MS gradually seems to be abandoning the lower-end of the market: consumers and small business. They are targeting "enterprise" tools. Google is taking up small business sales with Google Docs and the related office suite, and young consumers are skipping home PC's for mobile devices.
MS can't compete with Google online because Google designed their suite for browsers up front, and we know that MS already flopped on mobile, probably because compatibility with Windows conflicted with simplicity and a small footprint.
MS-Office grew too bloated and Wintel-centric to be re-purposed for different platform(s). MS got feature-happy to drive out competitors, but at the same time locked themselves into an architecture corner. Instead, they decided to turn upward and eat into IBM's lunch.
Some libertarians don't really want capitalism in the sense of competition. If the big companies merged into one giant monopoly, they don't care, often believing other forces will eventually compensate or end the monopoly without gov't intervention. Lack of gov't meddling may be more important to them than sufficient competition because they believe the problems caused by gov't outweigh the value of their their fixes.
Perhaps it's because conservatives and Libertarians are tired of being censored.
I've seen no clear evidence of systematic political censorship from "big social media" (BSM). Early on they didn't monitor internal "bouncers" very well which may have led to some direct political censorship, but after such slip-ups became public they cracked down on policy enforcement, and monitor the bouncers better.
But there could be be indirect bias. Conservatives and libertarians tend to favor what I'll call "political incorrect" speech, while the owners of BSM tend to support a degree of PC such that speech that can be interpreted as borderline racist, excessively misogynist, or rude to LGBTQ's could trigger censorship.
This is not direct political censorship such that just being right-leaning alone won't get you banned or down-voted. However, non-PC could, and non-PC is found more often in conservatives/libertarians.
This PC-leaning view tends to reflect the owners. They are running private organizations, who technically can engage in censorship similar to how the owners of Fox News affect how and what their channel reports. They are free to form "Foxbook" and allow all the non-PC speech they want. (Mr. R. Murdoch tried the social media biz without success.)
Didn't we hear the same thing about some holographic crystal storage 20 years ago?
But it's hard to predict what will boom and what gets stuck in a rut. There are roughly 20 flops for every breakthrough.
Sometimes it also takes advances in other areas before progress can be made. Semiconductors showed promise as far back as the 1800's, but they turned out to be difficult to reliably manufacture. Impurities are what give them their useful properties, but the balance of impurities has to be carefully controlled for them to work right and consistently among batches. Progress in manufacturing and chemistry had to come about before semiconductors took off.
"Very Large Telescope" - I suppose the next will be the "Quite Big, Actually, Telescope".
I got the biggest scope, believe me! I and I alone invented the most tremendous scope the entire galaxy has ever seen. It's even bigger than the objects it observes. So jealous, they are. I can see Russia from Mar-a-Lago and wave to my good buddy Putie! Look, he's wearing Bob Kraft's Superbowl ring; isn't that something. Phones are for looosers with puny scopes. So little & sad. #MSGA!
I don't know what is going on here, somehow/. has managed to post a topic that is something it's members might actually be interested in, instead of squabble-bait.
Actually, the black hole is a metaphor for Trump, and the star being jerked around it is a metaphor for Congress.
The issue was "AI". If you can supply a precise and unambiguous definition, please do.
Further, what it means colloquially (regular press) and what it means in technical journals could vary. The audience scope or target thus may also matter.
Terms are ultimately defined by common usage, not necessarily by what's logical, clear, useful, or fair.
Defining "natural intelligence" is sticky also. I remember debating for weeks over what "intent" means. Great nerdy fun. (This was before Emailgate, by the way.)
It's ultimately what the doctor does with the info that really matters. I would hope they are properly trained to use the system and know its limitations. Disclaimer notices wouldn't hurt as reminder.
In practice the term "AI" is vague and continuous rather than a Boolean designation ("is" versus "is-not"). The term is not worth sweating over. The exception may be if you are making a big purchase and/or investment based on something being "AI". In that case, inspect it carefully rather than assume something with "AI" is smart and/or useful. But that's good advice for any significant purchase: test drive it & ask detailed questions rather than rely on the brochure.
