Re: What ?
Decimal points make all the difference. I'd expect 7.4 to be greater than 7.1.8, but less than 7.18
311 posts • joined 22 Jun 2009
Do you have stats on that? Everything I see has a fairly representative balance. Where are you obtaining the data about "Rich white dudes" by the way (which you seem to use in a disparaging way, thus coming very close to racism and sexism yourself; it's not just about minorities in the actual definition of the word).
Now, you're saying "curate a set of images". This is of course subjective. What one person says is racist or sexist is highly unlikely to be what another person says it is. So what you're doing it introducing a bias into a set that previously worked on unfiltered information. Not by a measurable metric (which would be fine), but by an arbitrary subjective opinion.
You could, of course, end up with a set of everyone in a business suit in a particular environment. Which would then render your set with flawed information to work from, potentially not being able to discern other alterations/environments correctly.
And as to "Fix society", what would you say needs fixing (there's a lot, yes, as we're fairly primitive still, but I was wondering what you were alluding to in this instance).
That was what I was referencing in the adaptation. It's actually due to the contrast levels of the skin, which are more pronounced in lighter skins. It's a feature of any image generation; it was picked up a while ago and branded "Racist" (the definition of which is "prejudiced or antagonistic towards a group, often a minority").
All the school photos I had from back then worked quite nicely for people with all skin tones (and they were from the 70s and 80s).
While revealing the information that the contrast was harder to process, this is merely a fact (and a "confounding factor"), not discriminatory, prejudiced or antagonistic.
Did give me a chuckle that your phone smudges pixels like that.. As far as I view things, facial recognition is still in its primitive stages for learning systems, and probably will be for years, if not decades to come.
Image recognition has come a long way from when I cut my teeth on it in the late 80s though, that's for sure..
If you look for racism and sexism, you'll find it. Even if it's not there.
What the training set has done is find the general composition of the set, and render that. If that's what the contribution to the set is, that's what'll be reflected.
I'm always confounded by AI workers coming up with these exclamations after exposing learning mechanisms to a representative set of data and it doesn't come up with what they want. If you want to teach something to come up with answers you want, you need to put the effort into creating a curated set of information for it to learn from (this is something that every species on the planet has learned long ago, which is why they survive and in cases such as some Birds and Simians, develop their own actual cultures.
But, when you select only what you want to see, then you have to understand that it's a product of your own biases. Once you take off the limiters and let it see what's out there, it'll learn things you'd rather it didn't.
There are, of course, confounding issues (like contrast for some human gene adaptations, which make some faces harder to recognise for example), but those are technical hurdles which you can control for and work with (it's part of learning how to teach a learning system).
You mean like the classic car scene has a roaring trade in aftermarket spares? And a whole host of other areas that require parts.
If you're playing analogies, this is more akin to building something to a standard which will have newer parts available ad infinitum, but putting an artificial limiter on it so that it will stop being of use (for example, having an engine management in a car that will, after a pre-determined period, or just when the vendor of the car decides that it's time for people to upgrade, which will prevent the locks ever working again).
Or, perhaps in your boiler case, parts made to exactly the same spec are made for all the newer boilers, so they fit, tighten, and would be mechanically functional, except the parts are only available from the manufacturer, and they refuse to sell them to individuals, only their own repair departments, who refuse to fit them onto the model that the vendor decides is "currently supported".
The hardware is good, solid and working. There is just an artificial limitation to prevent you getting after market support (which, if you really know what you're doing, you can probably circumvent, but your average person wouldn't have a clue).
And if you don't know the difference between compiling in a kernel driver and building heating elements, and the relative impact the distribution has, then I'd advise looking carefully at both.
One can be done very quickly and tested, and distributed for almost free to tens or hundreds of thousands of units in seconds, versus a deep supply chain and a logistics cost that's non-trivial.
To be honest, I'd expect a continual update, and a main line codebase. Just like you can upgrade Ubuntu based machines to the latest, or one of the more resource efficient versions for lower spec machines.
This is not rocket science by any measure. I have a laptop from the end of the '90s that STILL runs quite happily on Linux. I don't expect much from it, but it does for mail, general browsing and so on. So that's almost a quarter of a century of support.
