion or my opinion, it's a question about whether the film is good or not, and if most people thought it was a poor showing as they did as user ratings show, then it's objectively fair to declare it a poor effort, which it really was.
They fucked up by making Rian Johnson director, he clearly just wasn't ready for a project of this scale yet, he doesn't have sufficient experience and it showed - for a franchise this big they need to leave it to folks who know what they're doing, even if that means paying someone a little bit more.
Given that they've got Rian Johnson down as director for 3 more films there's a genuine risk that they could kill off the franchise unless he seriously ups his game. People will only pay for so many bad films before they give up on a franchise altogether - Disney need to take that warning and give us a better product in future, not deny it was bad because a handful of paid reviewers who were paid to say it was good said it was good.
"Or are you asserting that CinemaScore is rigged?"
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Organisations that base their entire business model around reviewing always inevitably end up providing favourable figures on demand to those who pay.
It's the same reason so many political polls fail to represent reality - oftentimes they're paid for by partisan media organisations, or even political parties themselves to sell the story those organisations want sold. They pass this off as "legitimate statistical adjustments" where they adjust for things like age, wealth, income, but all they're actually doing is adjusting for the outcome they've been paid to adjust for.
But as failed polling over the last decade has shown, this often drives polls further away from reality than the raw data itself showed. In fact, in recent UK votes - the general election and the Brexit vote, the most accurate polls were in fact those driven purely by raw data gathered from the internet.
It's absurd to claim that IMDB and RT can easily be gamed, but that organisations who work with a far smaller dataset, and who manipulate on demand can't.
Even without that though there's a question to have to answer if you think IMDB and RT were gamed - why just for this one film? Why when there are so many people vocally declaring their dislike for this film contrasted to their love for the last two do you think the reviews are wrong? Why have they singled out this film? Why haven't they singled out Rogue One? Or Force Awakens? It's hardly an industry secret if you talk to anyone in PR that they exchange favours with critics and professional review organisations to get favourable reviews for their product - companies like CinemaScore, and reviewers themselves are just another arm of the marketing machine, one that pretends to be independent but is as much about selling the product as the flagrant posters you see everywhere for a product.
IMDB and RT user scores have none of that - they're real people posting real opinions. There's a reason why Episodes 1 - 3 were poorly rated, there's a reason why Rogue One and Force Awakens were well rated, and there's a reason why The Last Jedi was poorly rated - because that's how the majority of people felt about those films, and that's why the sites providing raw un-manipulated data reflect that.
Having actually read about CinemaScores methdology it's even somewhat astounding you'd declare it as scientific. It's sample size is too small, and collected from far too small a userbase on release night. If you can't understand why an irrelevant handful of the people who turn up on release night in only a few cities that revolve around the film industry might be the type of fan to always favour a film over the general public then there's probably not much point me trying to explain why that's about as scientific as the general population, over say, 150,000 individuals spread across the entire world over a few weeks since the film's release.
It's the worst Star Wars film to date, and paid reviewers wont change that.
For what it's worth he only directed a mere 3 out of 62 episodes of Breaking Bad so hardly deserves any credit for that show, he was an irrelevance in the grand scheme of it.
Well the fact the size of the rebellion had diminished for no apparent reason to that point anyway was a bit fucking odd.
Where did they all go? did they all retire to casino land for blow and hookers funded off the back of all the scrap metal they sold after destroying star killer base?
In an entire galaxy there are only a thousand rebels and as you say only a handful of First Order forces? It sounds like the First Order/Rebellion battle is just a pointless side show that no one else in the rest of the galaxy would need give a shit about with those numbers. Let's be clear, we're talking about a few thousand people/aliens, pissing about in a battle in an entire galaxy which would have thousands of planets where a typical planet would likely have billions of inhabitants.
So rather than it being a battle for control of the galaxy it sounds like it's become a pissy little irrelevant feud on the edges of civilisation that the entire rest of the galaxy could safely ignore.
What's perhaps most frustrating though is the apologists trying to excuse it's abysmal reviews - the summary highlights one example of that "Oh if we write off the raw data as trolling and instead vet aka fix the reviewers so that they're 90% positive then the reviews actually look positive!". No fucking shit. I'll stick to the real numbers though.
I read the BBC article about the controversy and for some god unknown reason they asked one of those female supremacist types from "Empire" whatever the fuck that is (I had to Google it) who theorised that people were just made uncomfortable by it because there weren't enough white males in it. Yes, that's right you dumb fuck, I'm uncomfortable because a film whose cast has historically been mostly filled with aliens and robots doesn't have enough white males in it.
Here's a better theory to all those, maybe the film really was just fucking shit? Maybe people found a fucking space ship flying through space for an hour entirely dull? Maybe the dialogues between Luke and Rey just weren't very interesting? Maybe the weird laugh Yoda did as he engaged in a god damn fucking book burning was just all too fucking weird and nonsensical? Maybe writing off a female ace like Tallie Lintra was an astounding waste of an opportunity to introduce a new interesting character to the starfighter side of things to rival Poe? Maybe the subtle jabs at the fanbase with lines from the likes of Kylo Ren as to how it's time to let go and make way for a generation were a little bit too obvious? Maybe Rose was one of the most boring new characters ever introduced into the Star Wars franchise? At least you could laugh at how bad Jar-Jar was, Rose was just a fucking dullard waste of space.
