Of course that would be unreasonable, but that's how the attorney general gets to prescribe your actual sentence through a plea deal. We'll drop the crazy charges and you'll serve one year or we go to court and try to nail you for ten, what'll it be? It's a huge risk to fight the charges even if you're innocent, if you're objectively guilty and take it to court for a lesser sentence your legal team had better be miracle workers. In most cases a jury will end up much closer to the legal maximum than the plea deal because they feel like slam dunking criminals. Remember this case?
Is this surprising to non-biologists? Cells are like machines made of chemicals. You can run electrical current through a dead frog to make its leg jump... until it finishes breaking down. Doesn't mean you could 'repair' the frog back to life.
But is the machine broken or is it stopped? How much of us survive death, for example I have a bunch of memories chemically stored in my brain. Could you read them from my dead brain? Can you read out my neural patterns and build a machine that thinks like me? Basically, how much of "me" actually dies when the synapses stop firing? And yes, technically what would it take to "reboot" me like am I the running state of the machine or can "I" mostly reboot like I've been in a deep coma? These questions are still very much unanswered.
The crane to do that would have to be massive. They already have a solution though, it's a giant Roomba that goes under the center of the rocket and clamps on like a giant weight like this, the problem is it's not yet compatible with the Falcon Heavy center. If the weather had been better they could have welded it to the deck, that's what they did before but maybe the conditions were too rough for that. Either way once they adapt the clamps this won't happen again.
I'm not really buying it because all shows have die hard fans that absolutely must know what happens next, it would be taunting paying customers to pirate from torrents. If you've done it once, the threshold to do it again is much lower because you've installed the torrent client, found the pirate site, taken the risk of a copyright strike and convinced yourself it's acceptable. I can kinda see it with music because it's so cheap and the volume so vast it's about who makes noise. But broadcast production quality TV shows cost too much to simply hand them out like free candy and hope people buy more, even the low budget crappy ones.
And every time, they'd say, "oops. That was accidental. We'll fix it in the next push in 2 weeks." Over and over. (...) There were dozens of oopses. Hundreds maybe? I'm all for "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence" but I don't believe Google is that incompetent.
Well, between accidents and malice there's indifference, like we're not actively planting booby traps for Firefox but we're also not doing compatibility or performance testing, we're not assigning the bugs a high priority... I have some such low-priority issues in my backlog that keep getting pushed back and back and back. It's technically not shelved, it just seems unlikely we'll ever get around to fixing it. And it certainly doesn't have the priority to do anything proactive. It's not very hard to understand the corporate priorities...
Fuel is a small part of the cost of a launch. The maximum payload is only reduced if you want the cost saving of reusability. And one can reserve recycled boosters near the end of their useful life for higher payload missions.
Currently fuel is about 0.4% of the cost for a Falcon 9 flight, not sure about the Falcon Heavy but definitively <1%. The extra fuel for landing is probably 0.1% or something like that, it's a rounding error. Of course the whole recovery operation (legs, fins, drone ship, inspection etc.) costs more, but if you're not payload limited and it has useful life left it's a no-brainer. If you run out of end-of-life boosters and the economics heavily favors reuse you can always go one size up, if SpaceX would rather take 27 engines for a spin than lose 9 they can simply price a reusable FH lower than an expendable F9. And when BFR comes online an expendable FH flight becomes a reusable BFR flight. Assuming it works as well as intended, they've flown the same booster three times now and the NASA abort demo will supposedly be the fourth (and final, as it will be destroyed) but it's still a way off from the 10-100 times Musk was talking about.
The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers. I'd be willing to say that it's orders of magnitude bigger than the difference between reusable and non-reusable rockets.
It depends on how much driving is about being smart and how much it is about being consistent. While I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass I really can't think of many situations where some extraordinary foresight on my part prevented a crash. But I know many situations where I fucked up and could have caused a collision and a few where I did. Some 87% of the adult population had a driver's license at its peak and the reminder mostly felt it was too expensive or hadn't gotten around to it, something like 5% claimed health reasons (7% of those without a license, who was 75% of the questioned group). Of those, many would be vision problems, epilepsy or some other non-IQ conditions that made them unfit to drive. The TL;DR version: Unless you're really mentally challenged you're capable of driving a car.
Then you have the fact that a machine is never drunk, high, tired, angry, lost in thought, distracted, in a hurry, showing off etc. and it's got 360 degree vision with LIDAR and IR and whatnot. It's not going to rear end anyone because it doesn't pay attention or any of the other stupid stuff that's caused basically every collision I've got some personal knowledge of. I'm sure that being a machine it'll have its own set of problems but it's already a better driver in many, many ways. So it's not so much that it needs to beat humans further, they have to tighten the defense where people can say "anybody could see that" because sometimes a computer program can't.
Most sites provide their file hashes over HTTPS. If I'm going to verify the file on my end anyway
Well to my knowledge there's no standard way to do this. Like if you could have an <a href="http://my.plain.download" sha-256="e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855"> this would be fine, simply fail if it doesn't verify. But if you're expecting the average user to verify security certificates etc. then 99.9% of them won't do that.
Almost assuredly the vast majority of users of Linux OS cannot and do not ever maintain the kernel and are not capable of doing so. What good are sticks and dry grass if one doesn't know how to employ them to make fire? Just because you CAN make fire doesn't mean the person who needs it knows how and in many cases they may not fucking care how to make it. They just want to be warm. That is what a lot of open source advocates can't seem to grasp.
