...with code developed by a non-English speaker? Ugly.
Oh, I mistook it for Perl;-)
Tech CEO's just want cheap labor for their sector. They don't care about more general downsides of poor English to a other areas of a person's life. For example, when a coder gets older and is forced out of coding due to agism or RSI, as often happens, lack of English could greatly limit Plan B. It can also make everyday life difficult outside of work.
On a related note, the NRA says everyone should own and learn about guns. Surprise!
On the plus side I come from a short-lived family with poor genetics and I'm getting up there in years, so I'll probably be dead before the massive unemployment and chaos caused by the next industrial revolution.
No, your brain will be dug up, scanned, emulated, and placed in a bot. You can't run and you can't hide, dude!
In general seriousness, predicting the future is difficult and pundits and executives should stop trying. I am pretty sure, though that AI/automation will at least gradually crawl up the skills scale and take or reduce low-end jobs. People will be displaced, and if we don't do something about displacement, they'll riot or even worse: vote for ranting fools with attention deficits. The rust-belt enacted hair-raising revenge upon the Nation as it fell directly on swing-states. If we keep ignoring the displaced (or become one), unpleasant things will continue to happen.
People have been predicting Flash will "end soon" for about two decades. It doesn't. It's the reverse of the Duke Nukem Forever pattern. "Unvaporware"? Or how people now ask the Moonies at the airport to define "soon".
I don't see us beating this one. Engage roman orgy mode.
Romans are rejecting me, plan B?
Some experts believe we may be able to drain heat from it and generate hydrothermal energy. The problem is there is some risk it would trigger an eruption. They would tap the lower-risk edges instead of the volatile center, but there's still no guarantee.
I don't think people will trust the technique enough to try heat draining and would rather take their chances with nature. There should probably be a direct vote before implementation. Canada and Mexico should be able to vote also, since they'd be heavily impacted by an eruption.
If a pending eruption is detectable ahead of time, it would probably be too late to use hydrothermal heat draining. The draining technique takes several decades and perhaps centuries to have notable impact. It's a lot of heat to remove. Thus, draining is a preventative technique only. When an imminent eruption pattern is detected, it would probably be too late to do anything other than pack up and haul ass.
While technically correct, in the shorter term it takes markets a while to adjust. If the costs shrinks faster than the adjustment pace can absorb it, then lower costs can cause deflation or sub-part inflation.
can't spend money due to the growing wealth inequality in developed countries. The only way to turn it around is for governments to quit this austerity idiocy and spend money to get out of these deflationary spirals.
I agree that austerity makes it worse, but we can't do massive government spending because of the debt problem we are in.
There are two other solutions: 1, tax the rich, and 2, print more money (AKA "helicopter theory"). I say let's try both.
Ford Maverick was a piece of junk, maintenance-wise. Most of today's cars are far more reliable than the 1970's, and thus I'm not sure it's an even compare. But I have noticed that minivan prices seem to either be dropping or staying below inflation for the last 20 years.
Another thing is, since cars last longer, most "low end" car shoppers buy used. It's value depreciates quickly the first few years. Today's 5 year old car is probably on par or better than the reliability of new cars of the 70's. Therefore, car manufacturers target more financially established buyers. The new-vs-used curve has shifted.
In fact, a new car is a bad deal relative to say a 4-year-old car in terms of total cost. People buy new for the status, not from sound wallet logic. (If your job requires timeliness, then reliably may trump cost, but that's an exception.)
In short, the example was comparing apples to lemons.
Inventions happen whether there are wealthy patrons or not. Most inventions are not from "big labs", but rather either serendipity, or some technician trying to solve a specific problem for a specific product. I bet there would be more innovation if we didn't have a patent system. Smaller co's would be able to mix and match existing ideas without paying an arm and leg in royalties to conglomerates.
Marketer(s) probably made or influenced the ultimate decision. "Blade Runner" sounds "actiony", and young restless males purchase most movie tickets. However, one of the reasons the first film had relatively poor revenues is that ticket buyers expected more action because both the title and the way it was marketed in pre-release materials. But it wasn't really an action flick, more of a drama. Therefore, the marketing gimmicks backfired because the audience was mismatched with the picture type, and thus gave it bad reviews.