I'm not even easily disappointed, I'm one of those rare breeds that didn't actually mind Episodes 1 - 3, I loved the OT, and I thought Force Awakens and Rogue One was great. This was literally the first ever Star Wars film that I just didn't like, that I found just outright disappointing and a waste of time.
Hopefully Rian Johnson will never work on anymore Star Wars stuff, the fact is the film just didn't flow well, the casting and use of certain characters was abysmal, the story was full of random pointless bits and devoid of interesting useful bits that would've driven the story forward. It just wasn't a well directed film, and that's got nothing to do with problems with political correctness, or "online" trolling as the idiots are trying to deflect it as. It was just bad, Rian Johnson did an awful job, there's really no more to it than that.
FWIW I thought Rogue One was the best of the newest three films, closely followed by The Force Awakens, this new film just didn't come close to either and frankly I think the IMDB reviews are pretty much bang on and are exactly where I'd position this.
Rather than trying to pretend that the criticism of this film isn't real, Disney would do well to learn from the mistake, prevent Rian working on any future Star Wars work and work damn hard to make sure the next films live up to the same standard as Rogue One - they need to understand Star Wars is a beloved franchise and if they don't get it right people are going to call that out, and accept that the call outs when it's bad are legitimate and learn from them.
Right, and I've heard this argument time and time again - why should people living in densely populated areas like London subsidise those on broadband who _choose_ to live rurally right?
Well, it's really quite simple, we don't have to, we could choose not to, the people living rurally could pay the full high cost themselves.
Do you know what they'll do then to pay for it? They'll put up the price of food, water, and energy that they generate in those rural areas and provision to densely populated cities to pay for it.
So sure, keep your cheap broadband in places like London whilst it's expensive in rural areas. Those living rurally will just charge you a fortune for all the water, food, and energy you import from rural areas instead. How's that sound? Good?
No? Didn't think so.
Sometimes, it's just cheaper and easier for everyone to just work together and do each other favours. You're trying to examine economic systems without looking at the bigger picture - that cost transfers as you're talking about don't occur in isolation, that by not engaging them you're just shifting the cost of provisioning elsewhere, and that cost has to be paid for somehow, in the only way those living rurally can practically do so, by upping the price of things that are imported into densely populated areas.
Cities like London cannot exist without the rural areas to support them, there just aren't sufficient resources within the cities for the cities to be able to feed, water, and power themselves, they're entirely dependent on the existence of rural areas, and that's why it makes sense to subsidise them in some things so that they receive subsidies in return. Every time the South East of England goes into drought it's entirely dependent on water being piped from the North to even survive so it's hardly too much to ask for an absolutely negligible fraction of the money they make in turn to be pumped back into infrastructure that helps the people that make things like drought prevention happen.
Honestly I'm not sure it matters, the reason BT are so scared of a 10mbps minimum is because it means their copper lines are no longer a viable delivery mechanism for rural users.
As such whether it's 10mbps or 40mbps doesn't really matter at this point, the fact they're going to have to improve their infrastructure is going to mean everyone's going to have a line that can just as trivially support next gen speeds as it can the 10mbps minimum.
The original minimum proposed a few years ago was 2mbps, which they could probably have just about fudged over the existing copper network, whoever got it shifted up to 10mbps was smart because they'll have known it meant BT couldn't be lazy about it and would actually have to carry out infrastructure upgrades that will inevitably support not just 10mbps, but also much higher.
I suspect there will be very few cases where BT can get away with provisioning 10mbps but not also anything faster as a result of that.
We only recently finally got VDSL (FTTC as BT calls it) and used to get ~3mbps over ADSL2, but now get 76mbps over VDSL. If we ended up under this scheme it shows that 10mbps would've merely forced them to provision VDSL anyway which far surpasses the 10mbps limit. That is, if BT are being forced to upgrade people, the cheapest option is for them to just do it properly anyway - there's no cheap fudge they can do that gets people 10mbps but not any faster, to provision them up to 10mbps they're effectively going to have to get them 40mbps+ technology.
As such I think supporting 4k is a moot point - that's going to happen as an inevitable consequence of this 10mbps minimum being imposed on them anyway.
Democracies like the UK's and the US' which are representative democracies are supposed to be about having local representatives to push local issues such that respective parliaments come up with consensus that are at least palatable to a majority.
Parties are an affront to that, because they require that representatives override the local interest with party interest where there is a clash.
So in countries like the US or UK, we either need to ban parties or alliances so that we have the representative democracies we're supposed to have, or we need to get rid of representative democracy and replace it with proportional democracy using true proportionally representative electoral systems.
This current half way house is the worst of both worlds for citizens because they get neither the benefits of representatives, nor the benefits of proportional representation - a representative that ignores his base in favour of the party line is no representative at all, and a system whereby a party with only 33% of the vote but 100% of the power which happens in the UK sometime cannot reasonably called a democracy in the truest sense. That's why there's so much political disenfranchisement in the US and UK in the first place - people are fed up that their votes aren't really worth jack shit - there's a reason May's and Trump's approval ratings are in the 30s and that's because it's only an absolute minority wanted them, but the party system ends up installing them into positions of power disproportionately higher than is democratically warranted. Really, it's not that people wanted Hillary instead, it's that people wanted none of the above, but the broken democratic systems of the UK and US tend towards two party politics which leaves the vast majority of the population without someone that they're really, truly, fairly happy with.