The crux of it is that you need to "Root" the device to be able to upgrade it, as the vendor has artificially limited the lifespan by determining that it will not provide any further updates (these don't take huge amounts of resource; the drivers are already there). This will keep perfectly functional devices deliberately insecure so that a user is forced to upgrade to a newer product (with associated spend).
So, the real answer to how long I would expect updates is "As long as the vendor is around". Or, at the very least, when your product goes out of mainstream support, release the drivers to the Open community and allow updates using an alternative after market supplier.
There's a very good reason that all clinical information is treated as highly confidential, and protected on pain of, well, real pain to any company that breaches it over here in the UK and Europe.
This is a case of Law following established Clinical Ethics. Which is the right way to do it.
I had a few chances of emigrating to the US, and a good part of the reason I didn't was its almost asinine insistence that Law trumps Ethics, Science, and a whole bunch of other things that it should really pay attention to (making it extremely deep into the territory of "A system of legalities, not a system for Justice").
Not protecting people's data about clinical matters is entirely settled as to Ethics. It is definitively unethical to release that data. Words like "corrupt", "stupid" and so on may be debated philosophically until the cows come home (and to no real point), but anyone releasing this information is definitively ethically bankrupt, which is a sad indictment.
It's a minimum wage law, not a minimum per profession law.
The issue is that the H1B/H2B etc. are used to reduce the pay in professions where the pay is significantly above minimum wage. If the average wage for a profession is, say, $100k, then under the H1B/H2B, you could probably get away with paying less than $60k. Some of this talent pool may be very good, but often the companies hiring via this route are after bums to fill seats at lowest possible price, so aren't very good at picking the gems out of the dead wood.
The only reason most did that was due to HR and sickness policies.
I work in healthcare, and always kept looking incredulously at each tightening of sickness policy that came out of HR (more draconian measures for breaching certain metrics, up to and including dismissal).
In light of that, those who had a less than stellar immune system (particularly the front liners who really can't work remote), there was no option _but_ to turn up to work with the sniffles.. Anything that really didn't land you in bed with no option to move was a get up and get in illness.
Which, of course, as you mention, spread the disease around, knocking even more people off their perches and probably resulting in far more sickness hours overall than would have been suffered if the policies had been less drastic.
Interestingly, now that it's a "Stay away if you're sick, but get tested" approach due to COVID, sickness hours are down.
If you're longer in the tooth, like I am, then yep, research is on your side that you generally tire faster, so a shorter week is your productivity advantage. If you're a youngster (first decade or two of work), then the standard 35-40 hour week should be a pushover. Over 60 hours a week as bad though.
When I was "Young and Hungry", the cold, hard cash was what made the difference. That gave me flexibility in other areas to do things like get a house, travel a bit and get all the certifications that made sure I was worth hiring (especially when I ran my own company).
Now I'm a lot longer in the tooth, and keeping up that pace is not so easy. So a bit of a "power down" would be nice, and more hours free would be the big enticement. Interestingly, there's research around that points out that once you get past 40 or so, then a 25 hour work week becomes the "sweet spot" of productivity.
Before then, the recommendation is that you don't routinely work more than 60 hours a week, as that's bad for your health (which I can testify to, being in my 50s these days, and doing over that for 2 years during COVID times).
Technically, any system comes down to quantisation. That includes the brain.
Philosophically speaking, there's no reason that intelligence couldn't arise in computation, especially as with adaptive systems, the complexity evolved is far, far past what a human programmer could implement.
That works for many fields, but not all..
Clinical apps for example, you really don't want changing under the hood without full change control processes in place to let people know something's changed. Fixes have the unhappy habit of breaking something else not tested for, and the last thing you want is a patient on the bed scenario in treatment, with a new problem, or change in behaviour to that expected in the decision making process.
And yes, I have seen that approach advocated in a clinical environment. And yes, they did get the eyebrow raised treatment.
Biggest problem I've see in it is that Devs who've never done ops suddenly think they're ops.
