It's hard to explain. It's almost a "thud" feeling and almost a sound but not quite "there", and I cannot explain what "there" is. It's kind of as if part of my mind is running a simulation on the side of what it would be like to actually be there, and in that simulation there is the sound and sensation of a thud, but the rest of the my brain is merely observing the simulation rather than fully buying into it.
I suspect this is primal in that if for example you saw an actual bear growling at you and showing its teeth, your head runs a quick simulation of the bear biting & crunching into your skull, and the simulation has just enough realness to trigger a fight-or-flight response/instinct.
Brains are largely a prediction engine, and to react properly to predictions, they have to trigger senses and patterns of senses close to the real thing. Otherwise, our experience won't be applied right to devise a proper reaction.
Take marketing classes and learn bullshitting. Then you can talk your way into the latest fad. It doesn't matter if you don't know anything real: the fad will die out or morph into some new BS before they find out.
For example, the fools here got suckered into MS's cloud BS and built something that would make Rube Goldberg jizz. The guy who spearheaded it spouted magic-Lego's plug-and-play reuse, modularity, and instant scalability. Instead, it turned into bruised pasta, not Legos. The power of bullshit & buzzwords on PHB's is absolutely amazing: I was dumbfounded. Dilbert comix is real!
It doesn't have to be so esoteric: make it "visible" as layered voting machines where each factor "votes". Use data layouts similar to spreadsheets and relational database reports so that "regular" office workers can study, arrange, relate to, and adjust factor weightings, mask weightings, and routing paths (similar to "hidden layers") as needed.
Color coding, similar to Excel's conditional formatting can make high-match and low-match factors stand out for test cases or trouble-shooting.
Staff can be divided similar to the processing tree. For example, in vision recognition, one group can focus on people identification, another on furniture and building identification, another on outdoor patterns, etc. The idea of one giant do-it-all monolithic neural-network is not practical if we want rank-and-file AI and dissect-able AI. Bring in modularity and divide-and-conquer techniques.
You may need an experienced AI domain specialist to help divide up tasks and provide factor (test) guidelines or drafts, but once staff have their basic assignments they can focus and tune without being caught up in the big picture and way-out theory.
Balance is important. Kids need some unstructured play and some structured play.
Indeed! Mix it up. Allow them to play with all of the toys sometimes, but limit it to 1 or 2 at others. "Always do X" is suspect advice. Life requires different approaches at different times. And visit friends and relatives often who have different toys, or just to play with other kids without toys. Tag is a wonderful game that requires no toys.
By rotating the environment, they learn how to focus when needed, but also how to handle chaos at times, which prepares one for jobs such as an assistant to a hyper politician who happens to have a short attention span. Could happen.
ANY accident in an "important" place deserves more scrutiny, but the original poster wrote it as if it's a sure conspiracy or proven coverup. If you have more evidence, bring it forth. Otherwise, STFU.
Most victims were unable to summon help because their personal assistants and cell phones were unable to recognize their [sick voice] as valid attempts to log in/summon aid.
Add hand gesture recognition. I just drafted a simple one-finger gesture to have Alexa shut-up and shut-off.
I'm not sure how the last one is relevant to the opening premise: "Anyone who tries to claim that global warming is an existential threat is being ridiculous. We will adapt."
Anyhow, roughly 2/3 of conservatives & libertarians believe human-caused climate change is a hoax. Your argument appears to assume those groups don't believe it's a hoax.
Auto-correct can indeed be very annoying. I instead prefer a "suggest mode", similar to the blue-squiggly grammar check markers in MS-Word. (Spelling errors are red squigglies.)
On a smart-phone, this could be implemented by listing suggestions or alternatives in a bar below the text-entry box if one puts the cursor on a phrase with blue-squigglies or equivalent.
(I don't know if IOS has a comparable option; I haven't used Apple devices in a while.)
Rather than let this be a back-and-forth red/blue culture-wars football that changes every election, agree to a compromise, such as say allow up to 50% throttling.
Outside of videos & music, well-designed content doesn't need much bandwidth anyhow. Most of the traffic is spent on eye-candy crap.