If you really want democracy to be healthy then under a representative system ALL representatives should be independents, or under a party system ALL elections should run on a truly proportional representation system. Anything else is just an anti-democratic fudge designed to reduce the say of the voting population in favour of the most organised minority. That's ultimately an affront to democracy as democracy is supposed to be about giving people a voice, not taking it away from the majority and handing it only to an absolute minority.
Actually I think Halt and Catch Fire's problem as you describe was exactly the reason it was the most accurate portrayal - it's blandness was a recognition of reality. I actually watched all 4 series for what it's worth, it was watchable, and it did a good job of compacting the rise of the modern computing industry, but if you're looking to be on the edge of your seat then that show isn't it. Whilst the real world industry isn't devoid of the sort of humour you see in Silicon Valley and the IT Crowd, it certainly isn't like that every minute of every day - that's what the Half and Catch Fire captured, the reality of the day to day, the complex egos, the fact that for every billionaire Bill Gates that made it there were hundreds of others who were on the cusp of getting it but just missed the target. That becoming a silicon valley billionaire was as much about the right idea at the right time with the right people working on it being sold to the right people, and that plenty of people had the time and idea, but the wrong people, or the right people and the wrong idea and so on and so forth - that success in the computing industry that's led to the current giants was largely about the luck of stars aligning for the right people as much as it was anything else and that the valley is full of many thousands of equally talented people who had the ideas but just didn't get lucky enough for the rest of it to align - Halt and Catch Fire captures that, it recognises the reality and dispels the myth of the Zuckerbergs, Gates, and so on and so forth as being unique geniuses - it's an ode to those who were equally as talented and innovative but who simply just did not have quite so much luck on their side.
Silicon Valley is funny, but it's an over the top comedy, so whilst it does indeed touch on real arguments, it of course uses an absurdist form of humour which doesn't match day to day reality. That is of course however what makes it enjoyable to watch.
Honestly I think you can blame Google themselves for that, since browsers started blurring the line between the search bar and the URL bar making them basically the exact same thing people have been forced into this paradigm.
It's one thing I hate about most modern browsers, I liked explicit separation of the two, but you don't really get that now. If you mis-type a URL in what used to be the URL bar it often ends up in a Google search anyway.
So I really don't blame end users for that at all, it's not really their fault, it's a paradigm everyone is forced into.
So your view is that human infants don't have intelligence?
It doesn't matter what people might call a computer that acts like a baby, the point is whether intelligence is present or not, and if you believe intelligence isn't something that present in the human animal from birth, then sure, say equally dumb computers don't have intelligence, but most people believe that intelligence is an inherent trait in the human animal. Whether it grows from a low point doesn't really matter - the point is that intelligence sits on a gradient, so we can't rationally say modern AIs don't have intelligence whilst attributing intelligence as a trait present in things like dogs or babies.
"You could port the custom _____ system your company made targeting AWS to Azure or something else... however unless the system was architected deliberately from the beginning with the idea of portability (which most cloud services are not)."
Has it ever been any different? How is this different to writing software for OS' like Windows or MacOS? If you want portability you deliberately have to plan for it.
At least with most cloud providers though the functionality to support portability is inherent - you can run Linux on Azure IaaS, and support for containerisation has become commonplace so it's not as if planning for portability is inherently difficult with cloud environments unless you start integrating deeply using things like service fabric.
Really, portability should be an architectural consideration for ANY software you write whether it's desktop, mobile, web, self-hosted services, or cloud hosted services.
"and remember that in somewhere like the UK, there's no direct equivalent to class action suits, and typically the loser is going to pay costs for both sides in a civil suit like this"
That's no longer true, the legal framework for them went into law this year.
So intelligence is something that isn't developed by humans until about the age of 3 - 5? Babies are equivalent to a rock in terms of intelligence?
"Working with an enormous or possibly infinite rule set is what I would call real intelligence."
And therein lies the problem. What YOU call "real intelligence" doesn't matter, it's a classic example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
The fact is, intelligence is incredibly hard to define, and in reality it exists on a spectrum. Some dogs are dumb and can't even sit, others have been trained to rescue people in earthquake ruins, or to recognise toys from flat 2D pictures, or to remember hundreds of distinct toys by name. The former type of dog we don't call intelligent, the latter we do, yet we can already create AI that can do things far more complex than this. Even the former type of "dumb dog" though we would say is more intelligent than an insect, a plant, or a rock, so we accept it has at least some intelligence.
So given that the above example trivially proves that intelligence exists on some spectrum, the question is where on the spectrum do you personally think "real intelligence" should be? The implication of your argument appears to be that you believe unless we can jump straight to adult human level of intelligence then it's not "real intelligence", so you have to ask yourself the question, given that we can't yet model absolutely everything in the world with mathematics are you also of the view that all mathematics to date isn't "real mathematics"? given that we haven't yet got a grand unified theory of the universe from physics, do you believe all physics to date isn't "real physics"? given that we don't yet fully understand the human body in it's entirety, or that of every other species in existence are you saying that all biology to date isn't "real biology"?.
You're effectively arguing that AI as a science has failed unless it automatically achieves it's end game, or at least some idealised future state from day 1 - that's obviously a nonsensical view in the context of the points above. The fact is we've already created machines that are more intelligent than some naturally occurring biological intelligences, including human children, and we've done so in only the last couple of decades. That's great progress.