Most people only do a few things themselves, the question is whether you have a choice of venue. They don't repair their own car, but they care if they can take it to a third party mechanic or if you need first party service and first party parts and it runs on first party gas. There's a helluva lot of people in the server space that has figured this out. The problem is more that of cost distribution, if you download it for free 99%+ will only generate bug reports, feature requests, requests for documentation/explanation/assistance and whatnot. If you try to charge them for support up front almost nobody would sign up. If you start charging them professional developer rates + overhead that's disproportional to what they get for a COTS license. And that's why they feel they can't actually go anywhere else anyway, because they're not a big enough fish.
Imagine you have a stream of bugs/feature requests. First you have to triage and make sure it's well defined, then make an estimate. Then you have to ask for money to fix it and usually they'll say no or haggle. Already here you've probably wasted enough time that any fix is >$100 just to break even. Then you have to actually write the code and tests/documentation, get it reviewed/merged and then you got billing disputes and paying taxes and... there's a reason open source projects prefer a tip jar, even if they don't get much it's not worth chasing contracts/bug bounties that only give beer money. But a tip jar isn't really freedom, it's just putting money in a lottery machine hoping they'll take care of your pet problem.
Meanwhile COTS companies take all those $20 licenses by the thousands and get developers to fix the common problems and things that are just clunky and generate a lot of noise. You're paying into a pool where a lot of things have been fixed and are being fixed, even though they might never get around to your issue. Yes that sucks sometimes but the average person just isn't ready to pay the hundreds if not thousands to dollars to get someone to look at this issue and fix it because you're the one who want it fixed. I write custom software for work, I know my own paycheck and there's very little I personally would want fixed that badly.
Presumably these numbers are best cases - young'uns' eyes?
The short version is that if you see 20/20 without glasses/contact lenses you don't need them, but many people have better vision than that when they're young or they can get better than 20/20 with glasses/contact lenses. Often the problem when you get older is the ability to focus, not the actual sharpness if you wear the right glasses but of course people lose visual acuity to some some degree. So as a video standard you should aim higher than 20/20, at least 20/16. It's up to your purpose, are you looking for video that there's no reason to record resolution for anyone or is most people happy. Because most people have been happy a long time...
Locke2005s statement is in between those numbers, so he's not exactly right or wrong, but it's not bullshit at all.
Counting that way is wonky because we have a very small, high density area in the center of our vision and much lower in the rest. The standard measure of visual acuity (20/20) is resolving one arc minute (1/60th of a degree) of resolution. If you sit really close to the screen you get a ~50 degrees field of view so 3000 pixel horizontal resolution. But we know some people have down to 20/8 vision, so for them 3000*20/8 = 7500 pixel resolution.
However if you're viewing parallel lines you can get a kind of hyper-acuity called Vernier acuity that even in untrained people go down to 10 arc seconds and 2-3 arc seconds with training. Now 2 arc seconds (1/3600 of a degree) * 50 degrees = 90K, obviously we don't have that many photo receptors but if you want to make a screen of uniform density that's where you're at. It's pretty much irrelevant for viewing normal content though.
With all that said, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone claiming a razor sharp 4K movie is fuzzy, unless you're staring at a Snellen chart the main reason they want to go beyond 4K is to be able to crop and re-frame in post. There's lots of other things like dynamic range, color space, color fidelity, frame rate etc. you should work on before going beyond 4K as an end point. Probably the biggest thing is if they can finally manage to make CMOS sensors work with global shutter - that is to say, reading out all the pixels at once instead of line by line, which creates all kinds of distortions when things are in rapid motion.
They're basically making a display out of tiny but normal LEDs. As they said -- very bright, and infinite contrast. But mostly only useful for commercial displays due to the limited density.
For now, Samsung has shown a 75 inch UHD prototype so it's not impossible to make them small - just hard and expensive. I wouldn't mind lower density if they can get production cost down though, I'd rather have a TV with half the density and twice the size. Like 150" with 4x1080p pixels. The good thing about MicroLED is that price will scale linearly with size, so I'm guessing a bunch of sheikhs will order a 225" TVs because it's "only" 9x the price of the 75" TV. Though we don't know the base price for the 75" version yet, it's supposed to come this year though.
"As minors by law, children do not have autonomy or the right to make decisions on their own for themselves in any known jurisdiction of the world." That means the state can step in for the parents (same as CPS can take a child away) and decide what rights the child does or does not have,
Children have tons of rights that don't involve autonomy like protection from abuse and neglect. Those protections don't get any less if CPS takes over the parental responsibilities. If you want to go outside the authority granted by parenthood, then it's that authority like criminal law that sets the rules. An armed robber can be put in jail whether he's 15yo or 20yo, that's fine. But a parent can't put a 15yo in jail. Neither can the state as acting parents. It is okay for me as a parent to strap this bracelet to my child's leg and potentially listen to all their conversations? If yes, then "he's a minor" is valid defense. If no, then "he's a suspect in a serious crime released on bail on these terms" could also be a fair defense, but then it's not related to being a minor or not.
Basically this is the difference between being grounded and put in jail. Your parents can ground you and you don't have the right to a fair and impartial trial where your guilty must be proven beyond and reasonable doubt. You don't get the presumption of innocence, there's no democratically elected law, no rules of evidence, no lawyer or the right to an appeal, in short if your parents say you're grounded that's it. On the upside, they can't do anything that's considered child abuse. Well legally they can't, anyway. Whereas criminal law can do anything short of cruel and unusual punishment, but they have to play by all the rules. It's not an either-or, it's both and even though the government sometimes play both roles they're bound to one at the time.
An undistorted market is one where everybody pays for all the damage/polution etc they're causing. In cars, Norway is probably the best example, and guess which manufacturer does very well there.
