The problem is that you guys are both using the word "company" but one of you means "company" and the other means "venture-capital-funded-corporate-start-up."
That is why in the context of a new company, I use the word "small business" to describe the traditional thing.
I like this approach, because the guys like you that are free-loading off of web search or links will have to stay in the cache for the search to keep misleading users to you, and then when I don't see the content I can just add cache:// to the start of the address and view the content on a server that I have better relationship with.
Your plea at the end reminds me of the guys standing on the side of the freeway ramp with a sign, begging for money.
That is one of those things where if they're that crazy or on that many hallucinogens to even do it, then I might very well believe that they thought they were somewhere else, like in a bathroom on a spaceship.
I believe them that it isn't intentional; they do have bugs in their other services. I can understand their point; they don't like ad-blockers or approve of them, and they have no reason to care about the bug.
I think it was polite of them to acknowledge that the unexpected behavior was correlated to some change that they made. If they say it was unintentional I believe them, because if it was on purpose, it would be within their rights, and if they were planning on pushing out this feature they would have no reason to be unclear about it.
Not everybody is worried about everything being "tracked" by the very people offering the thing.;)
The tracking that most people dislike is where facebook or some advertising company tracks them while they're on a totally different site.
That the website you actually went to knows what you did while you were there? That is not automatically bad. What exactly is your complaint? Did you know that google (owner of youtube) doesn't sell that information?
Logging enables features such as view history, which makes it easy to find and re-watch something. It also lets you click "watch later" and resume at the same place. Also, the "recommended videos" is very useful for some people, depending on what type of content you use.
Funny story... I wandered over to youtube to check if I get the error (didn't get it; ublock origin) and I ended up watching some cat furry videos.
Malware, of course... actually, I'd be impressed if they got some past all my levels of protection.
Malware in ads isn't youtube video ads, it is other stuff. These are simply obnoxious video content that I refuse to consume, not random code that runs on your computer.
The service is either free, or it is not. If they want to call it free, and show ads, they have no claim that viewing the ads are required. They can try to make sure they are displayed, but that is all.
People who really don't understand ethics seem to jump right onto the ad bandwagon, I wonder why that is? Maybe they're using their employer's "ethics" instead of having an honest discussion?
If watching the ads was required, then it would be false advertising to call it free. False advertising is something a crook does, it isn't even legal. If you simply go their web domain, and it shows the content, and you click on it, and you haven't had to agree to any contract, then any requirement at all that you try to place on me is unethical. You can try to show me an ad, but you can't require it. It is up to the website owner to either restrict their content to subscribers, or not.
I'm not "asking" for anything. They offer the service freely, so I use it in whatever way I want that is within the law. I'm happy to follow the law and not deface their website, harm their property, etc., but that is it. Those are the only restrictions that I would be bound to, and expecting more is an immoral and unethical attempt to hijack my prerogatives.
Simply "offering" a paid subscription does not prevent their freely available version from being freely available. If they want to lock that down, that is their prerogative; but they'll lose a lot of market share.
Same as everything else, market share can go down just as easily as up. They don't have a monopoly on web servers, so any monopoly they have is a "natural" one that would go away as soon as people like it less.
Geocities had lots of market share, AOL had market share, napster had market share, myspace had market share. I'm still using ICQ, it used to be the #1 instant messenger.
You can't be an internet monopoly unless you tolerate ad-blockers, because if you fight them and succeed, it means those users are mostly somewhere else now.
A lot of the non-fiction content that I use youtube for would simply move to other sites.
Youtube is great for the do-it-yourselfer, but these are also people who ad-block. If they force me out, a lot of the content providers I use will also be moving.
the end-game is having to load the ads from the server but not display them.
That is what I said, yes. LOL
But you can't "verify display" you can only verify time lapse, that why the endgame is time-shifting; the blocker waits until the server thinks the ad "displayed" and then records the content; user comes back and just watches content.
If you extrapolate the arms race out, I can see victory being that you time-shift the video while the ad-blocker lets the ad play to/dev/null.
They can't force me to watch the ads, because they can't force me to watch their content. I would give up their content before watching ads, the same way as I don't watch teevee with ads. But as long as they want it to be freely available, they can only temporarily frustrate the ad blockers.