There already is under the EU's existing Data Protection Directive, this doesn't change under GDPR, the problem is it's never enforced because regulators are scared of enforcing personal liability in case the person they're enforcing against is mates with the politician who hires and fires them.
Even when the regulator did do this when one of the porn piracy parasite lawyers left a list of every person he was trying to blackmail for money on a public server meaning people were outed and such publicly through his incompetence the fine was something pathetic like £500 because otherwise there's a risk he'd lose his £800,000 house or whatever it was worth.
The problem therefore isn't the law, it's lack of regulators with balls. It's a joke, the whole point is that people like that are supposed to suffer hardship as a result of their actions, if he loses his house then tough fucking shit, he knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway so should expect and accept the consequences.
"When insecurity of the worlds most popular OS is directly responsible for the loss of global information, it becomes difficult to define "success"."
Give us a break, that argument died long ago. There's no evidence Windows is any less secure than most Linux distros nowadays, most serious exploits in recent years have existed in open source products like OpenSSL, MySQL, Java, PHP, and so on. You're stuck in the 90s with a grudge to bare if you still believe that. You can hardly call Microsoft unsuccessful or evil nowadays, they're benign and one of the biggest contributors to open source.
"Not all billionaires are part of the problem."
Really but what you're saying is that billionaires that have amassed more wealth than they could possibly ever spend and continue to do so (Gates' wealth is still growing) and do things you agree with are fine, but those who don't do things you agree with are "evil", and "greedy". You're assigning mysticism and bias to a scientific problem and that's where you're going wrong in this argument. You need to step back and be more objective to understand what we're saying and until you are you're part of the very problem you posted about in the first place - we're not going to achieve greater levels of objectivity and reduce conflict whilst people do what you're doing and fail to take a step back and be objective about things - continuing to disagree and argue in the face of being wrong is precisely what conflict breeds on in the first place so you can hardly complain if you're engaging in it.
"It's been long proven that warmongering is run as a for-profit business. The problem with that morally bankrupt justification is profit is measured by putting a price tag on something that should be priceless; human life."
The people making money off of wars can't make money off of wars in isolation by themselves. They need people willing to fight those wars because they sure as hell aren't doing it and that's still fed by entirely organic tribalism, the will for conflict is still part of that entirely natural harshness of reality whether some figure out how to do better from it than others or not. It's worth noting that even species like Adelie Penguins cheat the species in this respect by stealing rocks that have been gathered by other penguins and in turn are the ones that get to breed because they have a nice nest made of stuff they stole from screwing everyone else, as opposed to one they built out of hard work.
You're conflating the fact that some people make profit from war with the reason people are so eager to fight wars - you can't do that, they're two separate things. The war profiteers are just parasites feeding off a bigger inherent natural problem. There are plenty of ongoing wars where profit really has nothing to do with it.
"Our biggest achievement will be solving for the disease of crippling Greed before it becomes the very cause of our own demise. The chasm continues to widen as wealthy elitists distance themselves from the rest of the human race, so let's not pretend those in control give a shit about the other 99.999% of the population."
I'm not sure what you think the solution is though, you think if you take those people out that others wont replace them? There'll always be replacements and it's driven by the genetic drive to ensure your genome is passed down to the next generation and it's that drive that leads to people seeking power. The reality is if you had the opportunity to become a billionaire and become ever richer you'd take it, the only reason you're whining about it is because you haven't had that opportunity and someone else got it instead. You'd probably convince yourself it's okay for you to do it because you'd use the money to change the world for the better, and you wouldn't be like the others.
Well, guess what they tell themselves? Guess what they think they're doing?
Sure but that's not just humans, that's just the very nature of existence. The whole universe and certainly life itself is built around conflicting forces to some degree or another.
You're basically arguing that reality is harsh, you're right. Our biggest achievement will be resisting the very nature of existence if we manage it.
Yeah, if it weren't for those damn arabs and them bringing the hindu-arabic numbering system out West we could still be using Roman numerals to not do mathematics very well.
Slashdot Mirror
"But man, the internet must be filled with bitching for you!"
Um, you've really not used the internet much have you?
Yep, judging by this flagrant hit piece Google's Kubernetes must really really be struggling to make any headway,
Docker is the defacto industry standard for containerisation, and is backed by Amazon and Microsoft for their respective cloud services, given that they're the only two cloud services that really matter I'd say it's Kubernetes that desperately needs to worry.
The real question this desperate hit piece begs is if Google is getting this deseprate, can Google's cloud offering survive Microsoft and Amazon's? Their cloud revenue is $6.8bn and $3.7bn respectively compared to Google's relatively paltry $1.8bn.
Given this I'd say Docker is in pretty safe hands, the real news here is that Google is sufficiently shitting bricks about it's failure to make substantial inroads into the cloud market that it's willing to fund drivel like this. For what it's worth even IBM's cloud business is more than twice the size of Google's - at this point Google and it's Kubernetes are basically an also ran in the cloud business. Maybe they should stick to what they're good at rather than running shitty hit pieces with the assumption that the Slashdot community is dumb enough to fall for it.
So why get so bitchy at someone for stating their opinion if you don't have a problem with it?
"Wow. Wake up man, it's just amusement, nothing serious."
