What happened here is some blowhard bought a car without considering his design needs, and ended up with a car that didn't fit his needs or expectations. If they went ahead and made the car 6" longer and heavier, he may very well have passed over it in favor of something a little bit smaller, and with some trade-offs.
I've got an LED assembly open on my workbench right now, it is from a bus interior (24VDC). All the parts are surface mount. Everything hand soldered. Even now things are done both ways with the same parts.
You should look at the robots used in auto manufacture. They're generally too bulky to reach anywhere a human can't. I recommend a tablet computer and a wireless web cam, so you can see what you're grabbing at. The robots have sensors on their hands, and can lift more than you. Those are their main advantages, not dexterity or flexibility.
The reason you have to take apart X, Y, and Z is only because the design requirements included "rounded," "maximum interior space to vehicle length" and "made of lightweight materials." There is no clear engineering solutions other than make it a giant molded blob that can't be taken apart at all, or make it like an onion. So they make an onion. A blockier shaped car, or one with less interior space to vehicle length, with likely have bolts in more convenient places; to both the human and the robot. The engineers don't make it hard to repair because of a conspiracy. They probably don't even like doing it. They do it meet the design requirements of some models.
Yes, part of the point is that the makers make them hard to repair. Cost of upkeep hurting resale value isn't nearly as important as keeping a strong dealership through repeated expensive repairs. Then lament how the lazy children these days don't know how to keep their car running.
No, that is only "a maker," an example that has always existed. 30 years ago BMW was known as a company that made things hard to repair yourself. It is a thing they do, that they have always done. It has zero value as an example of the thesis, which is "now things are harder."
The reality is the vast majority of car owners can easily install replacement bulbs, including LEDs. And many do.
And I'd like to point out that children now, or then, did not have experience with automobile lighting upgrades, and so there is no way at all to connect lamentations about broken children and auto repair, or to blame automobile conspiracies for the existence of broken children/young people.
Also I'd like to point out that for BWM, (this is opposite for most brands) the high (industry-leading) value loss leaving the lot is actually a key selling point. It means that for a BWM driver to maintain their snob value, they have to trade in for new more often because it has no value (meaning it only has value to commoners) once it is a few years old.
Drop in a LED (or worse: 'realy sheep shinese HID') and have your car impounded because you used replacement parts that weren't part of the original certificate of road-worthiness, and hence you made your car not roadworthy and thus illegal to drive in. Since you were driving at the time the fine officer stopped you...
(that cool headlight set will cost you several thousand dollars and a six months not having access to your car..)
You must be from some small dictatorship somewhere. Man, you have my sympathies.
Meeting people like you makes me really grateful to be an American.
Depends heavily on the car. Ok, in every car I've ever seen it is very possible to replace the bulbs yorself, but some of them are truly very badly designed resulting in lots of work. The best one I've seen so far was a Volvo, where you just unconnect a cable set, pick up a safety pin, and the whole headligh can be taken out from the front side. Super easy.
Most of these people aren't victims of bad design, they're victims of their own poor consumer choices. They don't choose the "ugly" car that has a utilitarian design and everything in the most convenient place, they choose the sleek rounded molded-looking thing, and sure enough, everything has to be carefully molded and put together like an onion to get that shape without using a bunch of heavy metal. So you have to take the bumper off to replace a headlight. It isn't a conspiracy. Different choices are available to the consumer.
"Nothing has changed" either, there were always cars that were harder to fix basic stuff on.
These days it is easy to fix something. Don't be an airhead Millennial. In the old days everything was easily accessed, but a huge amount of knowledge was required to fix anything beyond... what is still user serviceable!;)
I wanted a new fuel filter, it was just as easy as ever. Meaning, not that hard but also a bit of a PITA, and dirty.
When something sounds wrong, I plug a $12 bluetooth adapter into the standardized vehicle data port that all semi-modern vehicles have, and I read the vehicle status and computer reports right from a tablet, sitting in the driver's seat. I don't have to be able to listen for engine knock; the engine has knock sensors and a standardized, open protocol for transferring that information to the user. This isn't the 80s-early 90s when fancy cars with computers required expensive specialized gear that was only sold to mechanics. Everything that is serviceable is more available to the user than ever before in the history of automobiles. Another great thing, there is less to service. Simple things like "serpentine belts" have really reduced the number of things that go wrong.