It doesn't matter if the game is finite, because extant finite games have search sizes beyond what could be searched ever.
You only need a finite algorithm, you don't need the game space to be finite.
Like in chess in many positions, you only have to do the search tree for part of the board because of symmetry. There are lots of things that reduce the scope of analysis without reducing the scope of the game.
I think I am, because if I'm wrong it doesn't matter.
This is the most basic existential reality.
"I think therefore I am" is a basic philosophical study because it is a complete failure on its face; there is no way to even prove that you exist, to yourself; and yet, it is trivially easy to prove it well enough to move forwards to more important questions, because if you don't exist then being wrong is neutral. It is only if you exist that the answer matters, so there is only one possible correct provisional answer.
I've programmed bots that presume themselves self-aware; there is no difference between them and a stupid animal with the same number of different thought processes.
I am me; what does it even mean? We (humanity) has no good answer to this. Most religions don't even try, they just punt and tell you what happens after you die. And they can just assert answers! But there isn't even clear questions as to, what does the question even mean? Subjectively, there is clearly "something" going on in the brain that causes this sensation of self. If we figure out the questions and answers of what it is, it will be no trouble at all to simulate in software.
Even the chess "brute force" algorithms were defined by their ability to trim the tree as far back as the 90s. It is by not trying to brute force it that the chess computers got good; but it was still described as a "brute force" system because it is partially so.
The difference between the 50th percentile and the 99th in chess computers is defined almost entirely by the ability to prune the search tree and be less brute force; the better computer is the one doing less brute force. They also follow some lines out ahead of the brute-force part of the search tree.
Go is less complex, but has a very large board and a lot of moves. I doubt the algorithms needed will turn out to be any more difficult than with chess. They're just different algorithms and there aren't a lot of go players in the world so is taking longer. I saw an analysis almost 10 years ago by a chess programmer estimating the man hours put into chess computers and go computers, and he concluded that the Go computers of the time were exactly as strong, relative to the human players, as chess computers were after a similar number of programming hours.
It makes a lot of sense if you think about chess computers; the strongest ones get the most attention, but the ones that sell the most copies are the ones with training features where it can mimic different human styles of play. It can trade a lot of strength to play a certain style, and still be stronger than the humans you're training to play against. In the 90s, the only commercial one with that was Chessmaster, and it wasn't all that good at it. Modern offerings are very good at it, and can play very similar moves to a human.
And for example computer cheaters on internet chess have to be detected statistically these days, a human can't tell the difference very well. There is not a clear difference in the style of play, only in the perfection of play.
In chess the computers definitely helped break down walls about ideas of "bad" moves, and now top level chess play is highly "pragmatic" or unprincipled; victory is in the ability to find the exceptions to ideas that champions of the past considered rules, or at least more clearly good/bad.
Humans have limited hardware, the computer can be upgraded. The human won't catch back up over time. The computer is changeable and controlled by humans, so any blind spot would get fixed over time.
There is no reason to expect this to go differently than with chess computers. Check the timeline; it has been a decade since a human could beat a top computer.
It is like saying that maybe humans will outrun a car after they find the car's speed ceiling. Not likely.
This is just like chess computers, but a decade later because it uses different types of algorithm. As with chess engines, they will now enter a golden age of go computers, and a lot of the people involved will go on to write commercial offerings.
Chess computers were a novelty until they got good, then they became an important training tool for both amateur and professional competitors. A lot of people think they are are were "brute force" because they don't understand the algorithms, and that "brute force" in chess software describes a system that is less than 50% brute force, it simply pretends it is going to brute force when constructing the move tree, and then trims it down. That doesn't work for Go, you have to get all the positional tricks in before constructing a tree. So the algorithms weren't portable at all, and it was expected for Go to remain behind because there were a lot less programming hours being put into it. Now they can study the output of this computer, and compare its moves to algorithms to figure out how to program it so that it can play an arbitrary style; that is a big part of what is needed in training tools; the ability to play in different styles. That is hard to train with DeepMind, but easier to write when you have an objective measure of success like a strong extant computer.
All it would take to get my (completely unknown, not worth linking) indie apps onto their stuff is to open it up so that I don't have to have permission from their dictator just to have access to the tools. Permit access, allow open toolchains, and then if your dictator likes my app you could at least be granted leave to consider it.