Sorry Mr Internet Police, I didn't realise you were banning people from stating negative opinions about a film. I'll make sure I take the internet far more seriously from now on so as not to offend you.
"Please, that was abysmal. All of them movies have those moments."
There's a difference between a few bad moments, and a generally bad film with only a few good moments in, which was the case here.
"Second, there is no book burning. The books are not in the tree anymore when Yoda burns it. Maybe you weren't paying attention."
Right, but that wasn't known at the time, hence Yoda's comment about them not being real page turners anyway.
"Third, this movie is on par with the others. SW movies are like any movie. You need to be in the right mood to enjoy them. I went with my kids and the entire family loved it. That's how those movies are supposed to be consumed. They are entertainment. Don't take them as seriously as you do, and everything will be fine."
Sure, you're welcome to your opinion, I liked every other Star Wars film to date other than this one, that's my opinion.
None of which changes the fact that this film has been overwhelmingly slated - and that's the point. It's not about your opinion or my opinion, it's a question about whether the film is good or not, and if most people thought it was a poor showing as they did as user ratings show, then it's objectively fair to declare it a poor effort, which it really was.
They fucked up by making Rian Johnson director, he clearly just wasn't ready for a project of this scale yet, he doesn't have sufficient experience and it showed - for a franchise this big they need to leave it to folks who know what they're doing, even if that means paying someone a little bit more.
Given that they've got Rian Johnson down as director for 3 more films there's a genuine risk that they could kill off the franchise unless he seriously ups his game. People will only pay for so many bad films before they give up on a franchise altogether - Disney need to take that warning and give us a better product in future, not deny it was bad because a handful of paid reviewers who were paid to say it was good said it was good.
"Or are you asserting that CinemaScore is rigged?"
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Organisations that base their entire business model around reviewing always inevitably end up providing favourable figures on demand to those who pay.
It's the same reason so many political polls fail to represent reality - oftentimes they're paid for by partisan media organisations, or even political parties themselves to sell the story those organisations want sold. They pass this off as "legitimate statistical adjustments" where they adjust for things like age, wealth, income, but all they're actually doing is adjusting for the outcome they've been paid to adjust for.
But as failed polling over the last decade has shown, this often drives polls further away from reality than the raw data itself showed. In fact, in recent UK votes - the general election and the Brexit vote, the most accurate polls were in fact those driven purely by raw data gathered from the internet.
It's absurd to claim that IMDB and RT can easily be gamed, but that organisations who work with a far smaller dataset, and who manipulate on demand can't.
Even without that though there's a question to have to answer if you think IMDB and RT were gamed - why just for this one film? Why when there are so many people vocally declaring their dislike for this film contrasted to their love for the last two do you think the reviews are wrong? Why have they singled out this film? Why haven't they singled out Rogue One? Or Force Awakens? It's hardly an industry secret if you talk to anyone in PR that they exchange favours with critics and professional review organisations to get favourable reviews for their product - companies like CinemaScore, and reviewers themselves are just another arm of the marketing machine, one that pretends to be independent but is as much about selling the product as the flagrant posters you see everywhere for a product.
IMDB and RT user scores have none of that - they're real people posting real opinions. There's a reason why Episodes 1 - 3 were poorly rated, there's a reason why Rogue One and Force Awakens were well rated, and there's a reason why The Last Jedi was poorly rated - because that's how the majority of people felt about those films, and that's why the sites providing raw un-manipulated data reflect that.
Having actually read about CinemaScores methdology it's even somewhat astounding you'd declare it as scientific. It's sample size is too small, and collected from far too small a userbase on release night. If you can't understand why an irrelevant handful of the people who turn up on release night in only a few cities that revolve around the film industry might be the type of fan to always favour a film over the general public then there's probably not much point me trying to explain why that's about as scientific as the general population, over say, 150,000 individuals spread across the entire world over a few weeks since the film's release.
It's the worst Star Wars film to date, and paid reviewers wont change that.
For what it's worth he only directed a mere 3 out of 62 episodes of Breaking Bad so hardly deserves any credit for that show, he was an irrelevance in the grand scheme of it.
Well the fact the size of the rebellion had diminished for no apparent reason to that point anyway was a bit fucking odd.
Where did they all go? did they all retire to casino land for blow and hookers funded off the back of all the scrap metal they sold after destroying star killer base?
In an entire galaxy there are only a thousand rebels and as you say only a handful of First Order forces? It sounds like the First Order/Rebellion battle is just a pointless side show that no one else in the rest of the galaxy would need give a shit about with those numbers. Let's be clear, we're talking about a few thousand people/aliens, pissing about in a battle in an entire galaxy which would have thousands of planets where a typical planet would likely have billions of inhabitants.
So rather than it being a battle for control of the galaxy it sounds like it's become a pissy little irrelevant feud on the edges of civilisation that the entire rest of the galaxy could safely ignore.
Yes, this was by far the worst Star Wars to date.
What's perhaps most frustrating though is the apologists trying to excuse it's abysmal reviews - the summary highlights one example of that "Oh if we write off the raw data as trolling and instead vet aka fix the reviewers so that they're 90% positive then the reviews actually look positive!". No fucking shit. I'll stick to the real numbers though.