The purpose of such a tool should be to make suggestions that a doctor may not consider themselves. It should be up to the doctor(s) to vet the suggestions or leads before any treatment is actually rendered. A doctor would have to be born in Stupidville to accept bot suggestions as-is.
Everyone hated flash when it was a highly pushed and supported platform.
Hold on there, the actual story is nuanced.
Designers, marketers, and bosses loved it because you had WYSIWYG control over everything. You were not dependent on gijillion browser brand and version combinations all rendering placements differently or having different JavaScript bugs. You saw the preview and it worked just about the same way on every user's PC.
And end-users didn't really care as long as it worked and Flash applications loaded relatively quick. Installation and upgrade steps and problems got to them sometimes, and reports of security problems combined with these installation headaches finally made it not worth it to them. That's when the slow decline started. Adobe using upgrades to sneak junkware onto PC's via sneaky prompts didn't help matters.
Some slick games and gizmos used Flash. HTML5/JS versions of equivalent still seem glitchy and browser-version-sensitive to me. Whether it will eventually settle, or some new trend/fad will break it worse is hard to say.
Dealing with ever-mutating fat clients (browsers) is still an ongoing pain and a yuuuge IT labor drain. It's job security for us IT workers, but you do have to marvel at the jillions of hours of diddling and fiddling it causes. The first generation wasted time replacing mainframe vacuum tubes, the current generation wastes time testing & debugging on myriad browser variations.
Every generation will probably be a slave to its own tech limitations. In the minicomputer era, I remember how we spent a lot of time babysitting modem-related problems. In the desktop era, we had installation problems such as DLL-Hell (DLL version conflicts). At least in the minicomputer and desktop era, once the app got running, you usually had consistent front-end rendering.
Slashdot Mirror
MS gradually seems to be abandoning the lower-end of the market: consumers and small business. They are targeting "enterprise" tools. Google is taking up small business sales with Google Docs and the related office suite, and young consumers are skipping home PC's for mobile devices.
MS can't compete with Google online because Google designed their suite for browsers up front, and we know that MS already flopped on mobile, probably because compatibility with Windows conflicted with simplicity and a small footprint.
MS-Office grew too bloated and Wintel-centric to be re-purposed for different platform(s). MS got feature-happy to drive out competitors, but at the same time locked themselves into an architecture corner. Instead, they decided to turn upward and eat into IBM's lunch.
Come on, every field is full of blowhards and egos.
There is some evidence narcissism may have an evolutionary advantage under the right circumstances.
See, evolution made me an asshole, it's not my fault ;-)
Drawing multi-pixel lines and having segments "match up" properly (aesthetically) is not trivial to do well.
I'm not sure what you mean. How about an example.
competition from "Streisand" Cola
Some libertarians don't really want capitalism in the sense of competition. If the big companies merged into one giant monopoly, they don't care, often believing other forces will eventually compensate or end the monopoly without gov't intervention. Lack of gov't meddling may be more important to them than sufficient competition because they believe the problems caused by gov't outweigh the value of their their fixes.
I've seen no clear evidence of systematic political censorship from "big social media" (BSM). Early on they didn't monitor internal "bouncers" very well which may have led to some direct political censorship, but after such slip-ups became public they cracked down on policy enforcement, and monitor the bouncers better.
But there could be be indirect bias. Conservatives and libertarians tend to favor what I'll call "political incorrect" speech, while the owners of BSM tend to support a degree of PC such that speech that can be interpreted as borderline racist, excessively misogynist, or rude to LGBTQ's could trigger censorship.
This is not direct political censorship such that just being right-leaning alone won't get you banned or down-voted. However, non-PC could, and non-PC is found more often in conservatives/libertarians.
This PC-leaning view tends to reflect the owners. They are running private organizations, who technically can engage in censorship similar to how the owners of Fox News affect how and what their channel reports. They are free to form "Foxbook" and allow all the non-PC speech they want. (Mr. R. Murdoch tried the social media biz without success.)
A little virus-induced DNA/RNA may make every animal cell Turing Complete. The count would go through the roof and perhaps explain the Fermi Paradox.
But it's hard to predict what will boom and what gets stuck in a rut. There are roughly 20 flops for every breakthrough.
