Err... you don't think healthcare is linked to corruption and extortion? Suggests you haven't been paying much attention lately. And healthcare is tied to public health, which is necessarily a public (shared) good - if there's an outbreak of, say, cholera in your city, it's very much in your own interests that it gets dealt with quickly and effectively, even if you and yours may have ironclad health insurance for yourselves.
3118 posts • joined 25 Mar 2010
Do you want fr-AI-s with that appy-meal? McDonald's gobbles machine-learning biz for human-free Drive Thrus
Now all they need is a robot to cook the "meal", one to package it into the greasy paper bag, and one to extend it out of the kiosk into the driver's window. Then more to take customers' orders at the desk, process their changes-of-mind, accept their payments, smile at them, and above all, clean the damn' restaurant. Continuously.
The fully automated McDs may be a horrifying vision or a utopian ideal, but either way it's some way off yet.
Facebook: Remember how we promised we weren’t tracking your location? Psych! Can't believe you fell for that
eBay eBabe enigma explained: Microsoft bug blamed after topless model slings e-souk's emails at stunned Brits
Re: "the opportunities created by Brexit".
As I interpret it, what's happening is that - well, farmers need to be subsidised somehow. In the EU, that happens by taxpayer-funded subsidies handed directly to farmers. In NZ, it happens through (indirect) price controls artificially inflating prices, so the buyer (rather than the taxpayer) pays.
But the need for someone to pay that subsidy isn't going anywhere. Assuming you want there to be a UK farming sector - and I don't know of anyone who doesn't want that - then someone is going to have to pony up the money currently coming from the EU to support them. Direct government subsidies (as now, but paid directly by the government) would presumably be a good deal - but it would further dent the UK budget. The alternative is basically to double the price of everything.
Re: "the opportunities created by Brexit".
I live in a country that, it's universally acknowledged, has led the way in opening its markets and exposing its farmers to global competition.
And I'm here to tell you, food in New Zealand costs far more than it does in the UK.
For example: New Zealand is famous for its locally produced lamb, beef and dairy. According to my sources, a litre of milk in the UK currently costs around 59p. A litre of milk here in NZ is in the ballpark of $2.40, or 1.24 pounds. Minced beef costs over $15 per kg, more than twice what it does in your local Tesco.
And those are both products that we produce and export in large volumes. I'll leave it to your imagination what imports cost.
This is the reality of a no-tariff economy. Enjoy.
Q. If machine learning is so smart, how come AI models are such racist, sexist homophobes? A. Humans really suck
Not so surprising. Both Stallman and Microsoft have been mellowing.
Of all the tech giants, currently I regard Microsoft and Apple as the two most likely to be on my side on any given issue. (Because they give me the option of being their customer rather than their product, that's why.) They're no longer the threat they were - if only because they're no longer in a position to be.
Big bang theory: Was mystery explosion over New York caused by a meteor? Dunno. By a military jet? Maybe...
Now that basically everyone carries a camera with them at all times, sightings of UFOs on lonely roads have dropped dramatically, because (obviously) the aliens don't want us proving their existence too easily.
So they have to invent new ways to keep us guessing, letting the select few perceive the truth while the deluded masses continue to huddle in the cold light of officially sanctioned doubt. Ways that don't rely on visual contact. "Randomly generating a distant sonic boom from time to time" could be an easy way of doing that.
Allowlist, not whitelist. Blocklist, not blacklist. Goodbye, wtf. Microsoft scans Chromium code, lops off offensive words
So what? The history, while I'm sure very interesting to those who care about such things, isn't really relevant. What matters is what effect the words have today. Citing etymology at this point is really calculated to arouse suspicions that you're looking for reasons not to do the right thing.
Unless you have a consistent personal history of caring about the etymology of all words, all the time. Which you may have, I don't want to jump to conclusions about you - but if so, you need to recognise (and deal with) the fact that most of the time, it's one of those arguments that only gets dragged out when it's convenient to some other agenda.