The places that do it well have people experienced in both sides of the picture, so actually know ops as well as knowing dev. That, however, is an expensive skillset. Most places simply slap DevOps on developers and tell Ops to keep out of things (or worse, whittle down ops as now it's all DevOps) and reap the 'reward'.
No, in context, he was saying that there's no "one size fits all" age that one second it's illegal, the next it's illegal. This is philosophically valid, and it's so confused that the age of consent in different places is anything from 14 to 18 (possibly even more varied). Legislators have a tough time with it, and it's widely understood that it's a pretty ridiculous thing, but it's a line in the sand that people think is sort of ok. Maybe. So, your very obvious straw man fallacy is ludicrous, and very obviously so. Laughably so in fact.
The gal in question was 17 at the time, so definitely not paedophillia, no matter what you insist. Or are you going to assert that you've decided the age of consent is 42 and everyone's a paedophile?
Basically, Epstein was very rich. As such, he had a section of women who wanted the lifestyle that came with that wealth and were willing to offer their bodies now and then to sustain that. Not a deal that the morals of most would agree with, but in principle, it's not ethically terrible.
Minsky accepted funds from Epstein, and was on an occasion invited to Epstein's island. The girl in question said she was coerced into attempting to have sex with Minsky, who declined the offer. So in this case, there wasn't even any crime on Minsky's part, even with any age of consent.
When Minsky's name was dragged through the mud, as it was discovered Epstein had granted money to the University, a group of political agitators decided that this money should never have come to the University as it was against their politics.
RMS, who had known Minsky very well stated that on balance of probability, the political assertions about him were incorrect (he did this bluntly, as was his speaking style; he never minced words, or prettied them up). He also aired that putting an absolute time on age of consent was a very dubious thing, where someone unknown may be called a paedophile in one second, and nobody bat an eyelid if they'd waited another second to engage.
This is, of course, massive fuel for the Woke who like to explore every crack for advantage to attack with. There was a lot of completely out of context accusations, a lot of misquoting, and a lot of alleging crimes that didn't happen, and nobody was accused of. This precipitated the FSF persuading RMS to quit.
Which he did, as the storm was getting in the way of work.
Now, after everyone's looked at it, and gone "The original outrage was wrong", he re-entered the board. Of course, the political fringe are outraged that someone they burned at the stake wasn't actually dead and gone, but survived and came back to carry on life as normal once the "case" against them was shown to have no merit.
Red Hat wouldn't even be around if it wasn't for RMS's zealotry in keeping the FSF going, and the work he's put into it. It was founded on the ideals of openness and tolerance of ideas other than the ones you subjectively hold.
Except now, the subjective opinion of a particular RedHat exec is that the FSF, because they disagree with the politics of the current execs, must be de-funded because someone said something they don't like, but is perfectly rational and legal.
That in itself is damning for Red Hat. I won't be using them in my team if I have alternatives (we're Linux heavy), simply because I have alternatives that seem to be getting on with the job of making products that work well and don't try to torch productive technical areas because they don't like what someone says. That makes them far too unreliable on a business footing (will they next decide that some of the research I'm involved with is something they don't like, despite having ethical committee approval, and thus revoke a license on me, or ask for me and the rest of the team to be removed because someone doesn't like me disagreeing with them?).
That, in a nutshell is about it.
It's not that it'd take a competent programmer a week to program, it's that RMS actually did it before anyone else had thought of it.
Hell, I can build a radio in a couple of hours. Doesn't mean that the guys who invented the radio first were mere simpletons.
I know that I personally wouldn't want to hang out with RMS (I did converse with him in the early days in the academic circles, and he was way too zealous for my tastes), but that does not for one moment stop him being one of my heroes. I don't have to agree with him on everything, or the way he says it, for him to be considered one of the greats in my field in my eyes.
And I'm fairly sure my nieces would hurt you if you tried anything with them. See what that sentence did? Implied you were the kind of person who'd be likely to attack young girls without the honesty of saying it.
They would, but I'd normally never use that sentence, as it's irrelevant. I do NOT think you'd be likely to try anything on with them so what's the point of putting it in (unless to sow doubt)?