And if you want to take it to the next level, these days there are open hardware control platforms that you can install to replace the factory computer. Do-it-yourself isn't restricted to repair and accessories anymore.
I'm only 38 and I fix stuff all the time. Most often it only requires pressing buttons, but I've saved my family thousands of dollars in my life so far just on repaired headphones. I see most people buying new headphones every 6 months or a year. A few stripped wires, a little burnt wire coating, tape, tie, done.
If the story is true it is great news. We'll be the first generation of retirees who are better at fixing things than the youngsters. Naw, the next generation will figure it out even if the millennials are airheads.
If you could program a computer with every chess game ever made, and then have it make generalizations from those games so that it was capable of recognizing patterns that occur in other games, being able to recognize potential winning strategies from a given board position, only analyzing a few dozen or so moves in advance during any actual game, just as a chess grandmaster does, and *STILL* be able to beat any human player.... then you'll have something.
Straight assertion with no apparent point. WTF does "have something" mean here? You can't claim the human analyzes only a few dozen things during the game. An fMRI will blow that one up in an instant. (BTW, the chess community already has seen that scan and the analysis and we know the answer, this isn't speculation or opinion) And the computer is aware of exactly 0 calculations. So your only real point is that humans are minimally aware of ourselves and that we have thought processes. Except, we don't understand them ourselves, or have any sensory apparatus that tells us what our brains our doing.
But being wrong about that stuff, out of ignorance, doesn't forgive simply asserting over and over that Grandmasters don't have amazing powers of memory compared to the common man. They simply do. There is a wide distribution of traits, and the vast majority of chess GMs are in the top percentile on memory. A significant percent, probably close to half, of mere "masters" have memory far beyond the capabilities of the average. They already seem as mythical creatures to most non-chess-players who meet them.
Another funny part of all this nonsense is that human grandmasters didn't used to require such excellent memory. They used to be able to use other mental skills alone to be at or near the top. But starting in the 60s with pocket opening books, that changed. And then when the computer databases hit in the late 80s, it changed again; even more. Most of the players in the top 10 in 1985 were not in the top 100 anymore by `95, even where their play had not changed or gotten weaker. The whole equation of what mental skills translate to chess success changed with the advent of large quantities of concrete data that lends itself well to memorization. It was after this revolution in human chess thinking that the programmers started working heavily with strong (IM and GM) chess players to tune the positional evaluation of the chess engines. That is the era, and the human effort, where the ability of the computers passed that of the "typical grandmaster." It wasn't CPU updates that did that, it was years of collaboration between GMs and programmers (who were mostly FMs at this point, stronger than the State Champions in over half of US States, and could therefore understand the GMs) that catapulted the engines to the strong tool they are today.
Interestingly, it is access to the data to memorize that increased the human strength, and access to traditional human algorithms like building trees and trimming the trees early based on identifying "killer lines" that increased the computer strength. It makes perfect sense once you understand that the computers know nothing and are strictly machines that mimic human thought, as understood and programmed by humans.
The computer is not any more aware of the millions of calculations it is doing than the human is. In fact, I'd say the human is aware of a larger number of explicit calculations. I'd also point out, this is obvious.
The computer calculations are "explicit" to the human programmer, sure. But in the same way, a physiologist might consider the entire human process of calculations to be explicit. Then you're stuck with the reality that the human mind is doing a large number of analog calculations, where each calculation is equivalent to whole series of digital calculations. And it is all explicitly happening, a totally physical process inside the human brain. And it actually has very little to do with the subjective human experience.
So you can make the same mistake with the human as with the computer, and it comes out the same. There is no inherent dichotomy between "explicit" thought, as the term is used here, and anything else. The computer is still programmed by humans, and mimics the human understanding of how to evaluate chess positions. Of course it is better, it is just the human processes that contribute to chess evaluation mimicked, with the whole rest of the human processes intentionally omitted. But in the same way, it is no threat to human chess, because the non-chess human features are omitted.
Human players generalize from their experience, they do not explicitly recount every game they have ever played in order to exercise their knowledge from that experience. A grandmaster may only explicitly consider a few hundred actual board combinations, on any given turn.
You're just wrong, and you're clearly outside your expertise. They do explicitly recount all their games, and the games of their chess friends, and the notable historical games, and the notable games in the openings they play. Higher level grandmasters remember games that they studied for a couple days during preparation for a match a decade ago, and will play those lines in future games if the position comes up. If you knew, you'd know this.