Just to set the record straight, Norway's high car prices was because it has historically been taxed as a luxury particular focusing on grand, high horsepower vehicles but hitting all personal vehicles hard. How it managed to stay that way despite the car becoming a commodity without a political rebellion is its own topic, but there it is. The focus on environmentalism, fuel consumption and emissions is a recent flex in the last decade. Basically, pretty much all our "subsidies" is that electric vehicles got omitted from the draconian taxes ICE cars pay. Which is all about the money, now that EVs are taking over they want to raise taxes again because it leaves a giant gap in the budget. The taxes have never been about paying for what ICE cars cost, they're just a cash cow for the welfare state.
Opening a bank account, obtaining a license and using public transportation are not constitutionally enumerated rights. The constitution is very very sparse on the specifics of many different things.. but unencumbered access to the ballot box _is_
Actually, the right to vote is nowhere in the original constitution. There's only amendments that say you can't discriminate on race (15th), sex (19th), age >18 (26th) and taxes to vote in federal elections (24th). Many other forms of discrimination is prohibited in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that MLK fought for but that's just regular law. So if you want to say take away the voting rights of felons they're neither protected nor exempted in the constitution. All it takes is a regular law to say felons can't vote and then they can't vote. On the same basis voter ID laws have generally been upheld.
But the study also shows UBI doesn't make people stop working. This, IMHO, is the most important result of this study because it removes one of the biggest objections to UBI.
Honestly, I think this comparison is a sham until you agree to provide for them for life. I mean I could do things for one or three or five or ten years. But if that'd totally fuck my chances of ever getting back in a job as an old geezer with a ten year gap in his CV, well... I'd not do it. Until you say it's a gravy train all the way in, no need to actually do something I'll consider it a temporary reprieve. You got though the basic messaging, but as data it's junk.
Also, with most games now just online multiplayer with a few maps, development becomes much more simple. No need for AI when you have other humans to fill the niche.
Except all the tweaking as players constantly find new ways to exploit your game mechanics, flaws in your maps etc. in ways that weren't intended but still don't really qualify as cheating or exploiting bugs. Keeping a competitive multiplayer balanced is certainly not a fire-and-forget thing.
Sounds like you had a bad beat. I think gaming is even worse though because most businesses need some kind of continuity in customers, solutions and business relationships that very few gaming companies do. If your game is shit on release day you very quickly lose users and never get them back. Or you have people who grin and bear it but it's not really helping if you fix it three or six months down the line. If it's a success you'll have lots of users who's never played any of your games before. It's a constant gamble that almost always end in an insane crunch followed by uncertainty of whether they're making another game.
That said, I'm not that surprised at the passing of Telltale though maybe I believed it was just me. I loved Sam & Max (2006-2010), Tales of Monkey Island (2009) and Back to the Future (2010) kinda fit the zany humor too. The Walking Dead: Season One (2012) was a mix of adventure walking around and interactive cinematic fighting zombies, it needed that urgency of "act or die". Season two (2013-2014) was epic. But then they went overboard on the interactive movie thing, it's like the whole thing was just a game to press up, down, left, right, Q, E as the story played start to end and the Hollywood IP started to take over making a compelling story. It became a lame version of being at the cinema, I bought the final two seasons of TWD but they were both let downs I was just invested in the characters.
Fortunately they did manage to pull off a skeleton crew to close it out, but damn was the ending disappointing... MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD I mean it's a post-apocalyptic zombie universe where people die constantly. They'd previously announced, before the closure that this would be TWD: The final season. So I expected this to go off in like wildly different directions where Clementine would sacrifice herself for something, but for what was unclear. Instead we got a "and they lived happily ever after" ending where both Clem and AJ survive and only minor side characters die that was totally unrealistic. If you're bitten you have to amputate immediately and fighting so long and being so pale she'd die from the shock and blood loss of a major amputation anyway. It was supposed to be miraculous, it was just silly.
Could you elaborate how a generic targeting algorithm can "discriminate".
A generic ad optimization algorithm will create a bunch of proxy variables that effectively work like the non-discriminating factor, even if it's explicitly denied access to that variable. It's actually a lot harder to avoid than to do, basically treat every time you show an ad like an experiment. If you click the ad it counts for every property about you, if you don't click the ad it counts against every property about you. So you say it's not to discriminate on sex, the algorithm doesn't get your gender. But it'll pretty soon figure out whether people who are fans of Justin Bieber and a million other gender-skewed metrics respond to your ad or not.
It's absolutely feasible to build an algorithm that tries to find relevant candidates while respecting an imposed equality, for example that they draw from separate pools so you must have half male and half female ad impressions. But it gets pretty hard when you want for example a jobs ad that doesn't discriminate on ethnicity, like if the population is 50-30-15-5 percent something you want a 50-30-15-5 percent distribution. It gets really hard if you don't want to discriminate on religion, sexual orientation, political stance or something else where you don't actually have the underlying data but you're pretty sure your proxy variables are effectively filtering on that anyway.
If you're going to reply with "how's an algorithm that's only preserving the status quo or amplifying a feedback loop that's already there discriminatory" well if it was up to an algorithm an all-white school would stay all-white. After all there's never been a black person attending this school, so there's no reason to try to make a black kid apply. It's a feedback loop that'll keep bashing those unlikely to succeed because they're unlikely to succeed, even if they as individuals are doing everything they can. If you're constantly going to measured against what people "like you" do you'll never truly be in charge of your own destiny, which is kinda the essence of the American dream.
The west is dying (...) After spending trillions from our coffers and millions of lives to fight tyranny in the 20th century, we have become our own worst enemy.
