They are still in the "dark ages". Christianity used to be like that several hundreds of years ago, but after many decades of sectarian infighting they realized the draconian approach was killing all their friends and family and could be turned on themselves, and so mutually agreed to lighten up and be more tolerant of alternative viewpoints. Sometimes you gotta be smacked by reality's Clue Stick several times before you shape up.
When it became clear T won the election, somebody in the room stated, "Regardless of what happens, it will be really odd and the news will be busy." T hasn't failed in that regard.
Re: wasting taxpayer money -- if key details about governing and policy come as tweets, then they darn sure are important enough to properly track and catalog.
As far as the acronym, they even outdid recent NASA probes in shoe-horned spelling such that they deserve a Uranus Award: Unique References And Naming Using Stretching.
I have the seriously growing suspicion that AI is coming for us programmers and IT experts faster than we might want to admit,
Sounds like there will be a great market for fixing easily hacked programs made by AI.;)
But that work will be off-shored.
On a serious note, since maintenance is usually the most expensive part of "programming", it's best software be written for human readers. Can bots know how humans think? They can follow existing patterns of "good code", but can that really replace humans in knowing how humans think?
Either you take human coders completely out of the loop, which doesn't sound realistic, or you have to cater to code that fits human minds.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's perhaps a large hurdle because it involves understanding, or at least mimicking human thought processes well enough.
That's a different kind of requirement than some physical task like washing dishes. A bot doesn't have to wash them like a human would; it just has to get the job done. But as long as humans are in the software coding loop, the bot would have to write code grokkable by humans. It's not JUST writing code to do X, it's making it do X and be grokkable by humans.
Some suspect crooks are using genetic algorithms to write spam. Start with some ad examples stolen from other spammers, randomly cross-breed, filter them through a Markov-chain text realistic-ness filter and keep the decent ones, send them out, take the successful customer (victim) responses, cross-breed, mutate in a few new ad-words, and Markov-test for the next generation, rinse and repeat. Profit!
A solution with a 98% confidence profile can be created, but it would take the energy of 650 type "O" stars to carry out for a 3-hour turn-around time per story. Sheldon and I did the math.
C's were more subtle and behind-the-scenes about it (in the style of typical politicians). T browbeats the press publicly and privately. T doesn't "do" subtle.
Uber will eventually die...As soon as everyone realizes that fact that most Uber drivers actually LOSE MONEY when you figure in the low rates they pay people combined with the total cost of driving for them (insurance, gas, auto maintenance, etc)...
Similar pattern to most IT fads: the fanboys harp on a few key issues and convince suckers and PHB's that those few factors are the bee's knees. Over time they find out the hard way that every factor is important, not just the ones the fanboys highlight and exaggerate.
Just because factors like insurance, lawsuits, cleaning up puke, and mechanical maintenance don't show up in the first Uber paycheck doesn't mean they don't matter in the longer run.
It makes me sound like a fuddy-duddy at work, but I'm usually right because I've seen the same pattern for decades. People are suckers. The inexperienced just don't know how to look at a wide array of factors when evaluating something, and their egos and/or shiny UI objects prevent them from listening to those who can. (On the plus side, reinventing the wheel is great job security, although you start to feel like Sisyphus.)
Uber might survive, but their halcyon days are probably behind them as reality winds its way into their market.
Jobs would get his hands on it, say "this and this and this are stupid, make me a product which is not stupid" and then he would hammer on engineers until they produced something that was pleasant to use and behold. And no one should discount the importance of that...
Indeed! Products designed by a committee of suits usually suck. They are more interested in office politics than product quality. Steve's obsessive personality cut through the BS.
I tried to use my Android to read email on Outlook.com the other day. Everything about the UI sucked eggs. For one, you cannot tell what the icons mean. (Since it's a phone, there's no mouse roll-over text.) And I could only find the in-box, couldn't find "sent", "deleted", "drafts", etc. And I accidentally deleted a message while trying to learn it. It's friggen email, not rocket science, at least not until MS touches it.
Whoever designed and/or approved that UI should be fired, re-hired again and re-fired to just make sure the message is clear, because their fscking UI's are not.
I could give you horror stories about other anti-malware vendors also. It's possible they all suck in part because Windows is a mess, and they have to use duck-wire and chicken-tape to patch/fix/use something that is also duck-wire and chicken-tape: Windows. (Word swapperoo intentional)
these anti-viruses have always been Windows parasites that only flourished thanks to Microsoft unable to implement a decent security solution earlier.
Why does that make them "parasites"? If somebody plugs a hole created by slothful oligopolies/monopolies, more power to them!
By that definition, many of us in IT are "parasites" because our jobs possibly wouldn't exist if Microsoft made decent stuff. I guestimate that if we had rational standards and sufficient OS/network competition, at least half of IT jobs would be gone. The "factoring" of our tools and standards is very poor such that we spend a lot of time diddling with little stuff that shouldn't be a problem/chore anymore. Big co greed and PHB stupidity are the teets that giveth us techies milk.
A study should be repeated by an org that has no skin in the game per results. They should be paid to test and get the same amount of compensation regardless of outcome. A random lottery should decide the head managers/researchers for any given repeat.