A grandmaster doesn't know how many "board positions" his brain actually calculates. Nobody understands the mechanics of their own thinking, including the computer.;) And they don't actually "explicitly consider" hundreds of board positions on a given turn. They explicitly consider many less than that, because of the high-level nature of "explicit" thinking and the low-level nature of most of the pattern matching that their brain is doing. They do often create an explicit search tree and consider a few dozen positions.
Your use of the word "combinations" there is unclear, so I parsed it as being the literary word, and not the chess jargon term. Using the chess jargon meaning of "combination" it would be even more incorrect.
Even just chess "masters," (multiple levels below Grandmaster) explicitly remember most of their games. If you spend more time with higher level chess players you'll realize that they can indeed remember those games. One might say to the other, "hey, remember that game you played in 2006 at the Blah Blah Tournament with the Whatever Gambit opening?" "Oh, yeah, [starts moving the pieces replaying the game] he played the line Grandmaster So-and-so vs Somebody Else, but then he did this crazy thing on move 20..."
Just like the "average" person on slashdot might not fit the average demographic of the general population, so also tournament chess players are substantially... differently-minded than most people. Surprising memorization skills are typical, as is braindead-stupid politics.
They do, though. Grandmasters know tens of thousands of games by memory and on sight.
My friend is a FM (FIDE Master) which is 2 levels below Grandmaster, and he remembers not only all the games he ever played, but also many thousands of games he has studied, and thousands more of other players who were playing in tournaments at the same time.
Computers are even better at this, but the idea that a human can get even to the 90th percentile in chess without memorizing anything is absurd. Very often a player at the 50th percentile will make it past the 60th entirely by memorizing more things.
The computer is doing a subset of the same fundamental things that a human is doing, intellectually. The reason for this is that the computer is programmed by a human. All of the algorithms used in modern chess programs were developed by human software engineers. They were not invented by niche AI researchers using random selection. Modern chess computers are even good at "positional" evaluation. When you have a problem domain like chess where there are clear, fixed rules and easily measurable parameters then anything a human can do can then be programmed into an expert system. Where a computer uses a search tree, there are also chess books that teach humans to use an organized sorted search tree. Even where the human isn't using a formalized system, they are still most likely repeating the same general processes as the computer, because the history of programming chess computers has included chess players in the process from the start. In the beginning the humans were better, and then the algorithms were developed to do similar types of analysis as humans. Then those algorithms were improved and tuned to the specifics of the design of modern computers, leading to the computers being much stronger than the human players.
Just as, humanoid robots start out a lot slower than us, are taught to walk more smoothly like a human, and then are easily able to be made to run much faster than us. Until you mimic the human gait, the engineering is much more difficult. Once you have a "natural" motion, you can just crank the speed up to the limits of the your hardware, and easily tune/upgrade as needed to get higher speeds.
Contrast the BBB with Consumer Reports. Lots of people check the one that's independent of businesses, and few people check the one that's funded by businesses.
I don't think anybody disputes that consumers check Consumer Reports and not the BBB. But a banker doesn't consult Consumer Reports at all when deciding on a business loan; they do check BBB. Also, a poor BBB rating increases the likelihood of fines if you're found to be out of compliance with some other (unrelated) regulation. As a business owner there are lots of reasons to care about the BBB rating, and numerous situations where a bad BBB rating that contains real complaints will screw you. If you are one of the people whose line of work causes you to sometimes read these things, you'll find that most businesses are willing to put significant effort into clearing complaints that can be cleared, and at least disputing ones that can't. If a business doesn't care about their BBB rating, it is a sign they either have captive customers, or aren't planning on being in business long-term. (aka "fly by night")
As a chess player, I just had to stop and laugh this down.
Show me a human grandmaster, (or even a B-class player) who can play without all the knowledge they have remembered.
Show me a human who can consider a problem, and restrict their thinking to only a few hundred connections between different brain cells.
Show me a human who can temporarily forget everything they know and approach problems using only a single class of algorithm.
The only "chess player" who can play the way you'd hobble the computer is somebody playing their first few awful games.
I don't know why people get so hung up over computers being better at humans than chess. Humans are still perfectly good at enjoying chess, and playing chess against other humans. Some people feel threatened or cheated for no reason at all. It is like worrying that an airplane can run faster than a human. Yes, they can. No, it is not a threat to olympic sprinters, or joggers, or walkers.