Well-known companies can be pushy dicks. I once contracted at a small-ish office equipment distributor, and it had an account with an entertainment conglomerate that starts with a "D". Big D would always request special conditions and special reports and wanted them ASAP. They were kept on because they served as bragging rights for the smaller company to bring in more business. "You know we are good because we have an account with D!" But after a while their dickativity exceeded their marketing value, and the distributor parted ways with them.
And like Evolution, Gravity is nothing but a THEORY!!
Actually, we don't know what gravity really is, we only know it exists (here) as a force of some kind. There are lots of theories about the underlying mechanism, but none have solid empirical backing so far. More specifically, gravity's existence is a fact, but not its mechanism/cause.
I don't know what Apple allows, but that was merely an example to illustrate a point. There are other computation-intensive features that can follow a similar pattern, such as a 3D graphics rendering system, sound synthesizer, neural net trainer, database/sorting engine, etc.
It doesn't even have to be computation-intensive: it can simply be a feature/tag that Edge supports that Safari doesn't. Being computation-intensive just gives MS a better excuse to get away with it.
Many companies and products try to flaunt and exaggerate the "AI" label to sell products and/or gain investors.
Perhaps this is a case where they should not have mentioned AI at all. The definition of AI is fuzzy enough that they can probably give plausible deniability. If they did use a neural network, that could be harder to deny AI with. But they could probably achieve pretty much the same using old-fashioned statistical analysis of sound pattern metrics such as duration, repetition, frequencies, frequency delta's, etc.
Not necessarily. For example, MS could create a language FooScript for their MS-Office iOS app. Edge could have a compiled-in interpreter for FooScript while other browsers have to use a JavaScript emulator to run FooScript. If you run something that uses FooScript in Edge, it uses Edge's compiled-in interpreter, but if you run it in Safari, it runs via a slower/buggier FooScript emulator written in JavaScript because of course Safari would have no built-in FooScript emulator (at least for a few years).
MS has played similar games to with other products.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I mistook it for Perl ;-)
Tech CEO's just want cheap labor for their sector. They don't care about more general downsides of poor English to a other areas of a person's life. For example, when a coder gets older and is forced out of coding due to agism or RSI, as often happens, lack of English could greatly limit Plan B. It can also make everyday life difficult outside of work.
On a related note, the NRA says everyone should own and learn about guns. Surprise!
No, your brain will be dug up, scanned, emulated, and placed in a bot. You can't run and you can't hide, dude!
In general seriousness, predicting the future is difficult and pundits and executives should stop trying. I am pretty sure, though that AI/automation will at least gradually crawl up the skills scale and take or reduce low-end jobs. People will be displaced, and if we don't do something about displacement, they'll riot or even worse: vote for ranting fools with attention deficits. The rust-belt enacted hair-raising revenge upon the Nation as it fell directly on swing-states. If we keep ignoring the displaced (or become one), unpleasant things will continue to happen.
Don't you mean "sends you to heaven"?
People have been predicting Flash will "end soon" for about two decades. It doesn't. It's the reverse of the Duke Nukem Forever pattern. "Unvaporware"? Or how people now ask the Moonies at the airport to define "soon".
Romans are rejecting me, plan B?
Some experts believe we may be able to drain heat from it and generate hydrothermal energy. The problem is there is some risk it would trigger an eruption. They would tap the lower-risk edges instead of the volatile center, but there's still no guarantee.
I don't think people will trust the technique enough to try heat draining and would rather take their chances with nature. There should probably be a direct vote before implementation. Canada and Mexico should be able to vote also, since they'd be heavily impacted by an eruption.
If a pending eruption is detectable ahead of time, it would probably be too late to use hydrothermal heat draining. The draining technique takes several decades and perhaps centuries to have notable impact. It's a lot of heat to remove. Thus, draining is a preventative technique only. When an imminent eruption pattern is detected, it would probably be too late to do anything other than pack up and haul ass.
One leads to the other.
How about a mass online protest campaign to embarrass that idiot. Photoshoppers, start your engines! (and Gimpers too)
While technically correct, in the shorter term it takes markets a while to adjust. If the costs shrinks faster than the adjustment pace can absorb it, then lower costs can cause deflation or sub-part inflation.
I agree that austerity makes it worse, but we can't do massive government spending because of the debt problem we are in.