Uhh... the west both started and ended WW1 and WW2. The suffragettes and civil rights movement fought harder, but they also had a lot more to fight against. It's possible that we've become soft and complacent, but it's because most the heavy battles were won. Obama was POTUS. I doubt it'd make much fuss if Hillary became president as a woman or Sanders as a Jew. Even in anti-immigration parties race theories are mostly dead. I'm not going to sugarcoat it and say everything's perfect, but most of us in the west live as individuals and treat others as individuals. We'd like to decompose cultural identity into values that we think are universal and the rest is simply individual preference, like nobody cares if you eat sushi and listen to k-pop instead of "our" food and music.
This clashes with many other cultures where collective ideas of family, clan/tribe/caste, ethnicity and religion still dominate their mindset. Values that often come before those we consider universal, like arranged marriages or honor killings because you've brought shame on the family. Many gangs are ethnically centered, us against them. Religious shaming and policing of those who try to break away. It's like cultural or institutional problems don't exist, just a preponderance of individual problems even though they're happy to talk about toxic subcultures everywhere except in minorities. There's lots of racism, sexism, hostility against alternative sexual orientations and a lot of it is culturally accepted. You have entire countries where it's law, not just some shady little district of a backwards village.
But the thing is, I don't want to resurrect our collectivism and fight fire with fire, Christians against Muslims. Nationalism against globalism. I don't want my nation to be a mono-culture where we all fit the same mold and accuse everyone else trying to take part of cultural appropriation. Culture is organic and it changes, both in taking new impulses from the world and giving those impulses to others. It's just that there's a difference between organic change and what's essentially a cultural transplant. I don't want a piece of the Middle East transported here, many of them reject us and establish parallel cultures. And no, I don't want to engage in cultural appeasement to people who pack their women away in tents and think ours are sluts and whores.
That's why snaps are being pushed. They don't break your system. They are self contained containers that just get replaced. Like docker upgrades for apps. I personally think it's a waste, but I get the appeal.
Snaps are pretty much just static linking reinvented. One blob that is your software, replaced by a new blob. Don't get me wrong it's nice that there's a format that works across distros but I find it strange that this hasn't been solved through some kind of wrapper scripts that turns it into "trivial" native packages with no dependencies and all the files in a private folder. So like snap, but without actually having alien packages with different update mechanisms. Oh well...
The user will be alerted that a new feature update is available every now and then, but at no point will the user be forced to install that update, as long as the version of Windows 10 they're currently running is still in support.
Well they support new versions for 18 months. In practice this means you can skip one update since you'd have to from last day of support to a brand new version to skip two. When we know how many are/were perfectly happy with 10 year old XP/Win7 releases it's Microsoft moving ten steps forward and one step back. There's nothing so drastically changing about an OS these days that you need new versions every year.
I must admit that "convergence" devices has gained a whole lot less steam than I thought. Though I think a lot of these hurdles aren't really inherent but coming from different hardware (ARM vs x86), different operating systems (Android vs Windows), different control paradigms (touch vs keyboard/mouse), different degree of openness (store vs user installed) and the deals on offer have been severely compromised on their non-native side. Besides smartphones have been a tsunami that put 95% focus on catching that wave and 5% on the rest. Now though that the market has stabilized at 1.5 billion units and maybe even will go into a decline as people find their phones are already working pretty good, I expect the focus will come back to the desktop. At least the casual, non-enterprise non-gaming use of desktops.
I mean a modern smartphone has enough oomph to run a basic desktop, like you know the office computers with 1 GHz CPU and 1 GB RAM from long ago. It just have to be able to do it without some crazy emulation/special solution. It should be that you plug your phone into a dock and you have a real working mini-computer that doesn't behave differently from a weak NUC. It should be able to handle a USB-C hub with your keyboard, mouse, screen, headset, printer etc. like it's an actual desktop computer. Microsoft went there but flunked out of the mobile market. Google has never really wanted to properly merge Android and Chromebooks. But I think Apple might be on the way to merge it into one OS with different peripherals.
I'm pretty sure that if traffic was all cars we'd have self-driving cars by now, for the simple reason that cars are bound by traffic rules. If it's an intersection and you're running a red light there's not much doubt who's at fault. If the rules are too ambiguous we can always make them clearer until say a lane merger is properly described and you can put a car's behavior into "at fault" or "not at fault". Right now we're trying to work backwards from "do not crash" into behavior that won't ever cause a crash and that's probably not happening, if you're a dick it's not hard to get other cars in trouble in ways that today would be considered a joint fault. And if you're trying to be a dick like speed matching a car overtaking you close to 100% at fault. We're going to have to describe correct behavior better and then deal with the rest in court.
If I tell someone "machine me a piece of bar stock to.00001 inch precision" and they deliver something hacked with a file to.1 inch precision and they tell me it's good enough, that's shit for brains.
I see this as a variation of the Scotty factor for time estimates, where they're used to most requirements being bullshit that somebody set early and padded once because the design might work with 0.1 inches but let's get 0.01 inches because it's a long and formal process that'll be hell to change both in terms of time and money later and because they have a reputation for over-promising and under-delivering let's order 0.0001 inches so we're on the safe side.
On the other side they know how much bullshit is added and try to deliver some cheap junk that's more in line with the price being paid. Then you fix the things the client screams the loudest about until attrition kicks in and you can close out with a shoddy result because they're in too deep to declare the project a failure and scrap it. I've seen a lot of projects that were near-train wrecks be declared a success because they did just enough to clear the 1.0 hurdle with a huge backlog of cut features, manual processes and lacking tools/documentation. And I don't necessarily mean outsourcing...