There is an apparent desire to leave a grievance, but if the company cared what potential customers think, they would include a suggestion box and actively solicit comment. If they went out of their way not to have a contact, it means there is nothing say-able to them; even if you had access.
Choosing where you spend your money is 100% of the choice you have about what business practices to support. Nobody cares what you think, including companies you give your money to. Companies you don't give your money to don't really care about your opinion either.
If they already defrauded you successfully, a BBB report can assist the community, but don't expect the company to feel genuine remorse or to actually change their intent, even if they feel compelled to hire a lawyer and improve their EULA.
The main part many people miss on this one is that the apostrophe simply replaces missing letters most of the time. In the case of indicating ownership, the apostrophe exists because you can't attach a suffix directly to a proper noun. There has to be some sort of punctuation so that you're not mixing somebody's formal name with your own writing; you don't get to choose or rewrite names.
It shouldn't be confusing at all unless you meet a person named It. And then it will only be confusing for hipsters who don't understand capitalization.
Disappointed how far down I had to scroll for this. In the old days, this would have been known by a high percentage of users.
They can say the sensors are "10 years behind" planes that were built 20 years ago. Because those planes were upgraded ~5 years ago, and this one has been in development for 15 years! lolol The known upgrade schedule is the only reason they can give such good numbers for how far "behind" it is. Except that it doesn't take 10 years to install the upgrade, and you don't have to wait 10 years to develop it, either. So in that sense, these new sensors are... days behind!
And when they come into service they'll have the most recent upgrades and be "ahead" of the planes they're accused here of being "behind."
So the story is true, in a meaningless pedantic way, and totally false within the context the planes exist it.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened here is some blowhard bought a car without considering his design needs, and ended up with a car that didn't fit his needs or expectations. If they went ahead and made the car 6" longer and heavier, he may very well have passed over it in favor of something a little bit smaller, and with some trade-offs.
I've got an LED assembly open on my workbench right now, it is from a bus interior (24VDC). All the parts are surface mount. Everything hand soldered. Even now things are done both ways with the same parts.
You should look at the robots used in auto manufacture. They're generally too bulky to reach anywhere a human can't. I recommend a tablet computer and a wireless web cam, so you can see what you're grabbing at. The robots have sensors on their hands, and can lift more than you. Those are their main advantages, not dexterity or flexibility.
The reason you have to take apart X, Y, and Z is only because the design requirements included "rounded," "maximum interior space to vehicle length" and "made of lightweight materials." There is no clear engineering solutions other than make it a giant molded blob that can't be taken apart at all, or make it like an onion. So they make an onion. A blockier shaped car, or one with less interior space to vehicle length, with likely have bolts in more convenient places; to both the human and the robot. The engineers don't make it hard to repair because of a conspiracy. They probably don't even like doing it. They do it meet the design requirements of some models.
Yes, part of the point is that the makers make them hard to repair. Cost of upkeep hurting resale value isn't nearly as important as keeping a strong dealership through repeated expensive repairs. Then lament how the lazy children these days don't know how to keep their car running.
No, that is only "a maker," an example that has always existed. 30 years ago BMW was known as a company that made things hard to repair yourself. It is a thing they do, that they have always done. It has zero value as an example of the thesis, which is "now things are harder."
The reality is the vast majority of car owners can easily install replacement bulbs, including LEDs. And many do.
And I'd like to point out that children now, or then, did not have experience with automobile lighting upgrades, and so there is no way at all to connect lamentations about broken children and auto repair, or to blame automobile conspiracies for the existence of broken children/young people.
Also I'd like to point out that for BWM, (this is opposite for most brands) the high (industry-leading) value loss leaving the lot is actually a key selling point. It means that for a BWM driver to maintain their snob value, they have to trade in for new more often because it has no value (meaning it only has value to commoners) once it is a few years old.
Drop in a LED (or worse: 'realy sheep shinese HID') and have your car impounded because you used replacement parts that weren't part of the original certificate of road-worthiness, and hence you made your car not roadworthy and thus illegal to drive in. Since you were driving at the time the fine officer stopped you...
(that cool headlight set will cost you several thousand dollars and a six months not having access to your car..)
You must be from some small dictatorship somewhere. Man, you have my sympathies.
Meeting people like you makes me really grateful to be an American.
Depends heavily on the car. Ok, in every car I've ever seen it is very possible to replace the bulbs yorself, but some of them are truly very badly designed resulting in lots of work. The best one I've seen so far was a Volvo, where you just unconnect a cable set, pick up a safety pin, and the whole headligh can be taken out from the front side. Super easy.