I did. It seems poorly written and contradictory to me. I don't really want to accuse it outright of bad writing, for maybe we just interpret certain words differently. It happens.
The gist of the original post seems to be saying that humanity won't outright die, but will be more miserable if we postpone solutions. My redo contradicts the first part. Thus, if you agree with my claim that it may end humanity, then the first part of your statement is outright wrong. If you disagree with it, then bring up evidence for zero or very small risk of human extinction, which is not in the original post that I see. If you see it in there, then please requote it, for I missed it upon 3 passes. If I don't see it after 3 passes, it's unlikely I'll finally see it after 300.
Now it's possible you are indirectly saying the semi-peaceful centralization of gov't (dictatorship) is the likely outcome over outright war, but this is not clear. Nor do I agree that's the most likely outcome. It's basically unknown territory such that apocalyptic war should be considered a fairly likely outcome. If Hitler had nukes I doubt he'd go quietly.
Let me redo that. You may be flat wrong, we may not "adapt". The climate disruptions to populations may trigger nuclear war and end up killing every last human (or too few to leave behind enough genetic diversity to re-establish ourselves). The risk of that happening goes up if we ignore man-made climate change.
True, we may do that even without climate issues, but certainly you would agree the probability of self-annihilation goes up if we change Earth's climate such as to disrupt existing patterns of food and water. Almost every major war has been related to economic slumps of some kind. Putting stress on populations increases both the chances and severity of war.
It'll burst onto the scene, torch the competition, spark interest, fire up the imagination, get sizzling reviews, melt hearts, and generate heated discussions.
Slashdot Mirror
It's hard to explain. It's almost a "thud" feeling and almost a sound but not quite "there", and I cannot explain what "there" is. It's kind of as if part of my mind is running a simulation on the side of what it would be like to actually be there, and in that simulation there is the sound and sensation of a thud, but the rest of the my brain is merely observing the simulation rather than fully buying into it.
I suspect this is primal in that if for example you saw an actual bear growling at you and showing its teeth, your head runs a quick simulation of the bear biting & crunching into your skull, and the simulation has just enough realness to trigger a fight-or-flight response/instinct.
Brains are largely a prediction engine, and to react properly to predictions, they have to trigger senses and patterns of senses close to the real thing. Otherwise, our experience won't be applied right to devise a proper reaction.
Predictions are like assholes: everyone has one and they all stink.
Take marketing classes and learn bullshitting. Then you can talk your way into the latest fad. It doesn't matter if you don't know anything real: the fad will die out or morph into some new BS before they find out.
For example, the fools here got suckered into MS's cloud BS and built something that would make Rube Goldberg jizz. The guy who spearheaded it spouted magic-Lego's plug-and-play reuse, modularity, and instant scalability. Instead, it turned into bruised pasta, not Legos. The power of bullshit & buzzwords on PHB's is absolutely amazing: I was dumbfounded. Dilbert comix is real!
Change the way AI is done.
It doesn't have to be so esoteric: make it "visible" as layered voting machines where each factor "votes". Use data layouts similar to spreadsheets and relational database reports so that "regular" office workers can study, arrange, relate to, and adjust factor weightings, mask weightings, and routing paths (similar to "hidden layers") as needed.
Color coding, similar to Excel's conditional formatting can make high-match and low-match factors stand out for test cases or trouble-shooting.
Staff can be divided similar to the processing tree. For example, in vision recognition, one group can focus on people identification, another on furniture and building identification, another on outdoor patterns, etc. The idea of one giant do-it-all monolithic neural-network is not practical if we want rank-and-file AI and dissect-able AI. Bring in modularity and divide-and-conquer techniques.
You may need an experienced AI domain specialist to help divide up tasks and provide factor (test) guidelines or drafts, but once staff have their basic assignments they can focus and tune without being caught up in the big picture and way-out theory.
Indeed! Mix it up. Allow them to play with all of the toys sometimes, but limit it to 1 or 2 at others. "Always do X" is suspect advice. Life requires different approaches at different times. And visit friends and relatives often who have different toys, or just to play with other kids without toys. Tag is a wonderful game that requires no toys.