Slashdot Mirror
Of course that would be unreasonable, but that's how the attorney general gets to prescribe your actual sentence through a plea deal. We'll drop the crazy charges and you'll serve one year or we go to court and try to nail you for ten, what'll it be? It's a huge risk to fight the charges even if you're innocent, if you're objectively guilty and take it to court for a lesser sentence your legal team had better be miracle workers. In most cases a jury will end up much closer to the legal maximum than the plea deal because they feel like slam dunking criminals. Remember this case?
Is this surprising to non-biologists? Cells are like machines made of chemicals. You can run electrical current through a dead frog to make its leg jump... until it finishes breaking down. Doesn't mean you could 'repair' the frog back to life.
But is the machine broken or is it stopped? How much of us survive death, for example I have a bunch of memories chemically stored in my brain. Could you read them from my dead brain? Can you read out my neural patterns and build a machine that thinks like me? Basically, how much of "me" actually dies when the synapses stop firing? And yes, technically what would it take to "reboot" me like am I the running state of the machine or can "I" mostly reboot like I've been in a deep coma? These questions are still very much unanswered.
The crane to do that would have to be massive. They already have a solution though, it's a giant Roomba that goes under the center of the rocket and clamps on like a giant weight like this, the problem is it's not yet compatible with the Falcon Heavy center. If the weather had been better they could have welded it to the deck, that's what they did before but maybe the conditions were too rough for that. Either way once they adapt the clamps this won't happen again.
I'm not really buying it because all shows have die hard fans that absolutely must know what happens next, it would be taunting paying customers to pirate from torrents. If you've done it once, the threshold to do it again is much lower because you've installed the torrent client, found the pirate site, taken the risk of a copyright strike and convinced yourself it's acceptable. I can kinda see it with music because it's so cheap and the volume so vast it's about who makes noise. But broadcast production quality TV shows cost too much to simply hand them out like free candy and hope people buy more, even the low budget crappy ones.
And every time, they'd say, "oops. That was accidental. We'll fix it in the next push in 2 weeks." Over and over. (...) There were dozens of oopses. Hundreds maybe? I'm all for "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence" but I don't believe Google is that incompetent.
Well, between accidents and malice there's indifference, like we're not actively planting booby traps for Firefox but we're also not doing compatibility or performance testing, we're not assigning the bugs a high priority... I have some such low-priority issues in my backlog that keep getting pushed back and back and back. It's technically not shelved, it just seems unlikely we'll ever get around to fixing it. And it certainly doesn't have the priority to do anything proactive. It's not very hard to understand the corporate priorities...
Fuel is a small part of the cost of a launch. The maximum payload is only reduced if you want the cost saving of reusability. And one can reserve recycled boosters near the end of their useful life for higher payload missions.
Currently fuel is about 0.4% of the cost for a Falcon 9 flight, not sure about the Falcon Heavy but definitively <1%. The extra fuel for landing is probably 0.1% or something like that, it's a rounding error. Of course the whole recovery operation (legs, fins, drone ship, inspection etc.) costs more, but if you're not payload limited and it has useful life left it's a no-brainer. If you run out of end-of-life boosters and the economics heavily favors reuse you can always go one size up, if SpaceX would rather take 27 engines for a spin than lose 9 they can simply price a reusable FH lower than an expendable F9. And when BFR comes online an expendable FH flight becomes a reusable BFR flight. Assuming it works as well as intended, they've flown the same booster three times now and the NASA abort demo will supposedly be the fourth (and final, as it will be destroyed) but it's still a way off from the 10-100 times Musk was talking about.
The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers. I'd be willing to say that it's orders of magnitude bigger than the difference between reusable and non-reusable rockets.
It depends on how much driving is about being smart and how much it is about being consistent. While I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass I really can't think of many situations where some extraordinary foresight on my part prevented a crash. But I know many situations where I fucked up and could have caused a collision and a few where I did. Some 87% of the adult population had a driver's license at its peak and the reminder mostly felt it was too expensive or hadn't gotten around to it, something like 5% claimed health reasons (7% of those without a license, who was 75% of the questioned group). Of those, many would be vision problems, epilepsy or some other non-IQ conditions that made them unfit to drive. The TL;DR version: Unless you're really mentally challenged you're capable of driving a car.
Then you have the fact that a machine is never drunk, high, tired, angry, lost in thought, distracted, in a hurry, showing off etc. and it's got 360 degree vision with LIDAR and IR and whatnot. It's not going to rear end anyone because it doesn't pay attention or any of the other stupid stuff that's caused basically every collision I've got some personal knowledge of. I'm sure that being a machine it'll have its own set of problems but it's already a better driver in many, many ways. So it's not so much that it needs to beat humans further, they have to tighten the defense where people can say "anybody could see that" because sometimes a computer program can't.
Most sites provide their file hashes over HTTPS. If I'm going to verify the file on my end anyway
Well to my knowledge there's no standard way to do this. Like if you could have an <a href="http://my.plain.download" sha-256="e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855"> this would be fine, simply fail if it doesn't verify. But if you're expecting the average user to verify security certificates etc. then 99.9% of them won't do that.
Almost assuredly the vast majority of users of Linux OS cannot and do not ever maintain the kernel and are not capable of doing so. What good are sticks and dry grass if one doesn't know how to employ them to make fire? Just because you CAN make fire doesn't mean the person who needs it knows how and in many cases they may not fucking care how to make it. They just want to be warm. That is what a lot of open source advocates can't seem to grasp.