Most of these people aren't victims of bad design, they're victims of their own poor consumer choices. They don't choose the "ugly" car that has a utilitarian design and everything in the most convenient place, they choose the sleek rounded molded-looking thing, and sure enough, everything has to be carefully molded and put together like an onion to get that shape without using a bunch of heavy metal. So you have to take the bumper off to replace a headlight. It isn't a conspiracy. Different choices are available to the consumer.
"Nothing has changed" either, there were always cars that were harder to fix basic stuff on.
It takes a village...
to raise a village idiot?
What are you trying to say? Did you consider actually saying it? Wake up kiddo, you're sleep-commenting again.
These days it is easy to fix something. Don't be an airhead Millennial. In the old days everything was easily accessed, but a huge amount of knowledge was required to fix anything beyond... what is still user serviceable! ;)
I wanted a new fuel filter, it was just as easy as ever. Meaning, not that hard but also a bit of a PITA, and dirty.
When something sounds wrong, I plug a $12 bluetooth adapter into the standardized vehicle data port that all semi-modern vehicles have, and I read the vehicle status and computer reports right from a tablet, sitting in the driver's seat. I don't have to be able to listen for engine knock; the engine has knock sensors and a standardized, open protocol for transferring that information to the user. This isn't the 80s-early 90s when fancy cars with computers required expensive specialized gear that was only sold to mechanics. Everything that is serviceable is more available to the user than ever before in the history of automobiles. Another great thing, there is less to service. Simple things like "serpentine belts" have really reduced the number of things that go wrong.
And if you want to take it to the next level, these days there are open hardware control platforms that you can install to replace the factory computer. Do-it-yourself isn't restricted to repair and accessories anymore.
I'm only 38 and I fix stuff all the time. Most often it only requires pressing buttons, but I've saved my family thousands of dollars in my life so far just on repaired headphones. I see most people buying new headphones every 6 months or a year. A few stripped wires, a little burnt wire coating, tape, tie, done.
If the story is true it is great news. We'll be the first generation of retirees who are better at fixing things than the youngsters. Naw, the next generation will figure it out even if the millennials are airheads.
If you could program a computer with every chess game ever made, and then have it make generalizations from those games so that it was capable of recognizing patterns that occur in other games, being able to recognize potential winning strategies from a given board position, only analyzing a few dozen or so moves in advance during any actual game, just as a chess grandmaster does, and *STILL* be able to beat any human player.... then you'll have something.
Straight assertion with no apparent point. WTF does "have something" mean here? You can't claim the human analyzes only a few dozen things during the game. An fMRI will blow that one up in an instant. (BTW, the chess community already has seen that scan and the analysis and we know the answer, this isn't speculation or opinion) And the computer is aware of exactly 0 calculations. So your only real point is that humans are minimally aware of ourselves and that we have thought processes. Except, we don't understand them ourselves, or have any sensory apparatus that tells us what our brains our doing.
But being wrong about that stuff, out of ignorance, doesn't forgive simply asserting over and over that Grandmasters don't have amazing powers of memory compared to the common man. They simply do. There is a wide distribution of traits, and the vast majority of chess GMs are in the top percentile on memory. A significant percent, probably close to half, of mere "masters" have memory far beyond the capabilities of the average. They already seem as mythical creatures to most non-chess-players who meet them.
Another funny part of all this nonsense is that human grandmasters didn't used to require such excellent memory. They used to be able to use other mental skills alone to be at or near the top. But starting in the 60s with pocket opening books, that changed. And then when the computer databases hit in the late 80s, it changed again; even more. Most of the players in the top 10 in 1985 were not in the top 100 anymore by `95, even where their play had not changed or gotten weaker. The whole equation of what mental skills translate to chess success changed with the advent of large quantities of concrete data that lends itself well to memorization. It was after this revolution in human chess thinking that the programmers started working heavily with strong (IM and GM) chess players to tune the positional evaluation of the chess engines. That is the era, and the human effort, where the ability of the computers passed that of the "typical grandmaster." It wasn't CPU updates that did that, it was years of collaboration between GMs and programmers (who were mostly FMs at this point, stronger than the State Champions in over half of US States, and could therefore understand the GMs) that catapulted the engines to the strong tool they are today.