What's wrong with it? There's no "I'm not going to let you get rid of me, and there's nothing you can do about it, and if you try I'll ruin you".
It's a simple statement of fact. He's not planning to retire a second time. As far as he's currently aware, that's his plan. That's absolutely fine. As would "I'm planning to go shopping for groceries next Wednesday". Would that be too authoritarian for your tastes?
Of interest, and to flesh out what you've posted about statutory rape, there's an event that occurred with a family friend many a moon ago.
He met a nice young gal in a nighclub (over 18, ID required). They got on well, met up in various pubs (over 18 only, and she bought her fair share of drinks at the bar). She let him know she was a student at the local University.
She started staying over at his place now and then, which is what you'd expect from an ordinary relationship.
Then one day, he went to meet her folks, who were in the same city. They didn't like him.
The next day after meeting the folks, the police turned up at his door and arrested him for statutory rape. It turns out that the woman in question was actually 15, and at a local high school. She'd lied about her age, had false ID, had been attending night clubs for years (her parents picked her up from them, so they knew she was going there). Everyone outside her School Crowd (well, the ones that didn't go to the nightclub too, as their small group knew full well what was going on, and they all behaved the same) fully believed she was 18 and given the level of evidence and how convincing it was, there was absolutely zero reason to believe otherwise..
Now, Statutory Rape does NOT take into account whether or not you knew someone to be underage. It does NOT consider the evidence you may have to lead you to believe that this person was of age. In fact, it doesn't consider ANYTHING other than the fact that the event took place (sex with someone under the age of consent). As the woman in question had been quite free with the fact, and so had the family friend, this was not in question, so he was convicted, had his name on the sex offenders list, and was thus denied most opportunity of any worthwhile job because he failed the criminal conviction investigation checks required.
He became very depressed, and within a couple of years was dead by suicide.
The woman involved in this did NOT want this to happen, and was vehemently on the family friend's side. She cared a good deal about him, because though he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, he was a considerate and respectful person, and he worked damn hard (he was 17 at the time, after leaving school post O levels as that's as much Academia as he wanted. He worked on building sites, and thoroughly enjoyed it).
She was also only a couple of months away from 16 (the legal age of consent) when the case was brought, and the relationship had been going about 4 months by that time.
Essentially, her lying and cheating (and her parents complicity in it) led to a decent guy being deprived of both liberty and life, through no event he even had any reason to predict could be in any way harmful.
THAT is the side to Statutory Rape you're conveniently glossing over.
I'd still not have a problem with it if it was. He's notoriously left wing, zealously so.
What he's done is stuck by that ideal that his work is to be shared for the good of ALL.
Not the people he likes, not the people he agrees with, not the narrow window of people whose politics he's in exact sync with, but everyone. His politics have been studiously kept out of the creation and distribution of his work.
That's tolerance and diversity right there in a nutshell. He's lived what the new Woke are pretending to be for a long time, and when he objectively states that on balance of probability, what their outraged knee jerk is claiming is not true (but in a very blunt way), they choose to burn him at a stake because the statement isn't something like like to hear (it must be heresy), and it wasn't wrapped up in a fluffy box with a bow.
It was always a standard question on interviews; although not a direct programming language, it was a development paradigm.
Interesting, I've had more than a few people over the years claim to know it (one, who came to the interview armed with a Microsoft MVP badge kept extolling its virtues way after the point I'd decided that this was definitely not the person to hire, and actually let the cat out of the bag that this wasn't a real thing).
jAnother thing I used to use was placing an incongruous object in plain sight (such as a bright yellow wiffle bat that I kept around for the purpose).
One of the things I've always wanted to pick out from the crowd is someone who'll identify something amiss, and communicate that effectively even in a highly stressful environment where they may have something to lose. Almost invariably, people saw the bat, some people fixated on it.
What I wanted to see, was who would see the bat, and plainly ask why it was there. That's been at the root of a good many hires.
The thing is, this is exactly the kind of stuff that's chanted by the groups he's parodying (almost exactly), and they get celebrated, and posted as "See how evil the world is to these people because they feel that they're not getting what they want". And when something is posted from a differing group with almost exactly the same wording (and in an absolutely tiny forum, so small as to be vanishingly trivial), it's enough for someone to be cancelled from something they've devoted a decade to.