Slashdot Mirror
They are still in the "dark ages". Christianity used to be like that several hundreds of years ago, but after many decades of sectarian infighting they realized the draconian approach was killing all their friends and family and could be turned on themselves, and so mutually agreed to lighten up and be more tolerant of alternative viewpoints. Sometimes you gotta be smacked by reality's Clue Stick several times before you shape up.
It looks like you don't know who Clippy is. Would you like help finding out?
Putin already did that.
I can't say the name of his roller-skates in polite company.
It's Orangenian for "Rosebud".
When it became clear T won the election, somebody in the room stated, "Regardless of what happens, it will be really odd and the news will be busy." T hasn't failed in that regard.
Re: wasting taxpayer money -- if key details about governing and policy come as tweets, then they darn sure are important enough to properly track and catalog.
As far as the acronym, they even outdid recent NASA probes in shoe-horned spelling such that they deserve a Uranus Award: Unique References And Naming Using Stretching.
But that work will be off-shored.
On a serious note, since maintenance is usually the most expensive part of "programming", it's best software be written for human readers. Can bots know how humans think? They can follow existing patterns of "good code", but can that really replace humans in knowing how humans think?
Either you take human coders completely out of the loop, which doesn't sound realistic, or you have to cater to code that fits human minds.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's perhaps a large hurdle because it involves understanding, or at least mimicking human thought processes well enough.
That's a different kind of requirement than some physical task like washing dishes. A bot doesn't have to wash them like a human would; it just has to get the job done. But as long as humans are in the software coding loop, the bot would have to write code grokkable by humans. It's not JUST writing code to do X, it's making it do X and be grokkable by humans.
Some suspect crooks are using genetic algorithms to write spam. Start with some ad examples stolen from other spammers, randomly cross-breed, filter them through a Markov-chain text realistic-ness filter and keep the decent ones, send them out, take the successful customer (victim) responses, cross-breed, mutate in a few new ad-words, and Markov-test for the next generation, rinse and repeat. Profit!
A solution with a 98% confidence profile can be created, but it would take the energy of 650 type "O" stars to carry out for a 3-hour turn-around time per story. Sheldon and I did the math.
C's were more subtle and behind-the-scenes about it (in the style of typical politicians). T browbeats the press publicly and privately. T doesn't "do" subtle.
Similar pattern to most IT fads: the fanboys harp on a few key issues and convince suckers and PHB's that those few factors are the bee's knees. Over time they find out the hard way that every factor is important, not just the ones the fanboys highlight and exaggerate.
Just because factors like insurance, lawsuits, cleaning up puke, and mechanical maintenance don't show up in the first Uber paycheck doesn't mean they don't matter in the longer run.
It makes me sound like a fuddy-duddy at work, but I'm usually right because I've seen the same pattern for decades. People are suckers. The inexperienced just don't know how to look at a wide array of factors when evaluating something, and their egos and/or shiny UI objects prevent them from listening to those who can. (On the plus side, reinventing the wheel is great job security, although you start to feel like Sisyphus.)
Uber might survive, but their halcyon days are probably behind them as reality winds its way into their market.
This will make for some really dark Clippy jokes.
Don't knock it, it worked for the USA President (depending on how you define "worked")
Outsourcing gives you unpredictable quality? Gee, who wouldda thought!
It's right next to the big fire extinguisher.
Depends, are we talking about the entertainment section or the politics section?
Corporate cheapskatism fucking them in ass: newbies handle key data and no backup system in place.
Sue/fire the CEO, not the grad.
Don't wisten to fwake news fwom twolls.
Indeed! Products designed by a committee of suits usually suck. They are more interested in office politics than product quality. Steve's obsessive personality cut through the BS.
I tried to use my Android to read email on Outlook.com the other day. Everything about the UI sucked eggs. For one, you cannot tell what the icons mean. (Since it's a phone, there's no mouse roll-over text.) And I could only find the in-box, couldn't find "sent", "deleted", "drafts", etc. And I accidentally deleted a message while trying to learn it. It's friggen email, not rocket science, at least not until MS touches it.
Whoever designed and/or approved that UI should be fired, re-hired again and re-fired to just make sure the message is clear, because their fscking UI's are not.
S. Jobs would belt staff over such a design.
Make America Dusty Again
Android has security problems also. Some claim it's "not Linux's fault", but that only means device vendors can find ways to F up anything.
I could give you horror stories about other anti-malware vendors also. It's possible they all suck in part because Windows is a mess, and they have to use duck-wire and chicken-tape to patch/fix/use something that is also duck-wire and chicken-tape: Windows. (Word swapperoo intentional)
Why does that make them "parasites"? If somebody plugs a hole created by slothful oligopolies/monopolies, more power to them!
By that definition, many of us in IT are "parasites" because our jobs possibly wouldn't exist if Microsoft made decent stuff. I guestimate that if we had rational standards and sufficient OS/network competition, at least half of IT jobs would be gone. The "factoring" of our tools and standards is very poor such that we spend a lot of time diddling with little stuff that shouldn't be a problem/chore anymore. Big co greed and PHB stupidity are the teets that giveth us techies milk.
A study should be repeated by an org that has no skin in the game per results. They should be paid to test and get the same amount of compensation regardless of outcome. A random lottery should decide the head managers/researchers for any given repeat.