Interestingly, it is access to the data to memorize that increased the human strength, and access to traditional human algorithms like building trees and trimming the trees early based on identifying "killer lines" that increased the computer strength. It makes perfect sense once you understand that the computers know nothing and are strictly machines that mimic human thought, as understood and programmed by humans.
You totally massacred the recent research that was in the news, and muddled it together with other random stuff from your past reading. Sorry gramps.
The computer is not any more aware of the millions of calculations it is doing than the human is. In fact, I'd say the human is aware of a larger number of explicit calculations. I'd also point out, this is obvious.
The computer calculations are "explicit" to the human programmer, sure. But in the same way, a physiologist might consider the entire human process of calculations to be explicit. Then you're stuck with the reality that the human mind is doing a large number of analog calculations, where each calculation is equivalent to whole series of digital calculations. And it is all explicitly happening, a totally physical process inside the human brain. And it actually has very little to do with the subjective human experience.
So you can make the same mistake with the human as with the computer, and it comes out the same. There is no inherent dichotomy between "explicit" thought, as the term is used here, and anything else. The computer is still programmed by humans, and mimics the human understanding of how to evaluate chess positions. Of course it is better, it is just the human processes that contribute to chess evaluation mimicked, with the whole rest of the human processes intentionally omitted. But in the same way, it is no threat to human chess, because the non-chess human features are omitted.
Human players generalize from their experience, they do not explicitly recount every game they have ever played in order to exercise their knowledge from that experience. A grandmaster may only explicitly consider a few hundred actual board combinations, on any given turn.
You're just wrong, and you're clearly outside your expertise. They do explicitly recount all their games, and the games of their chess friends, and the notable historical games, and the notable games in the openings they play. Higher level grandmasters remember games that they studied for a couple days during preparation for a match a decade ago, and will play those lines in future games if the position comes up. If you knew, you'd know this.
A grandmaster doesn't know how many "board positions" his brain actually calculates. Nobody understands the mechanics of their own thinking, including the computer. ;) And they don't actually "explicitly consider" hundreds of board positions on a given turn. They explicitly consider many less than that, because of the high-level nature of "explicit" thinking and the low-level nature of most of the pattern matching that their brain is doing. They do often create an explicit search tree and consider a few dozen positions.
Your use of the word "combinations" there is unclear, so I parsed it as being the literary word, and not the chess jargon term. Using the chess jargon meaning of "combination" it would be even more incorrect.
Even just chess "masters," (multiple levels below Grandmaster) explicitly remember most of their games. If you spend more time with higher level chess players you'll realize that they can indeed remember those games. One might say to the other, "hey, remember that game you played in 2006 at the Blah Blah Tournament with the Whatever Gambit opening?" "Oh, yeah, [starts moving the pieces replaying the game] he played the line Grandmaster So-and-so vs Somebody Else, but then he did this crazy thing on move 20..."
Just like the "average" person on slashdot might not fit the average demographic of the general population, so also tournament chess players are substantially... differently-minded than most people. Surprising memorization skills are typical, as is braindead-stupid politics.
They do, though. Grandmasters know tens of thousands of games by memory and on sight.
My friend is a FM (FIDE Master) which is 2 levels below Grandmaster, and he remembers not only all the games he ever played, but also many thousands of games he has studied, and thousands more of other players who were playing in tournaments at the same time.
Computers are even better at this, but the idea that a human can get even to the 90th percentile in chess without memorizing anything is absurd. Very often a player at the 50th percentile will make it past the 60th entirely by memorizing more things.
The computer is doing a subset of the same fundamental things that a human is doing, intellectually. The reason for this is that the computer is programmed by a human. All of the algorithms used in modern chess programs were developed by human software engineers. They were not invented by niche AI researchers using random selection. Modern chess computers are even good at "positional" evaluation. When you have a problem domain like chess where there are clear, fixed rules and easily measurable parameters then anything a human can do can then be programmed into an expert system. Where a computer uses a search tree, there are also chess books that teach humans to use an organized sorted search tree. Even where the human isn't using a formalized system, they are still most likely repeating the same general processes as the computer, because the history of programming chess computers has included chess players in the process from the start. In the beginning the humans were better, and then the algorithms were developed to do similar types of analysis as humans. Then those algorithms were improved and tuned to the specifics of the design of modern computers, leading to the computers being much stronger than the human players.