An open toolchain would mean that a lot of indies would switch to portable frameworks. But right now there is no benefit; I could write the code that way, but I still can't turn it into an app and load it into a simulator for testing. Why use a portable framework when I can only even compile and test for one platform? Even if I had a friend with an iPhone, I can't just install and test.
I assume that Apple doesn't want me to write apps for their platform, and I naturally agree with people who don't want to do business with me. That is a big part of the point of being an independent; there isn't all that rat race. It is OK if only a few people use something. The goldrush is in silly-apps, it is a mini-bubble like paid ringtones. Over time, there will be many fewer fad apps, from big or small developers, paid or not.
Yeah, but where is apper guy? Gold rush, is there an app for that?
I think the whole idea is funny. "Indie" apps for a walled garden. It is hilarious. Anybody who is a serious independent is writing for open platforms, because those are the places that are welcoming to indies.
Apple fans may have (a very very small percent) been fans since before it was popular, but even those, they have "brand loyalty" to a large brand. The indie mindset isn't really compatible with that. Indie people, producers or consumers, regardless of product type, are people not only willing to try new things from a small source, but they prefer it. So it seems more likely they've never used the big brand than that they are addicted to it in exclusion of everything else the way that apple's walled garden encourages.
There is a golden age of indie apps right under their noses. They run on android, and you can download them (source or apk) from github. And just like indie movies, you don't need permission from the theater to watch it. That is actually what makes it "independent." As a software developer who has written some apps, I already know that you can't be independent and even offer your app for iPhone. You have to join their proprietary blahblah just to ask permission to distribute!
Unfortunately, the beams don't leave the device. You'd have to mail the other end, calibrate it, and then establish the beam. You would never beat a radio to a new location; or even a rocket, since you'll need one.
We work so hard because it's in the best interests of our rulers that we do, because they get to gather the fruits of our labour. That's all there is to it.
Just quit and get a better job. Go back to school or something if you need it.
And own your statements. Use first-person. None of that is universal.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that you guys are both using the word "company" but one of you means "company" and the other means "venture-capital-funded-corporate-start-up."
That is why in the context of a new company, I use the word "small business" to describe the traditional thing.
I like this approach, because the guys like you that are free-loading off of web search or links will have to stay in the cache for the search to keep misleading users to you, and then when I don't see the content I can just add cache:// to the start of the address and view the content on a server that I have better relationship with.
Your plea at the end reminds me of the guys standing on the side of the freeway ramp with a sign, begging for money.
That is one of those things where if they're that crazy or on that many hallucinogens to even do it, then I might very well believe that they thought they were somewhere else, like in a bathroom on a spaceship.
I believe them that it isn't intentional; they do have bugs in their other services. I can understand their point; they don't like ad-blockers or approve of them, and they have no reason to care about the bug.
I think it was polite of them to acknowledge that the unexpected behavior was correlated to some change that they made. If they say it was unintentional I believe them, because if it was on purpose, it would be within their rights, and if they were planning on pushing out this feature they would have no reason to be unclear about it.
Not everybody is worried about everything being "tracked" by the very people offering the thing. ;)
The tracking that most people dislike is where facebook or some advertising company tracks them while they're on a totally different site.
That the website you actually went to knows what you did while you were there? That is not automatically bad. What exactly is your complaint? Did you know that google (owner of youtube) doesn't sell that information?
Logging enables features such as view history, which makes it easy to find and re-watch something. It also lets you click "watch later" and resume at the same place. Also, the "recommended videos" is very useful for some people, depending on what type of content you use.
Funny story... I wandered over to youtube to check if I get the error (didn't get it; ublock origin) and I ended up watching some cat furry videos.
Malware, of course... actually, I'd be impressed if they got some past all my levels of protection.
Malware in ads isn't youtube video ads, it is other stuff. These are simply obnoxious video content that I refuse to consume, not random code that runs on your computer.
The service is either free, or it is not. If they want to call it free, and show ads, they have no claim that viewing the ads are required. They can try to make sure they are displayed, but that is all.
People who really don't understand ethics seem to jump right onto the ad bandwagon, I wonder why that is? Maybe they're using their employer's "ethics" instead of having an honest discussion?