That's my take on what made this a parody; the exact wording of the woke studenthood but applied from a different demographic. And watch with interest at how they react when their own words are thrown back at them (hint, it's outrage, when they expect someone to bow to them and say how wise and perceptive they are when they say it).
This is not "Remove a significant contributor from a project" material. It's a "Stop being juvenile. You may have a point in stirring stuff up, but you've got bigger fish to fry, and you'll feel much better just getting on with productive stuff instead of wallowing in the sewers of wokehood" kind of stuff.
No, it's not worse.
I've deliberately withheld voting on several occasions for the simple reason that I could not ethically support any of the options available to me. They were all fatally flawed.
In the previous US election, it was well known why the selections were made for both sides, and both of them ended up proposing fatally flawed candidates that should never have been let within a mile of that role.
When you are that disenchanted with the candidates you have available, not voting isn't always an "I don't care" (though it may be, that's part of stating your opinion, which is what a vote is), it's often "I abstain", which is a deliberate choice.
Yes, people fought for the right to vote, and that's exactly what they got; the right to vote. They DID NOT vote for the requirement to vote, even when you were presented with a false dichotomy.
How on earth you try to turn that into "You don't care about your community", I have no idea, as this person as given up valuable time and effort to provide, for free, some very valuable thinking and code writing time to a worldwide community. Now, he may not give a rat's arse about the community you've chosen to focus your attention on, but that's an entirely different matter. And if you honestly thing that just because you choose a community as your focus, everyone else MUST do the same, then I'd say I detect more than a hint of authoritarianism and tyranny there.
You've obviously never worked in a critical role.
I'm in the healthcare sector, and believe me, there's a very dark sense of humour that pervades most of the disciplines. If you don't laugh about a stress factor, it can overwhelm you when it shouldn't.
The things being joked about will always be prevalent in the world as long as there are patients, trauma and so on.
What you've just effectively said right there is "I'd prefer people to suffer psychologically rather than find an outlet. I'd rather masses suffer so the odd edge case doesn't have to cope with small potential affront.".
Now that being said, dark humour and satire are best done with wit. It makes it more obvious it's satire, but not everybody has that social dexterity, so sometimes things come out as not particularly funny. In which case, pause for flat reception, and just move on.
Process is supposed to be "tone deaf". It takes a situation, works out if things fit criteria, then moves on with taking action.
Both Gebru and Mitchell had done enough to trigger action. Huge companies can't afford to spend endless sums on going through someone's life story, making excuses for them, seeing what the public think of it (when they really don't know, and can't ever truly understand the frame of reference) and so on.
Most people either go to court and claim unfair dismissal if they really believe they've been mistreated, or they quietly go looking for the next job.
These two have both claimed it's because of <insert woke trigger phrase here> and put it out into the media. Which is incredibly harmful to future employability. Unless of course that it's in an ideologically driven group and the ideology is of more importance than getting on with the job and doing impartial work.
I suspect they both thought of Google as an ideologically malleable entity that they could configure from their roles such that it bowed to their agenda as a priority over getting actual work done that was needed in their remit. They weren't correct.
From time working on Clinical Ethics boards, some of the stuff that the pair had been doing would definitely not have passed muster as "Ethical". Ideological crusades rarely are.
There was a whole fanatical wave of "It's all against minorities, it's only because she's a woman, it's an attack against women and minorities" in this last event, well past the time that Google stated that the exfiltration of data contained sensitive information on other people (this is ethically a BIG no-no, and would get anyone in an ethically sensitive role fired post haste).
Behaving ethically is a full time task. It's damnably hard to meet standards all the time every time, especially when you have a desire to do something else, but if you can't be trusted to maintain at least a reasonable standard (don't go playing with other people's sensitive data unless it's what you're doing as part of your job, with an acknowledged 'need to know', and protecting it with everything you can), then I'd probably be of the opinion that you should in no way be responsible for writing ethical policy.