Just as, humanoid robots start out a lot slower than us, are taught to walk more smoothly like a human, and then are easily able to be made to run much faster than us. Until you mimic the human gait, the engineering is much more difficult. Once you have a "natural" motion, you can just crank the speed up to the limits of the your hardware, and easily tune/upgrade as needed to get higher speeds.
Contrast the BBB with Consumer Reports. Lots of people check the one that's independent of businesses, and few people check the one that's funded by businesses.
I don't think anybody disputes that consumers check Consumer Reports and not the BBB. But a banker doesn't consult Consumer Reports at all when deciding on a business loan; they do check BBB. Also, a poor BBB rating increases the likelihood of fines if you're found to be out of compliance with some other (unrelated) regulation. As a business owner there are lots of reasons to care about the BBB rating, and numerous situations where a bad BBB rating that contains real complaints will screw you. If you are one of the people whose line of work causes you to sometimes read these things, you'll find that most businesses are willing to put significant effort into clearing complaints that can be cleared, and at least disputing ones that can't. If a business doesn't care about their BBB rating, it is a sign they either have captive customers, or aren't planning on being in business long-term. (aka "fly by night")
As a chess player, I just had to stop and laugh this down.
Show me a human grandmaster, (or even a B-class player) who can play without all the knowledge they have remembered.
Show me a human who can consider a problem, and restrict their thinking to only a few hundred connections between different brain cells.
Show me a human who can temporarily forget everything they know and approach problems using only a single class of algorithm.
The only "chess player" who can play the way you'd hobble the computer is somebody playing their first few awful games.
I don't know why people get so hung up over computers being better at humans than chess. Humans are still perfectly good at enjoying chess, and playing chess against other humans. Some people feel threatened or cheated for no reason at all. It is like worrying that an airplane can run faster than a human. Yes, they can. No, it is not a threat to olympic sprinters, or joggers, or walkers.
A belief existing is not a convincing argument that it is correct, or even that it is widespread. Doesn't the tinfoil chafe?
By the way, nobody pays attention to BBB ratings when shopping on-line (or anywhere else)
It can influence new business credit, and investment value. It is actually a big deal. It is certainly true that customers rarely check it.
Actually, that is a lot that you can do.
There is an apparent desire to leave a grievance, but if the company cared what potential customers think, they would include a suggestion box and actively solicit comment. If they went out of their way not to have a contact, it means there is nothing say-able to them; even if you had access.
Choosing where you spend your money is 100% of the choice you have about what business practices to support. Nobody cares what you think, including companies you give your money to. Companies you don't give your money to don't really care about your opinion either.
If they already defrauded you successfully, a BBB report can assist the community, but don't expect the company to feel genuine remorse or to actually change their intent, even if they feel compelled to hire a lawyer and improve their EULA.
The main part many people miss on this one is that the apostrophe simply replaces missing letters most of the time. In the case of indicating ownership, the apostrophe exists because you can't attach a suffix directly to a proper noun. There has to be some sort of punctuation so that you're not mixing somebody's formal name with your own writing; you don't get to choose or rewrite names.
It shouldn't be confusing at all unless you meet a person named It. And then it will only be confusing for hipsters who don't understand capitalization.
It's not the Cold War anymore.
Yeah. About that... you might want to check a news site at least once a year.
Tell that to the others that replied with far more information and obviously a far better understanding.
lol and you managed to say even less. But I couldn't let that stand.
Why aren't weapon systems modular allowing for easy upgrade?
They are, you just didn't understand that the story is crap and wasn't trying to inform you.
Disappointed how far down I had to scroll for this. In the old days, this would have been known by a high percentage of users.
They can say the sensors are "10 years behind" planes that were built 20 years ago. Because those planes were upgraded ~5 years ago, and this one has been in development for 15 years! lolol The known upgrade schedule is the only reason they can give such good numbers for how far "behind" it is. Except that it doesn't take 10 years to install the upgrade, and you don't have to wait 10 years to develop it, either. So in that sense, these new sensors are... days behind!
And when they come into service they'll have the most recent upgrades and be "ahead" of the planes they're accused here of being "behind."
So the story is true, in a meaningless pedantic way, and totally false within the context the planes exist it.
Timmy never even heard of an internet-connected home before, that's why he fell for it.
You'll have to be more specific. Who's 12? Kim Jong Un, Sony, DHS, the hackers?
We're on the brink of war over a stoner-fart-joke movie. I think it is safe to say "at least half of them" are 12.