Sometimes it also takes advances in other areas before progress can be made. Semiconductors showed promise as far back as the 1800's, but they turned out to be difficult to reliably manufacture. Impurities are what give them their useful properties, but the balance of impurities has to be carefully controlled for them to work right and consistently among batches. Progress in manufacturing and chemistry had to come about before semiconductors took off.
oughtta be enough for anyone.
Lockem up!
I got the biggest scope, believe me! I and I alone invented the most tremendous scope the entire galaxy has ever seen. It's even bigger than the objects it observes. So jealous, they are. I can see Russia from Mar-a-Lago and wave to my good buddy Putie! Look, he's wearing Bob Kraft's Superbowl ring; isn't that something. Phones are for looosers with puny scopes. So little & sad. #MSGA!
Actually, the black hole is a metaphor for Trump, and the star being jerked around it is a metaphor for Congress.
Sorry, but you got played again.
The issue was "AI". If you can supply a precise and unambiguous definition, please do.
Further, what it means colloquially (regular press) and what it means in technical journals could vary. The audience scope or target thus may also matter.
Terms are ultimately defined by common usage, not necessarily by what's logical, clear, useful, or fair.
Defining "natural intelligence" is sticky also. I remember debating for weeks over what "intent" means. Great nerdy fun. (This was before Emailgate, by the way.)
It's ultimately what the doctor does with the info that really matters. I would hope they are properly trained to use the system and know its limitations. Disclaimer notices wouldn't hurt as reminder.
Dr. Who only knows how to use a sonic screwdriver. A muggle's screwdriver baffles the daylights out of her/him/it.
"What is Trollitis?" ;-)
In practice the term "AI" is vague and continuous rather than a Boolean designation ("is" versus "is-not"). The term is not worth sweating over. The exception may be if you are making a big purchase and/or investment based on something being "AI". In that case, inspect it carefully rather than assume something with "AI" is smart and/or useful. But that's good advice for any significant purchase: test drive it & ask detailed questions rather than rely on the brochure.
The purpose of such a tool should be to make suggestions that a doctor may not consider themselves. It should be up to the doctor(s) to vet the suggestions or leads before any treatment is actually rendered. A doctor would have to be born in Stupidville to accept bot suggestions as-is.
Hold on there, the actual story is nuanced.
Designers, marketers, and bosses loved it because you had WYSIWYG control over everything. You were not dependent on gijillion browser brand and version combinations all rendering placements differently or having different JavaScript bugs. You saw the preview and it worked just about the same way on every user's PC.
And end-users didn't really care as long as it worked and Flash applications loaded relatively quick. Installation and upgrade steps and problems got to them sometimes, and reports of security problems combined with these installation headaches finally made it not worth it to them. That's when the slow decline started. Adobe using upgrades to sneak junkware onto PC's via sneaky prompts didn't help matters.
Some slick games and gizmos used Flash. HTML5/JS versions of equivalent still seem glitchy and browser-version-sensitive to me. Whether it will eventually settle, or some new trend/fad will break it worse is hard to say.
Dealing with ever-mutating fat clients (browsers) is still an ongoing pain and a yuuuge IT labor drain. It's job security for us IT workers, but you do have to marvel at the jillions of hours of diddling and fiddling it causes. The first generation wasted time replacing mainframe vacuum tubes, the current generation wastes time testing & debugging on myriad browser variations.
Every generation will probably be a slave to its own tech limitations. In the minicomputer era, I remember how we spent a lot of time babysitting modem-related problems. In the desktop era, we had installation problems such as DLL-Hell (DLL version conflicts). At least in the minicomputer and desktop era, once the app got running, you usually had consistent front-end rendering.
That's the sound I started making when I first saw the design.
Rolling Sthones: "Ith all white now, in fact ith a gath!"
(This is after Barry Kripke joined the band)
I suppose obfuscation can indeed increase ad clicks.
User: "Hmm, is this a button, or an ad?" *click*
Page: "Congratulations on your Lamborghini purchase!"
But why do pages intended to be for productivity copy the click-bait designs? Probably because "every one else is doing it".
My parents used to ask, "Just because everyone else is jumping off a cliff, does that mean you should also?"
Gullible UI/UX selectors will say, "Yes! Let me get a running start..."
It's a trolloff; may the trolliest troll win! Gentlemen, start your flames!