I read the BBC article about the controversy and for some god unknown reason they asked one of those female supremacist types from "Empire" whatever the fuck that is (I had to Google it) who theorised that people were just made uncomfortable by it because there weren't enough white males in it. Yes, that's right you dumb fuck, I'm uncomfortable because a film whose cast has historically been mostly filled with aliens and robots doesn't have enough white males in it.
Here's a better theory to all those, maybe the film really was just fucking shit? Maybe people found a fucking space ship flying through space for an hour entirely dull? Maybe the dialogues between Luke and Rey just weren't very interesting? Maybe the weird laugh Yoda did as he engaged in a god damn fucking book burning was just all too fucking weird and nonsensical? Maybe writing off a female ace like Tallie Lintra was an astounding waste of an opportunity to introduce a new interesting character to the starfighter side of things to rival Poe? Maybe the subtle jabs at the fanbase with lines from the likes of Kylo Ren as to how it's time to let go and make way for a generation were a little bit too obvious? Maybe Rose was one of the most boring new characters ever introduced into the Star Wars franchise? At least you could laugh at how bad Jar-Jar was, Rose was just a fucking dullard waste of space.
I'm not even easily disappointed, I'm one of those rare breeds that didn't actually mind Episodes 1 - 3, I loved the OT, and I thought Force Awakens and Rogue One was great. This was literally the first ever Star Wars film that I just didn't like, that I found just outright disappointing and a waste of time.
Hopefully Rian Johnson will never work on anymore Star Wars stuff, the fact is the film just didn't flow well, the casting and use of certain characters was abysmal, the story was full of random pointless bits and devoid of interesting useful bits that would've driven the story forward. It just wasn't a well directed film, and that's got nothing to do with problems with political correctness, or "online" trolling as the idiots are trying to deflect it as. It was just bad, Rian Johnson did an awful job, there's really no more to it than that.
FWIW I thought Rogue One was the best of the newest three films, closely followed by The Force Awakens, this new film just didn't come close to either and frankly I think the IMDB reviews are pretty much bang on and are exactly where I'd position this.
Rather than trying to pretend that the criticism of this film isn't real, Disney would do well to learn from the mistake, prevent Rian working on any future Star Wars work and work damn hard to make sure the next films live up to the same standard as Rogue One - they need to understand Star Wars is a beloved franchise and if they don't get it right people are going to call that out, and accept that the call outs when it's bad are legitimate and learn from them.
Right, and I've heard this argument time and time again - why should people living in densely populated areas like London subsidise those on broadband who _choose_ to live rurally right?
Well, it's really quite simple, we don't have to, we could choose not to, the people living rurally could pay the full high cost themselves.
Do you know what they'll do then to pay for it? They'll put up the price of food, water, and energy that they generate in those rural areas and provision to densely populated cities to pay for it.
So sure, keep your cheap broadband in places like London whilst it's expensive in rural areas. Those living rurally will just charge you a fortune for all the water, food, and energy you import from rural areas instead. How's that sound? Good?
No? Didn't think so.
Sometimes, it's just cheaper and easier for everyone to just work together and do each other favours. You're trying to examine economic systems without looking at the bigger picture - that cost transfers as you're talking about don't occur in isolation, that by not engaging them you're just shifting the cost of provisioning elsewhere, and that cost has to be paid for somehow, in the only way those living rurally can practically do so, by upping the price of things that are imported into densely populated areas.
Cities like London cannot exist without the rural areas to support them, there just aren't sufficient resources within the cities for the cities to be able to feed, water, and power themselves, they're entirely dependent on the existence of rural areas, and that's why it makes sense to subsidise them in some things so that they receive subsidies in return. Every time the South East of England goes into drought it's entirely dependent on water being piped from the North to even survive so it's hardly too much to ask for an absolutely negligible fraction of the money they make in turn to be pumped back into infrastructure that helps the people that make things like drought prevention happen.
Honestly I'm not sure it matters, the reason BT are so scared of a 10mbps minimum is because it means their copper lines are no longer a viable delivery mechanism for rural users.
As such whether it's 10mbps or 40mbps doesn't really matter at this point, the fact they're going to have to improve their infrastructure is going to mean everyone's going to have a line that can just as trivially support next gen speeds as it can the 10mbps minimum.
The original minimum proposed a few years ago was 2mbps, which they could probably have just about fudged over the existing copper network, whoever got it shifted up to 10mbps was smart because they'll have known it meant BT couldn't be lazy about it and would actually have to carry out infrastructure upgrades that will inevitably support not just 10mbps, but also much higher.
I suspect there will be very few cases where BT can get away with provisioning 10mbps but not also anything faster as a result of that.
We only recently finally got VDSL (FTTC as BT calls it) and used to get ~3mbps over ADSL2, but now get 76mbps over VDSL. If we ended up under this scheme it shows that 10mbps would've merely forced them to provision VDSL anyway which far surpasses the 10mbps limit. That is, if BT are being forced to upgrade people, the cheapest option is for them to just do it properly anyway - there's no cheap fudge they can do that gets people 10mbps but not any faster, to provision them up to 10mbps they're effectively going to have to get them 40mbps+ technology.
As such I think supporting 4k is a moot point - that's going to happen as an inevitable consequence of this 10mbps minimum being imposed on them anyway.
A better solution is to just get rid of parties.
Democracies like the UK's and the US' which are representative democracies are supposed to be about having local representatives to push local issues such that respective parliaments come up with consensus that are at least palatable to a majority.