Most people only do a few things themselves, the question is whether you have a choice of venue. They don't repair their own car, but they care if they can take it to a third party mechanic or if you need first party service and first party parts and it runs on first party gas. There's a helluva lot of people in the server space that has figured this out. The problem is more that of cost distribution, if you download it for free 99%+ will only generate bug reports, feature requests, requests for documentation/explanation/assistance and whatnot. If you try to charge them for support up front almost nobody would sign up. If you start charging them professional developer rates + overhead that's disproportional to what they get for a COTS license. And that's why they feel they can't actually go anywhere else anyway, because they're not a big enough fish.
Imagine you have a stream of bugs/feature requests. First you have to triage and make sure it's well defined, then make an estimate. Then you have to ask for money to fix it and usually they'll say no or haggle. Already here you've probably wasted enough time that any fix is >$100 just to break even. Then you have to actually write the code and tests/documentation, get it reviewed/merged and then you got billing disputes and paying taxes and... there's a reason open source projects prefer a tip jar, even if they don't get much it's not worth chasing contracts/bug bounties that only give beer money. But a tip jar isn't really freedom, it's just putting money in a lottery machine hoping they'll take care of your pet problem.
Meanwhile COTS companies take all those $20 licenses by the thousands and get developers to fix the common problems and things that are just clunky and generate a lot of noise. You're paying into a pool where a lot of things have been fixed and are being fixed, even though they might never get around to your issue. Yes that sucks sometimes but the average person just isn't ready to pay the hundreds if not thousands to dollars to get someone to look at this issue and fix it because you're the one who want it fixed. I write custom software for work, I know my own paycheck and there's very little I personally would want fixed that badly.
Presumably these numbers are best cases - young'uns' eyes?
The short version is that if you see 20/20 without glasses/contact lenses you don't need them, but many people have better vision than that when they're young or they can get better than 20/20 with glasses/contact lenses. Often the problem when you get older is the ability to focus, not the actual sharpness if you wear the right glasses but of course people lose visual acuity to some some degree. So as a video standard you should aim higher than 20/20, at least 20/16. It's up to your purpose, are you looking for video that there's no reason to record resolution for anyone or is most people happy. Because most people have been happy a long time...
Locke2005s statement is in between those numbers, so he's not exactly right or wrong, but it's not bullshit at all.
Counting that way is wonky because we have a very small, high density area in the center of our vision and much lower in the rest. The standard measure of visual acuity (20/20) is resolving one arc minute (1/60th of a degree) of resolution. If you sit really close to the screen you get a ~50 degrees field of view so 3000 pixel horizontal resolution. But we know some people have down to 20/8 vision, so for them 3000*20/8 = 7500 pixel resolution.
However if you're viewing parallel lines you can get a kind of hyper-acuity called Vernier acuity that even in untrained people go down to 10 arc seconds and 2-3 arc seconds with training. Now 2 arc seconds (1/3600 of a degree) * 50 degrees = 90K, obviously we don't have that many photo receptors but if you want to make a screen of uniform density that's where you're at. It's pretty much irrelevant for viewing normal content though.
With all that said, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone claiming a razor sharp 4K movie is fuzzy, unless you're staring at a Snellen chart the main reason they want to go beyond 4K is to be able to crop and re-frame in post. There's lots of other things like dynamic range, color space, color fidelity, frame rate etc. you should work on before going beyond 4K as an end point. Probably the biggest thing is if they can finally manage to make CMOS sensors work with global shutter - that is to say, reading out all the pixels at once instead of line by line, which creates all kinds of distortions when things are in rapid motion.
They're basically making a display out of tiny but normal LEDs. As they said -- very bright, and infinite contrast. But mostly only useful for commercial displays due to the limited density.
For now, Samsung has shown a 75 inch UHD prototype so it's not impossible to make them small - just hard and expensive. I wouldn't mind lower density if they can get production cost down though, I'd rather have a TV with half the density and twice the size. Like 150" with 4x1080p pixels. The good thing about MicroLED is that price will scale linearly with size, so I'm guessing a bunch of sheikhs will order a 225" TVs because it's "only" 9x the price of the 75" TV. Though we don't know the base price for the 75" version yet, it's supposed to come this year though.
"As minors by law, children do not have autonomy or the right to make decisions on their own for themselves in any known jurisdiction of the world." That means the state can step in for the parents (same as CPS can take a child away) and decide what rights the child does or does not have,
Children have tons of rights that don't involve autonomy like protection from abuse and neglect. Those protections don't get any less if CPS takes over the parental responsibilities. If you want to go outside the authority granted by parenthood, then it's that authority like criminal law that sets the rules. An armed robber can be put in jail whether he's 15yo or 20yo, that's fine. But a parent can't put a 15yo in jail. Neither can the state as acting parents. It is okay for me as a parent to strap this bracelet to my child's leg and potentially listen to all their conversations? If yes, then "he's a minor" is valid defense. If no, then "he's a suspect in a serious crime released on bail on these terms" could also be a fair defense, but then it's not related to being a minor or not.
Basically this is the difference between being grounded and put in jail. Your parents can ground you and you don't have the right to a fair and impartial trial where your guilty must be proven beyond and reasonable doubt. You don't get the presumption of innocence, there's no democratically elected law, no rules of evidence, no lawyer or the right to an appeal, in short if your parents say you're grounded that's it. On the upside, they can't do anything that's considered child abuse. Well legally they can't, anyway. Whereas criminal law can do anything short of cruel and unusual punishment, but they have to play by all the rules. It's not an either-or, it's both and even though the government sometimes play both roles they're bound to one at the time.
An undistorted market is one where everybody pays for all the damage/polution etc they're causing. In cars, Norway is probably the best example, and guess which manufacturer does very well there.