Cloud has a definite use case. But that's when you really understand your infrastructure and data flows (and requirements) very well.
Most of the time I see cloud focus, it's done by people with little to no knowledge of their infrastructure, how mature it is, how it'll share data (or even if they can actually recover their data if the contract expires) or a myriad of other issues.
It looks uncomfortably like another business unit desperately trying to hammer an entire tree into a square peg hole.
Not so sure he was "incompetent" at what he was aimed to do.
The bit that I remember about the very beginning was Bannon stating quite baldly that his intent was to disrupt and cause the perception of catastrophe. This was on his theory that every (x) years, catastrophic events happened that caused political and social reorganisation with fresh focus, and it was generally for the better, but uncontrolled.
He wanted to control that change by artificial disruption, and Trump was what he was aiming to use to disrupt.
That plan was definitely ethically "very questionable", and the theory tenuous, but a lot of activity I've seen over the last few years always put me in mind of that Bannon statement early on when I was trying to find context and meaning for things.
What definitely wasn't planned was having a "Random disrupter and catastrophe generator" in the driving seat when the largest actual catastrophe and disruption of the last 80-100 years struck.
This is of course, completely conjecture and one of many possibilities, so take with an entire truck load of salt. :)
Yes, there's been research into that.. And the dopamine responses are what you'd expect from a human having fun.
Interestingly, this happens when birds sing too, so all those quotes about the birds only calling "get sex here" seem to be missing the point. The birds actually enjoy the singing, and would sing for its own sake; they just have an investment in getting the song right too, to make it the most favoured by the females (the one that put the most work and practice into the song is the one that breeds, so birds seem to appreciate a mate that puts the work in, probably as that's the best bet there'll be a mate that would put the effort into supporting them as they raise young).
Corvids especially are known to "play" for pleasure. Smaller birds, it's still unknown if they do things "just for fun".
The tits are more hanging feeder birds (they go for seed/nuts/berries as primary feed, which can be found on trees and bushes). They're right at home pecking away on something to cling on to.
Robins are primary insectivores, loving earthworms, so like Blackbirds, they forage on the ground a lot. Apparently Blackbirds shouldn't use hanging feeders, but I had a Blackbird a few years back that worked it out and spent ages teaching his mate to do it too..
Birds have smaller neurons that mammals do; they're absolute marvels of evolution.. There's no wasted space with them. Everything is optimised.. So in the same brain mass, they get far higher neuron count.. Which makes them fantastically bright for the volume of brain matter they have.
Short distances between neurons (more densely packed) and shorter distances to travel mean Birds are very responsive (thus the lightning fast reactions you see; the large part of the bird you see is feathers. The actual bird is far smaller).
They locate the feeders by fantastic eyesight (birds have huge eyes, relative to skull), which they use to look for things that seem like food. Feeders are generally known to be sources of food now (and nuts/seed are easily visible through mesh). And birds have calls for 'food', along with being able to see other birds feed..
The pecking order is easy. Tits will feed in bunches, and they do have mobbing calls (this is where a flock will gang up to attack an invader), so multiple tits are a threat to a Robin, which is a solitary bird.
Far better for a Robin to let the Tits feed, then pick up the bits afterwards, especially if the food source is sizable.
Great tits especially can really be a challenge (if they get very hungry, they'll attack and kill mice).
I used to have a toy clanger. For when someone dropped one, they'd have one to carry on with while they sorted it out.
Mind you, for people that tried to hide they'd dropped a clanger, and tried to cover it up, if I discovered it and got excuses, I kept the rear half of a plastic rat in a desk drawer that I'd bring out and place in front of them (they weren't allowed to have it, just to show that I did indeed have a rat's ass, and I wasn't giving it).
They pay for the engineer support. With some problems, you do get access to the engineers and those guys are seriously good.
If it's a bug that affects only you, then often in the Open Source world your edge case won't receive the attention that lots of others do. There isn't the dedicated resource with the specific knowledge to work at that scale for free and quickly.
You can buy support via contract, but that puts you more into the spend category. And you're still left with the problem that there are still limitations to the responsiveness (unless you contract for hefty sums to the people that are actively developing the whole product, which again moves into the big spend category).