Parties are an affront to that, because they require that representatives override the local interest with party interest where there is a clash.
So in countries like the US or UK, we either need to ban parties or alliances so that we have the representative democracies we're supposed to have, or we need to get rid of representative democracy and replace it with proportional democracy using true proportionally representative electoral systems.
This current half way house is the worst of both worlds for citizens because they get neither the benefits of representatives, nor the benefits of proportional representation - a representative that ignores his base in favour of the party line is no representative at all, and a system whereby a party with only 33% of the vote but 100% of the power which happens in the UK sometime cannot reasonably called a democracy in the truest sense. That's why there's so much political disenfranchisement in the US and UK in the first place - people are fed up that their votes aren't really worth jack shit - there's a reason May's and Trump's approval ratings are in the 30s and that's because it's only an absolute minority wanted them, but the party system ends up installing them into positions of power disproportionately higher than is democratically warranted. Really, it's not that people wanted Hillary instead, it's that people wanted none of the above, but the broken democratic systems of the UK and US tend towards two party politics which leaves the vast majority of the population without someone that they're really, truly, fairly happy with.
If you really want democracy to be healthy then under a representative system ALL representatives should be independents, or under a party system ALL elections should run on a truly proportional representation system. Anything else is just an anti-democratic fudge designed to reduce the say of the voting population in favour of the most organised minority. That's ultimately an affront to democracy as democracy is supposed to be about giving people a voice, not taking it away from the majority and handing it only to an absolute minority.
Actually I think Halt and Catch Fire's problem as you describe was exactly the reason it was the most accurate portrayal - it's blandness was a recognition of reality. I actually watched all 4 series for what it's worth, it was watchable, and it did a good job of compacting the rise of the modern computing industry, but if you're looking to be on the edge of your seat then that show isn't it. Whilst the real world industry isn't devoid of the sort of humour you see in Silicon Valley and the IT Crowd, it certainly isn't like that every minute of every day - that's what the Half and Catch Fire captured, the reality of the day to day, the complex egos, the fact that for every billionaire Bill Gates that made it there were hundreds of others who were on the cusp of getting it but just missed the target. That becoming a silicon valley billionaire was as much about the right idea at the right time with the right people working on it being sold to the right people, and that plenty of people had the time and idea, but the wrong people, or the right people and the wrong idea and so on and so forth - that success in the computing industry that's led to the current giants was largely about the luck of stars aligning for the right people as much as it was anything else and that the valley is full of many thousands of equally talented people who had the ideas but just didn't get lucky enough for the rest of it to align - Halt and Catch Fire captures that, it recognises the reality and dispels the myth of the Zuckerbergs, Gates, and so on and so forth as being unique geniuses - it's an ode to those who were equally as talented and innovative but who simply just did not have quite so much luck on their side.
Silicon Valley is funny, but it's an over the top comedy, so whilst it does indeed touch on real arguments, it of course uses an absurdist form of humour which doesn't match day to day reality. That is of course however what makes it enjoyable to watch.
No it's not, it's 4 weeks.
This made me chuckle at first, but I'm now more concerned it's going to end up on Breitbart as breaking news.
Honestly I think you can blame Google themselves for that, since browsers started blurring the line between the search bar and the URL bar making them basically the exact same thing people have been forced into this paradigm.
It's one thing I hate about most modern browsers, I liked explicit separation of the two, but you don't really get that now. If you mis-type a URL in what used to be the URL bar it often ends up in a Google search anyway.
So I really don't blame end users for that at all, it's not really their fault, it's a paradigm everyone is forced into.
So your view is that human infants don't have intelligence?
It doesn't matter what people might call a computer that acts like a baby, the point is whether intelligence is present or not, and if you believe intelligence isn't something that present in the human animal from birth, then sure, say equally dumb computers don't have intelligence, but most people believe that intelligence is an inherent trait in the human animal. Whether it grows from a low point doesn't really matter - the point is that intelligence sits on a gradient, so we can't rationally say modern AIs don't have intelligence whilst attributing intelligence as a trait present in things like dogs or babies.
Sorry for the slow reply, here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-3...
Actually came in in 2015, thought it was more recent than that, how time flies!
"You could port the custom _____ system your company made targeting AWS to Azure or something else... however unless the system was architected deliberately from the beginning with the idea of portability (which most cloud services are not)."
Has it ever been any different? How is this different to writing software for OS' like Windows or MacOS? If you want portability you deliberately have to plan for it.
At least with most cloud providers though the functionality to support portability is inherent - you can run Linux on Azure IaaS, and support for containerisation has become commonplace so it's not as if planning for portability is inherently difficult with cloud environments unless you start integrating deeply using things like service fabric.
Really, portability should be an architectural consideration for ANY software you write whether it's desktop, mobile, web, self-hosted services, or cloud hosted services.
"and remember that in somewhere like the UK, there's no direct equivalent to class action suits, and typically the loser is going to pay costs for both sides in a civil suit like this"
That's no longer true, the legal framework for them went into law this year.
So intelligence is something that isn't developed by humans until about the age of 3 - 5? Babies are equivalent to a rock in terms of intelligence?
"Working with an enormous or possibly infinite rule set is what I would call real intelligence."