Just to set the record straight, Norway's high car prices was because it has historically been taxed as a luxury particular focusing on grand, high horsepower vehicles but hitting all personal vehicles hard. How it managed to stay that way despite the car becoming a commodity without a political rebellion is its own topic, but there it is. The focus on environmentalism, fuel consumption and emissions is a recent flex in the last decade. Basically, pretty much all our "subsidies" is that electric vehicles got omitted from the draconian taxes ICE cars pay. Which is all about the money, now that EVs are taking over they want to raise taxes again because it leaves a giant gap in the budget. The taxes have never been about paying for what ICE cars cost, they're just a cash cow for the welfare state.
Opening a bank account, obtaining a license and using public transportation are not constitutionally enumerated rights. The constitution is very very sparse on the specifics of many different things .. but unencumbered access to the ballot box _is_
Actually, the right to vote is nowhere in the original constitution. There's only amendments that say you can't discriminate on race (15th), sex (19th), age >18 (26th) and taxes to vote in federal elections (24th). Many other forms of discrimination is prohibited in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that MLK fought for but that's just regular law. So if you want to say take away the voting rights of felons they're neither protected nor exempted in the constitution. All it takes is a regular law to say felons can't vote and then they can't vote. On the same basis voter ID laws have generally been upheld.
But the study also shows UBI doesn't make people stop working. This, IMHO, is the most important result of this study because it removes one of the biggest objections to UBI.
Honestly, I think this comparison is a sham until you agree to provide for them for life. I mean I could do things for one or three or five or ten years. But if that'd totally fuck my chances of ever getting back in a job as an old geezer with a ten year gap in his CV, well... I'd not do it. Until you say it's a gravy train all the way in, no need to actually do something I'll consider it a temporary reprieve. You got though the basic messaging, but as data it's junk.
Also, with most games now just online multiplayer with a few maps, development becomes much more simple. No need for AI when you have other humans to fill the niche.
Except all the tweaking as players constantly find new ways to exploit your game mechanics, flaws in your maps etc. in ways that weren't intended but still don't really qualify as cheating or exploiting bugs. Keeping a competitive multiplayer balanced is certainly not a fire-and-forget thing.
Sounds like you had a bad beat. I think gaming is even worse though because most businesses need some kind of continuity in customers, solutions and business relationships that very few gaming companies do. If your game is shit on release day you very quickly lose users and never get them back. Or you have people who grin and bear it but it's not really helping if you fix it three or six months down the line. If it's a success you'll have lots of users who's never played any of your games before. It's a constant gamble that almost always end in an insane crunch followed by uncertainty of whether they're making another game.
That said, I'm not that surprised at the passing of Telltale though maybe I believed it was just me. I loved Sam & Max (2006-2010), Tales of Monkey Island (2009) and Back to the Future (2010) kinda fit the zany humor too. The Walking Dead: Season One (2012) was a mix of adventure walking around and interactive cinematic fighting zombies, it needed that urgency of "act or die". Season two (2013-2014) was epic. But then they went overboard on the interactive movie thing, it's like the whole thing was just a game to press up, down, left, right, Q, E as the story played start to end and the Hollywood IP started to take over making a compelling story. It became a lame version of being at the cinema, I bought the final two seasons of TWD but they were both let downs I was just invested in the characters.
Fortunately they did manage to pull off a skeleton crew to close it out, but damn was the ending disappointing... MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD I mean it's a post-apocalyptic zombie universe where people die constantly. They'd previously announced, before the closure that this would be TWD: The final season. So I expected this to go off in like wildly different directions where Clementine would sacrifice herself for something, but for what was unclear. Instead we got a "and they lived happily ever after" ending where both Clem and AJ survive and only minor side characters die that was totally unrealistic. If you're bitten you have to amputate immediately and fighting so long and being so pale she'd die from the shock and blood loss of a major amputation anyway. It was supposed to be miraculous, it was just silly.
Could you elaborate how a generic targeting algorithm can "discriminate".
A generic ad optimization algorithm will create a bunch of proxy variables that effectively work like the non-discriminating factor, even if it's explicitly denied access to that variable. It's actually a lot harder to avoid than to do, basically treat every time you show an ad like an experiment. If you click the ad it counts for every property about you, if you don't click the ad it counts against every property about you. So you say it's not to discriminate on sex, the algorithm doesn't get your gender. But it'll pretty soon figure out whether people who are fans of Justin Bieber and a million other gender-skewed metrics respond to your ad or not.
It's absolutely feasible to build an algorithm that tries to find relevant candidates while respecting an imposed equality, for example that they draw from separate pools so you must have half male and half female ad impressions. But it gets pretty hard when you want for example a jobs ad that doesn't discriminate on ethnicity, like if the population is 50-30-15-5 percent something you want a 50-30-15-5 percent distribution. It gets really hard if you don't want to discriminate on religion, sexual orientation, political stance or something else where you don't actually have the underlying data but you're pretty sure your proxy variables are effectively filtering on that anyway.
If you're going to reply with "how's an algorithm that's only preserving the status quo or amplifying a feedback loop that's already there discriminatory" well if it was up to an algorithm an all-white school would stay all-white. After all there's never been a black person attending this school, so there's no reason to try to make a black kid apply. It's a feedback loop that'll keep bashing those unlikely to succeed because they're unlikely to succeed, even if they as individuals are doing everything they can. If you're constantly going to measured against what people "like you" do you'll never truly be in charge of your own destiny, which is kinda the essence of the American dream.
The west is dying (...) After spending trillions from our coffers and millions of lives to fight tyranny in the 20th century, we have become our own worst enemy.