There are two other solutions: 1, tax the rich, and 2, print more money (AKA "helicopter theory"). I say let's try both.
Correction
Re: "It's value depreciates quickly the first few years" is supposed to go after "a new car is a bad deal..."
Ford Maverick was a piece of junk, maintenance-wise. Most of today's cars are far more reliable than the 1970's, and thus I'm not sure it's an even compare. But I have noticed that minivan prices seem to either be dropping or staying below inflation for the last 20 years.
Another thing is, since cars last longer, most "low end" car shoppers buy used. It's value depreciates quickly the first few years. Today's 5 year old car is probably on par or better than the reliability of new cars of the 70's. Therefore, car manufacturers target more financially established buyers. The new-vs-used curve has shifted.
In fact, a new car is a bad deal relative to say a 4-year-old car in terms of total cost. People buy new for the status, not from sound wallet logic. (If your job requires timeliness, then reliably may trump cost, but that's an exception.)
In short, the example was comparing apples to lemons.
Inventions happen whether there are wealthy patrons or not. Most inventions are not from "big labs", but rather either serendipity, or some technician trying to solve a specific problem for a specific product. I bet there would be more innovation if we didn't have a patent system. Smaller co's would be able to mix and match existing ideas without paying an arm and leg in royalties to conglomerates.
Marketer(s) probably made or influenced the ultimate decision. "Blade Runner" sounds "actiony", and young restless males purchase most movie tickets. However, one of the reasons the first film had relatively poor revenues is that ticket buyers expected more action because both the title and the way it was marketed in pre-release materials. But it wasn't really an action flick, more of a drama. Therefore, the marketing gimmicks backfired because the audience was mismatched with the picture type, and thus gave it bad reviews.
If corporations are people, give that bastard the electric chair.
Mousers of the World, unite!
You know you jumped the Satanic Shark when people switch to Microsoft to avoid you.
Well-known companies can be pushy dicks. I once contracted at a small-ish office equipment distributor, and it had an account with an entertainment conglomerate that starts with a "D". Big D would always request special conditions and special reports and wanted them ASAP. They were kept on because they served as bragging rights for the smaller company to bring in more business. "You know we are good because we have an account with D!" But after a while their dickativity exceeded their marketing value, and the distributor parted ways with them.
That's an insult to Neanderthals
Oh, and Google, MS, etc. are careful? Yeah right.
Anyhow, we don't know Apple's side of the story yet. Knowing Uber, they probably used "social engineering" to sneak stuff past the Apple iGuards.
Vintage IOT, enjoy!
Variations of Aether theory have been revived as "dark [somethings]"
Actually, we don't know what gravity really is, we only know it exists (here) as a force of some kind. There are lots of theories about the underlying mechanism, but none have solid empirical backing so far. More specifically, gravity's existence is a fact, but not its mechanism/cause.
I don't know what Apple allows, but that was merely an example to illustrate a point. There are other computation-intensive features that can follow a similar pattern, such as a 3D graphics rendering system, sound synthesizer, neural net trainer, database/sorting engine, etc.
It doesn't even have to be computation-intensive: it can simply be a feature/tag that Edge supports that Safari doesn't. Being computation-intensive just gives MS a better excuse to get away with it.
Many companies and products try to flaunt and exaggerate the "AI" label to sell products and/or gain investors.
Perhaps this is a case where they should not have mentioned AI at all. The definition of AI is fuzzy enough that they can probably give plausible deniability. If they did use a neural network, that could be harder to deny AI with. But they could probably achieve pretty much the same using old-fashioned statistical analysis of sound pattern metrics such as duration, repetition, frequencies, frequency delta's, etc.
Simple, Ruskies probably did the same to the OTHER antivirus co's. We just haven't heard about it yet.
Doesn't mean K is good, just that like the telecoms, their competition also sucks. In the land of D-minuses, D is king.
Not necessarily. For example, MS could create a language FooScript for their MS-Office iOS app. Edge could have a compiled-in interpreter for FooScript while other browsers have to use a JavaScript emulator to run FooScript. If you run something that uses FooScript in Edge, it uses Edge's compiled-in interpreter, but if you run it in Safari, it runs via a slower/buggier FooScript emulator written in JavaScript because of course Safari would have no built-in FooScript emulator (at least for a few years).
MS has played similar games to with other products.