And therein lies the problem. What YOU call "real intelligence" doesn't matter, it's a classic example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
The fact is, intelligence is incredibly hard to define, and in reality it exists on a spectrum. Some dogs are dumb and can't even sit, others have been trained to rescue people in earthquake ruins, or to recognise toys from flat 2D pictures, or to remember hundreds of distinct toys by name. The former type of dog we don't call intelligent, the latter we do, yet we can already create AI that can do things far more complex than this. Even the former type of "dumb dog" though we would say is more intelligent than an insect, a plant, or a rock, so we accept it has at least some intelligence.
So given that the above example trivially proves that intelligence exists on some spectrum, the question is where on the spectrum do you personally think "real intelligence" should be? The implication of your argument appears to be that you believe unless we can jump straight to adult human level of intelligence then it's not "real intelligence", so you have to ask yourself the question, given that we can't yet model absolutely everything in the world with mathematics are you also of the view that all mathematics to date isn't "real mathematics"? given that we haven't yet got a grand unified theory of the universe from physics, do you believe all physics to date isn't "real physics"? given that we don't yet fully understand the human body in it's entirety, or that of every other species in existence are you saying that all biology to date isn't "real biology"?.
You're effectively arguing that AI as a science has failed unless it automatically achieves it's end game, or at least some idealised future state from day 1 - that's obviously a nonsensical view in the context of the points above. The fact is we've already created machines that are more intelligent than some naturally occurring biological intelligences, including human children, and we've done so in only the last couple of decades. That's great progress.
There already is under the EU's existing Data Protection Directive, this doesn't change under GDPR, the problem is it's never enforced because regulators are scared of enforcing personal liability in case the person they're enforcing against is mates with the politician who hires and fires them.
Even when the regulator did do this when one of the porn piracy parasite lawyers left a list of every person he was trying to blackmail for money on a public server meaning people were outed and such publicly through his incompetence the fine was something pathetic like £500 because otherwise there's a risk he'd lose his £800,000 house or whatever it was worth.
The problem therefore isn't the law, it's lack of regulators with balls. It's a joke, the whole point is that people like that are supposed to suffer hardship as a result of their actions, if he loses his house then tough fucking shit, he knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway so should expect and accept the consequences.
"When insecurity of the worlds most popular OS is directly responsible for the loss of global information, it becomes difficult to define "success"."
Give us a break, that argument died long ago. There's no evidence Windows is any less secure than most Linux distros nowadays, most serious exploits in recent years have existed in open source products like OpenSSL, MySQL, Java, PHP, and so on. You're stuck in the 90s with a grudge to bare if you still believe that. You can hardly call Microsoft unsuccessful or evil nowadays, they're benign and one of the biggest contributors to open source.
"Not all billionaires are part of the problem."
Really but what you're saying is that billionaires that have amassed more wealth than they could possibly ever spend and continue to do so (Gates' wealth is still growing) and do things you agree with are fine, but those who don't do things you agree with are "evil", and "greedy". You're assigning mysticism and bias to a scientific problem and that's where you're going wrong in this argument. You need to step back and be more objective to understand what we're saying and until you are you're part of the very problem you posted about in the first place - we're not going to achieve greater levels of objectivity and reduce conflict whilst people do what you're doing and fail to take a step back and be objective about things - continuing to disagree and argue in the face of being wrong is precisely what conflict breeds on in the first place so you can hardly complain if you're engaging in it.
"It's been long proven that warmongering is run as a for-profit business. The problem with that morally bankrupt justification is profit is measured by putting a price tag on something that should be priceless; human life."
The people making money off of wars can't make money off of wars in isolation by themselves. They need people willing to fight those wars because they sure as hell aren't doing it and that's still fed by entirely organic tribalism, the will for conflict is still part of that entirely natural harshness of reality whether some figure out how to do better from it than others or not. It's worth noting that even species like Adelie Penguins cheat the species in this respect by stealing rocks that have been gathered by other penguins and in turn are the ones that get to breed because they have a nice nest made of stuff they stole from screwing everyone else, as opposed to one they built out of hard work.
You're conflating the fact that some people make profit from war with the reason people are so eager to fight wars - you can't do that, they're two separate things. The war profiteers are just parasites feeding off a bigger inherent natural problem. There are plenty of ongoing wars where profit really has nothing to do with it.
"Our biggest achievement will be solving for the disease of crippling Greed before it becomes the very cause of our own demise. The chasm continues to widen as wealthy elitists distance themselves from the rest of the human race, so let's not pretend those in control give a shit about the other 99.999% of the population."
I'm not sure what you think the solution is though, you think if you take those people out that others wont replace them? There'll always be replacements and it's driven by the genetic drive to ensure your genome is passed down to the next generation and it's that drive that leads to people seeking power. The reality is if you had the opportunity to become a billionaire and become ever richer you'd take it, the only reason you're whining about it is because you haven't had that opportunity and someone else got it instead. You'd probably convince yourself it's okay for you to do it because you'd use the money to change the world for the better, and you wouldn't be like the others.
Well, guess what they tell themselves? Guess what they think they're doing?
Sure but that's not just humans, that's just the very nature of existence. The whole universe and certainly life itself is built around conflicting forces to some degree or another.
You're basically arguing that reality is harsh, you're right. Our biggest achievement will be resisting the very nature of existence if we manage it.
Yeah, if it weren't for those damn arabs and them bringing the hindu-arabic numbering system out West we could still be using Roman numerals to not do mathematics very well.
Fucking savages.