Then you get things like Oracle which do have the resources into the codebase at scale. But that's expensive. I've submitted bugs in the past that were definitely edge case, but got in the way of me doing something I expected to work. Resolutions were rolled into the next set of hotfixes released.
I was pretty impressed. I've made bug reports to other DB vendors (including MS) and had nowhere near that response.
However, if I'm going to be putting that spend out there, it needs to be worth it. As with everything, know what you need, what's essential and what's merely wanted. Design using the right tools and spend covering essentials appropriately.
I'd probably compare it as a fleet of fiestas vs. a segmented heavy goods vehicle.
You can nip lots of stuff rapidly all over the place with the fiestas, though over time, their reliability may well mean targets are missed, but it's not that important if you're using them for the right jobs.
The HGV lacks some of the flexibilities of using large amounts of small vehicles, but does the heavy lifting extremely well.
I did DBA work for a couple of decades, and always thought that part of the job was picking the right tool for the job. The more heterogenous the environment, the more people you needed to support it properly, but the better long term results you got if you designed well.
On Oracle's features, I always found that they'd invest in something, often incredibly useful, and immediately pitch it as a feature you could only use if you paid more. Quite a bit of the time, people found that they could do without and use a different product (either due to price or lockin concerns or both). When Oracle realised they weren't making money out of it, they slipstreamed it to be a feature of a lesser version of a license (effectively making it 'free' if you bought that tier of license for other uses).
Oracle, SQL Server, Maria, PostgreSQL et. al. all have their places, and strengths and weaknesses; it's why I never understood the "holy wars" between them.
Kinda like saying the fiesta is better than the HGV because it's got a better acceleration, or the HGV is better because it carries tons (literally). Both _may_ be true in certain frames of reference, but aren't globally true (as I tell people in SQL classes I run, especially when I throw curveballs in the exercises in it: "An answer is easy to get if you go looking for it. _The_ answer is often quite elusive").
Disparate parts acting rapidly to cope with incoming information and situations that they need to flag and deal with? That'd be the "Sympathetic and Parasympathetic nervous systems".
Most animals have them, and they work in conjunction with a brain to provide complex and adaptive behaviour that has let animals colonise every nook and cranny of the planet.
Unlike jellyfish that just hang there and pretty much do not a lot.
So, a Jellyfish.
They've not adapted in millions of years, and exist in a very beneficial environment. The ones that aren't toxic and destroy everything around have a massive attrition (fail) rate due to critters that can eat them (because they have a brain), but as a group they survive by having a disposable mass of low quality organisms that are entirely interchangeable and undifferentiated.
When a significant change happens (say it gets a bit stormy), a huge quantity can be completely destroyed (washed up on the beach as food for the gulls). But that's apparently not a problem. After all, you can just chuck any tech/team in place of another, can't you. Nat West? Nat West? Anyone? Nat West?
Actually, what they probably should have been saying is that an IT entity should behave like a higher organism, with an autonomous nervous system that tracks and deals with behaviour on its own, but raises exceptions that a higher brain can deal with (and sometimes override).
It's adaptable and effective. Unlike the jellyfish that relies on an endless supply of one of them to work.
As usual, Despair.com has a highly relevant comment on Gartner's approach: https://despair.com/collections/demotivators/products/achievement
Those are the "low hanging fruit" who are easily identified. The successful ones are ruthless, intelligent and quite rich. They've already got channels to identify individuals to a limited extent, but that leaves footprints and trails.
This completely cuts out any form of trail, can be used by those low level criminals, and works in an arbitrary fashion. Don't like the cop that told you to stop stealing? Find out where they live and continually ransack their house.
Don't like the cop that told you to stop beating someone up and chucked you in jail overnight? No problem, find out where they live and send the boys round in masks.
Don't like that you were arrested for murder? Not a problem, have your friends grab the photos and go round and take their family out.
Yes, any one person could theoretically get there eventually with a lot of hard work and effort (and intimidation, threats, money etc.), but this is almost a 'click and go' automation. Find out who's preventing you doing illegal things and take them out before they stop you. That's freedom for some.