By rotating the environment, they learn how to focus when needed, but also how to handle chaos at times, which prepares one for jobs such as an assistant to a hyper politician who happens to have a short attention span. Could happen.
He doesn't "need" store coffee, but he "needs" a mansion, "needs" a beemer, "needs" a butler, etc.
I truly doubt he lives in a shack and drives a '98 Corolla with peeling paint. The coffee talk is a marketing gimmick; the kind he uses to get rich.
ANY accident in an "important" place deserves more scrutiny, but the original poster wrote it as if it's a sure conspiracy or proven coverup. If you have more evidence, bring it forth. Otherwise, STFU.
If you are facing the blue and white thing, you are probably in the wrong direction.
Your Conspiracy Switch is on. She died of a bad heart. No evidence of foul play.
He worked so hard at not working.
Add hand gesture recognition. I just drafted a simple one-finger gesture to have Alexa shut-up and shut-off.
I remember when Microsoft really sucked ..... oh, wait
I'm not sure how the last one is relevant to the opening premise: "Anyone who tries to claim that global warming is an existential threat is being ridiculous. We will adapt."
Anyhow, roughly 2/3 of conservatives & libertarians believe human-caused climate change is a hoax. Your argument appears to assume those groups don't believe it's a hoax.
Auto-correct can indeed be very annoying. I instead prefer a "suggest mode", similar to the blue-squiggly grammar check markers in MS-Word. (Spelling errors are red squigglies.)
On a smart-phone, this could be implemented by listing suggestions or alternatives in a bar below the text-entry box if one puts the cursor on a phrase with blue-squigglies or equivalent.
(I don't know if IOS has a comparable option; I haven't used Apple devices in a while.)
Rather than let this be a back-and-forth red/blue culture-wars football that changes every election, agree to a compromise, such as say allow up to 50% throttling.
Outside of videos & music, well-designed content doesn't need much bandwidth anyhow. Most of the traffic is spent on eye-candy crap.
I did. It seems poorly written and contradictory to me. I don't really want to accuse it outright of bad writing, for maybe we just interpret certain words differently. It happens.
The gist of the original post seems to be saying that humanity won't outright die, but will be more miserable if we postpone solutions. My redo contradicts the first part. Thus, if you agree with my claim that it may end humanity, then the first part of your statement is outright wrong. If you disagree with it, then bring up evidence for zero or very small risk of human extinction, which is not in the original post that I see. If you see it in there, then please requote it, for I missed it upon 3 passes. If I don't see it after 3 passes, it's unlikely I'll finally see it after 300.
Now it's possible you are indirectly saying the semi-peaceful centralization of gov't (dictatorship) is the likely outcome over outright war, but this is not clear. Nor do I agree that's the most likely outcome. It's basically unknown territory such that apocalyptic war should be considered a fairly likely outcome. If Hitler had nukes I doubt he'd go quietly.
I simply thought about it more, and realized the poster's original premise is wrong. No conspiracy.
Let me redo that. You may be flat wrong, we may not "adapt". The climate disruptions to populations may trigger nuclear war and end up killing every last human (or too few to leave behind enough genetic diversity to re-establish ourselves). The risk of that happening goes up if we ignore man-made climate change.
True, we may do that even without climate issues, but certainly you would agree the probability of self-annihilation goes up if we change Earth's climate such as to disrupt existing patterns of food and water. Almost every major war has been related to economic slumps of some kind. Putting stress on populations increases both the chances and severity of war.
Yes, but it could get ugly with mass starvation, riots, wars, etc.
Why play football without a helmet?
It's a joke, for Pete's Sake. Jokes normally don't need to be well-defined, but I guess on /. the rules are different.
It's because his driveway is flat. Everyone knows driveways should be round.
China will own our asses. I'm brushing up on my Mandarin. Hey, there's a gift idea for ya.
I did buy a bloody thing. I'm into the Addam's Family look. Scares the riff raff relatives away.
You you don't don't say say.
It'll burst onto the scene, torch the competition, spark interest, fire up the imagination, get sizzling reviews, melt hearts, and generate heated discussions.