If watching the ads was required, then it would be false advertising to call it free. False advertising is something a crook does, it isn't even legal. If you simply go their web domain, and it shows the content, and you click on it, and you haven't had to agree to any contract, then any requirement at all that you try to place on me is unethical. You can try to show me an ad, but you can't require it. It is up to the website owner to either restrict their content to subscribers, or not.
I'm not "asking" for anything. They offer the service freely, so I use it in whatever way I want that is within the law. I'm happy to follow the law and not deface their website, harm their property, etc., but that is it. Those are the only restrictions that I would be bound to, and expecting more is an immoral and unethical attempt to hijack my prerogatives.
Simply "offering" a paid subscription does not prevent their freely available version from being freely available. If they want to lock that down, that is their prerogative; but they'll lose a lot of market share.
Same as everything else, market share can go down just as easily as up. They don't have a monopoly on web servers, so any monopoly they have is a "natural" one that would go away as soon as people like it less.
Geocities had lots of market share, AOL had market share, napster had market share, myspace had market share. I'm still using ICQ, it used to be the #1 instant messenger.
You can't be an internet monopoly unless you tolerate ad-blockers, because if you fight them and succeed, it means those users are mostly somewhere else now.
If ignorance burned as readily as straw, this world would have been purged of it long ago.
Yeah, just like the straw! Oh, wait...
A lot of the non-fiction content that I use youtube for would simply move to other sites.
Youtube is great for the do-it-yourselfer, but these are also people who ad-block. If they force me out, a lot of the content providers I use will also be moving.
the end-game is having to load the ads from the server but not display them.
That is what I said, yes. LOL
But you can't "verify display" you can only verify time lapse, that why the endgame is time-shifting; the blocker waits until the server thinks the ad "displayed" and then records the content; user comes back and just watches content.
If you extrapolate the arms race out, I can see victory being that you time-shift the video while the ad-blocker lets the ad play to /dev/null.
They can't force me to watch the ads, because they can't force me to watch their content. I would give up their content before watching ads, the same way as I don't watch teevee with ads. But as long as they want it to be freely available, they can only temporarily frustrate the ad blockers.
It doesn't matter if the game is finite, because extant finite games have search sizes beyond what could be searched ever.
You only need a finite algorithm, you don't need the game space to be finite.
Like in chess in many positions, you only have to do the search tree for part of the board because of symmetry. There are lots of things that reduce the scope of analysis without reducing the scope of the game.
I think I am, because if I'm wrong it doesn't matter.
This is the most basic existential reality.
"I think therefore I am" is a basic philosophical study because it is a complete failure on its face; there is no way to even prove that you exist, to yourself; and yet, it is trivially easy to prove it well enough to move forwards to more important questions, because if you don't exist then being wrong is neutral. It is only if you exist that the answer matters, so there is only one possible correct provisional answer.
I've programmed bots that presume themselves self-aware; there is no difference between them and a stupid animal with the same number of different thought processes.
I am me; what does it even mean? We (humanity) has no good answer to this. Most religions don't even try, they just punt and tell you what happens after you die. And they can just assert answers! But there isn't even clear questions as to, what does the question even mean? Subjectively, there is clearly "something" going on in the brain that causes this sensation of self. If we figure out the questions and answers of what it is, it will be no trouble at all to simulate in software.
2 decades ago, you just didn't get the notification because it isn't broadcast on your network segment.
You don't have to incentivize computers. You just tell them what to do and they do it, unquestioningly.
Even the chess "brute force" algorithms were defined by their ability to trim the tree as far back as the 90s. It is by not trying to brute force it that the chess computers got good; but it was still described as a "brute force" system because it is partially so.
The difference between the 50th percentile and the 99th in chess computers is defined almost entirely by the ability to prune the search tree and be less brute force; the better computer is the one doing less brute force. They also follow some lines out ahead of the brute-force part of the search tree.
Go is less complex, but has a very large board and a lot of moves. I doubt the algorithms needed will turn out to be any more difficult than with chess. They're just different algorithms and there aren't a lot of go players in the world so is taking longer. I saw an analysis almost 10 years ago by a chess programmer estimating the man hours put into chess computers and go computers, and he concluded that the Go computers of the time were exactly as strong, relative to the human players, as chess computers were after a similar number of programming hours.