Uhh... the west both started and ended WW1 and WW2. The suffragettes and civil rights movement fought harder, but they also had a lot more to fight against. It's possible that we've become soft and complacent, but it's because most the heavy battles were won. Obama was POTUS. I doubt it'd make much fuss if Hillary became president as a woman or Sanders as a Jew. Even in anti-immigration parties race theories are mostly dead. I'm not going to sugarcoat it and say everything's perfect, but most of us in the west live as individuals and treat others as individuals. We'd like to decompose cultural identity into values that we think are universal and the rest is simply individual preference, like nobody cares if you eat sushi and listen to k-pop instead of "our" food and music.
This clashes with many other cultures where collective ideas of family, clan/tribe/caste, ethnicity and religion still dominate their mindset. Values that often come before those we consider universal, like arranged marriages or honor killings because you've brought shame on the family. Many gangs are ethnically centered, us against them. Religious shaming and policing of those who try to break away. It's like cultural or institutional problems don't exist, just a preponderance of individual problems even though they're happy to talk about toxic subcultures everywhere except in minorities. There's lots of racism, sexism, hostility against alternative sexual orientations and a lot of it is culturally accepted. You have entire countries where it's law, not just some shady little district of a backwards village.
But the thing is, I don't want to resurrect our collectivism and fight fire with fire, Christians against Muslims. Nationalism against globalism. I don't want my nation to be a mono-culture where we all fit the same mold and accuse everyone else trying to take part of cultural appropriation. Culture is organic and it changes, both in taking new impulses from the world and giving those impulses to others. It's just that there's a difference between organic change and what's essentially a cultural transplant. I don't want a piece of the Middle East transported here, many of them reject us and establish parallel cultures. And no, I don't want to engage in cultural appeasement to people who pack their women away in tents and think ours are sluts and whores.
That's why snaps are being pushed. They don't break your system. They are self contained containers that just get replaced. Like docker upgrades for apps. I personally think it's a waste, but I get the appeal.
Snaps are pretty much just static linking reinvented. One blob that is your software, replaced by a new blob. Don't get me wrong it's nice that there's a format that works across distros but I find it strange that this hasn't been solved through some kind of wrapper scripts that turns it into "trivial" native packages with no dependencies and all the files in a private folder. So like snap, but without actually having alien packages with different update mechanisms. Oh well...
The user will be alerted that a new feature update is available every now and then, but at no point will the user be forced to install that update, as long as the version of Windows 10 they're currently running is still in support.
Well they support new versions for 18 months. In practice this means you can skip one update since you'd have to from last day of support to a brand new version to skip two. When we know how many are/were perfectly happy with 10 year old XP/Win7 releases it's Microsoft moving ten steps forward and one step back. There's nothing so drastically changing about an OS these days that you need new versions every year.
I must admit that "convergence" devices has gained a whole lot less steam than I thought. Though I think a lot of these hurdles aren't really inherent but coming from different hardware (ARM vs x86), different operating systems (Android vs Windows), different control paradigms (touch vs keyboard/mouse), different degree of openness (store vs user installed) and the deals on offer have been severely compromised on their non-native side. Besides smartphones have been a tsunami that put 95% focus on catching that wave and 5% on the rest. Now though that the market has stabilized at 1.5 billion units and maybe even will go into a decline as people find their phones are already working pretty good, I expect the focus will come back to the desktop. At least the casual, non-enterprise non-gaming use of desktops.
I mean a modern smartphone has enough oomph to run a basic desktop, like you know the office computers with 1 GHz CPU and 1 GB RAM from long ago. It just have to be able to do it without some crazy emulation/special solution. It should be that you plug your phone into a dock and you have a real working mini-computer that doesn't behave differently from a weak NUC. It should be able to handle a USB-C hub with your keyboard, mouse, screen, headset, printer etc. like it's an actual desktop computer. Microsoft went there but flunked out of the mobile market. Google has never really wanted to properly merge Android and Chromebooks. But I think Apple might be on the way to merge it into one OS with different peripherals.
I'm pretty sure that if traffic was all cars we'd have self-driving cars by now, for the simple reason that cars are bound by traffic rules. If it's an intersection and you're running a red light there's not much doubt who's at fault. If the rules are too ambiguous we can always make them clearer until say a lane merger is properly described and you can put a car's behavior into "at fault" or "not at fault". Right now we're trying to work backwards from "do not crash" into behavior that won't ever cause a crash and that's probably not happening, if you're a dick it's not hard to get other cars in trouble in ways that today would be considered a joint fault. And if you're trying to be a dick like speed matching a car overtaking you close to 100% at fault. We're going to have to describe correct behavior better and then deal with the rest in court.
If I tell someone "machine me a piece of bar stock to .00001 inch precision" and they deliver something hacked with a file to .1 inch precision and they tell me it's good enough, that's shit for brains.
I see this as a variation of the Scotty factor for time estimates, where they're used to most requirements being bullshit that somebody set early and padded once because the design might work with 0.1 inches but let's get 0.01 inches because it's a long and formal process that'll be hell to change both in terms of time and money later and because they have a reputation for over-promising and under-delivering let's order 0.0001 inches so we're on the safe side.
On the other side they know how much bullshit is added and try to deliver some cheap junk that's more in line with the price being paid. Then you fix the things the client screams the loudest about until attrition kicks in and you can close out with a shoddy result because they're in too deep to declare the project a failure and scrap it. I've seen a lot of projects that were near-train wrecks be declared a success because they did just enough to clear the 1.0 hurdle with a huge backlog of cut features, manual processes and lacking tools/documentation. And I don't necessarily mean outsourcing...