As an addendum, you don't even need to look at history.
There are countries "freed" from your hypothetical "tyranny of Government".
One great example is Somalia. By your logic, with the effective hamstringing of the Government and cessation of policing, people have banded together to exist in harmony, free of the oppressive yoke, and are now living idyllic lives where they can get on and advance in peace.
Except that's not what's going on. Roving warlords can do what they want, to who they want. Murder, rape and a whole load of things are unpunishable if they are perpetrated by people with the guns. If you were to voice your righteous indignation about this to them, their complaints procedure is to simply plant a bullet (or knife, or something) into the complainant until they shut up. Permanently.
Advancement doesn't happen, because anything worthwhile is taken by those that can use force.
Life is cheap there. Very cheap.
So, if you want to see where your anti-government, anti-policing strategy points as its end result, look no further than that, as that's exactly the path that happened.
That's the only real use for personally identifying police officers (who are organisationally identifiable via badge numbers).
If you can threaten and intimidate the people who are tasked with upholding laws, and reining in organised crime _outside_ the disciplinary checks and balances and ethical studies, you can stop law enforcement in its tracks (who is going to to go and arrest a protester for burning down a building, if the next thing that happens is you're identified and an angry mob come to burn down your house next, perhaps with your family inside, just to send the message home).
What you then end up with is being policed by an unelected, unconstrained, authoritarian group with highly partisan views and a complete lack of ethical oversight and ad-hoc metrics for arbitrary punishment.
Some people just want to see the world burn, and that chap sounds like he's one of those, and doesn't want anyone interfering while he does it.
Whoah, how to move the goalposts and bring in a red herring.
The killing was done in huge numbers by the governments of the times, and war was endemic, chewing up a sizable portion of the populations of the time (absolute numbers were smaller, because populations were vastly smaller).
Policing has vastly reduced the amount of random people killing other people and just walking away with it and treating it as ok. That's one of the big things the police force was brought in to fix, and it has, to a huge degree.
Governments, overall, kill far less as a percentage of each other's populations now than they used to, because of diplomacy. Your conspiracy theory ideals are just staggeringly uninformed.
You mean the private militias of the local lords that would carry you off if you looked at the wrong person in a funny way, or even before then that if you weren't the most brutal thug in the group, you were wont to have your skull stoved in by the one further up the pecking chain, just because you were a threat?
Praytell, what is this magical time, when people lived in harmony and everything worked out nicely? Do you get your history and anthropology lessons from Disney cartoons?
For some reason, I enjoy reading research papers.. And yes, there's an inordinate amount of junk out there.. Usually in the lower impact sites, but not always..
When a layman (well, slightly above layman, but still not a practitioner in the field) can read a paper, spot the logical fallacies and outright incorrect data, you know there's something wrong.
Peer review isn't always a panacea, even in quality journals; it depends on the quality of reviewers, and that definitely is a variable. Especially in the grievance studies areas.
It's nice to see this being studied though. As a first foray, it does what science is supposed to do, and says "Look, something's going on". I hope they get funding to follow up on it to start to determine why journals fail, and how to stop that. Much as though Junk Science papers exist, it's going to be of historical interest in a few decades to look back on it, and point to just how irritatingly stupid "Published scientific papers" could be. There's a lot of work being done in general to improve quality in core STEM subjects, so it'd be a useful thing to be able to pull out papers and show "This is how NOT to do it" and explain why some of the processes are necessary.
Because one group chooses to do something. Well, nice. What you're saying is that the _choice_ of one group (and it is a choice, as evidenced by the many high powered women who sacrifice family time for the high powered roles, and the many who step back because they choose family life over work life, which is also a perfectly fine thing to do) to engage in a particular activity in a particular way should mean that rules that apply to another should not apply to them. Even if the second group also made a choice to engage in that same activity in the same way, they would be denied that flexibility, simply by nature of not belonging to that first group.
If you don't see the direct discrimination in that, then I really don't think you've considered it carefully.
It also seems you think indirect discrimination of one group is more important that direct discrimination of another.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022