It makes a lot of sense if you think about chess computers; the strongest ones get the most attention, but the ones that sell the most copies are the ones with training features where it can mimic different human styles of play. It can trade a lot of strength to play a certain style, and still be stronger than the humans you're training to play against. In the 90s, the only commercial one with that was Chessmaster, and it wasn't all that good at it. Modern offerings are very good at it, and can play very similar moves to a human.
And for example computer cheaters on internet chess have to be detected statistically these days, a human can't tell the difference very well. There is not a clear difference in the style of play, only in the perfection of play.
In chess the computers definitely helped break down walls about ideas of "bad" moves, and now top level chess play is highly "pragmatic" or unprincipled; victory is in the ability to find the exceptions to ideas that champions of the past considered rules, or at least more clearly good/bad.
Humans have limited hardware, the computer can be upgraded. The human won't catch back up over time. The computer is changeable and controlled by humans, so any blind spot would get fixed over time.
There is no reason to expect this to go differently than with chess computers. Check the timeline; it has been a decade since a human could beat a top computer.
It is like saying that maybe humans will outrun a car after they find the car's speed ceiling. Not likely.
This is just like chess computers, but a decade later because it uses different types of algorithm. As with chess engines, they will now enter a golden age of go computers, and a lot of the people involved will go on to write commercial offerings.
Chess computers were a novelty until they got good, then they became an important training tool for both amateur and professional competitors. A lot of people think they are are were "brute force" because they don't understand the algorithms, and that "brute force" in chess software describes a system that is less than 50% brute force, it simply pretends it is going to brute force when constructing the move tree, and then trims it down. That doesn't work for Go, you have to get all the positional tricks in before constructing a tree. So the algorithms weren't portable at all, and it was expected for Go to remain behind because there were a lot less programming hours being put into it. Now they can study the output of this computer, and compare its moves to algorithms to figure out how to program it so that it can play an arbitrary style; that is a big part of what is needed in training tools; the ability to play in different styles. That is hard to train with DeepMind, but easier to write when you have an objective measure of success like a strong extant computer.
All it would take to get my (completely unknown, not worth linking) indie apps onto their stuff is to open it up so that I don't have to have permission from their dictator just to have access to the tools. Permit access, allow open toolchains, and then if your dictator likes my app you could at least be granted leave to consider it.
An open toolchain would mean that a lot of indies would switch to portable frameworks. But right now there is no benefit; I could write the code that way, but I still can't turn it into an app and load it into a simulator for testing. Why use a portable framework when I can only even compile and test for one platform? Even if I had a friend with an iPhone, I can't just install and test.
I assume that Apple doesn't want me to write apps for their platform, and I naturally agree with people who don't want to do business with me. That is a big part of the point of being an independent; there isn't all that rat race. It is OK if only a few people use something. The goldrush is in silly-apps, it is a mini-bubble like paid ringtones. Over time, there will be many fewer fad apps, from big or small developers, paid or not.
Yeah, but where is apper guy? Gold rush, is there an app for that?
I think the whole idea is funny. "Indie" apps for a walled garden. It is hilarious. Anybody who is a serious independent is writing for open platforms, because those are the places that are welcoming to indies.
Apple fans may have (a very very small percent) been fans since before it was popular, but even those, they have "brand loyalty" to a large brand. The indie mindset isn't really compatible with that. Indie people, producers or consumers, regardless of product type, are people not only willing to try new things from a small source, but they prefer it. So it seems more likely they've never used the big brand than that they are addicted to it in exclusion of everything else the way that apple's walled garden encourages.
There is a golden age of indie apps right under their noses. They run on android, and you can download them (source or apk) from github. And just like indie movies, you don't need permission from the theater to watch it. That is actually what makes it "independent." As a software developer who has written some apps, I already know that you can't be independent and even offer your app for iPhone. You have to join their proprietary blahblah just to ask permission to distribute!
Unfortunately, the beams don't leave the device. You'd have to mail the other end, calibrate it, and then establish the beam. You would never beat a radio to a new location; or even a rocket, since you'll need one.
We work so hard because it's in the best interests of our rulers that we do, because they get to gather the fruits of our labour. That's all there is to it.
Just quit and get a better job. Go back to school or something if you need it.
And own your statements. Use first-person. None of that is universal.
Submarines, they're these machines that float under water.