Re: Putting the C into AC:
Every fringe has its loonies. I don't think it's particularly helpful to spend time arguing with them, as if they were representative of the mainstream arguments that they're attached to - that just legitimises them and makes it harder to deal with, or even see, the real points being argued.
Black tea and white bread are fine, because the colour words there have no particular moral weighting. Nobody imagines that "black tea" is somehow corrupt, or that people who drink it are inferior to others.
"Blacklist" and "whitelist", those are another matter.
Honestly, I can sympathise with both sides of this argument. On the one hand, this sort of self-conscious language shifting drives a wedge between us and every previous generation, which is bad. On the other hand, allowing moral weight to attach to terms that are simultaneously used as objective descriptors of some people - is thoughtless at best.
And once that has been pointed out to you, you can no longer claim "thoughtlessness" - you'd have to escalate to "a calculated putdown". So really, Google - and anyone else whose goals include "staying in business" - has no choice but to go along with it.
Cortana makes your PC's heart beat faster: Windows 10 update leaves some processors hot under the cooler
Remember the 90s, when Microsoft totally missed "this web thing" and the threat it posed to their business model?
Yeah, well they do. And when they woke up, circa 1998, they resolved that from now on everything they did would have "web" built into its very bones. This is the after-effect of that awakening: they now have trouble even recognising that a client PC can exist as a physically distinct machine.
No it's not Russell Brand's new cult, it's Microsoft's Office crew rolling out their Save Experience
For all his sterling work, I'm not so sure Raymond Chen still qualifies as a "school", rather than "a lonely guy shouting at clouds". It's some 15 years now since Microsoft lost the backward-compatibility religion, and they've shown no sign of rediscovering it.
Re: People can feel insulted by anything if they want, it is their choice and it is their right
Sooo... *THEY* are trying "to FORCE THEIR WILL upon the REST of us".
Just for the record, what do you call it when someone advocates the use of instruments of torture to "adjust the attitude" of people who don't agree with them?
No! The unbiased viewpoint is "A says this, B says that. Authorities C, D and E concur that A is incorrect."
"A is a liar" draws inferences that go well beyond the facts in evidence. First, that A is not just misinformed but deliberately dishonest. Second, that A does this frequently or habitually, it's not a one-off.
"This is an outrage" cannot possibly be an unbiased comment. "Outrage" is a state of mind, it requires a specific mind (i.e. subjective point of view) to be "outraged". It's like "offensive" - there is simply no way to assign any objective meaning to the statement.
Where is the balanced point between, "the dodgy bugger in number 10 is at it" and "Boris Johnson will basically act in the best interest of the U.K".
Neither one can be in any way defended as an objective statement. Any site that uses either of these, unless in quoting some other relevant party, is transparently commenting/opining on news, not reporting it.
Re: So, to sum up. . .
You can have as many referendums as you like, so long as it's clear what the options are.
In 2016, the "remain" option was clear, but the "leave" option was not well defined. (Many people say it was deliberately obfuscated. I'm not taking a position on that, but it is undeniable that the "leave" campaign did not advocate, then, for anything even remotely like what they're advocating for now.) That needs to be rectified if that is to be held up as the definitive democratic verdict.
Re: This needs to stop
(1) Citation needed
(2) and (3) are essentially restatements of (1). So, citation still needed.
(4) There are two points (4), but neither one makes any pretence at being objective or testable, so whatever. You believe what you want to believe, but if you want to persuade anyone else, then either evidence or argument would be handy. At this point you're offering neither.
(5) And, finish with a personal attack, still not grounded in anything that could be dignified with the description of either "evidence" or "logic".
Re: Does EV adoption just encourage 2-car families?
I doubt if any family decides to buy a second car just so they can have an EV. That decision has much more to do with logistics of the family daily routine. So no, I don't buy the idea that EVs "encourage" two-car families. Say rather that it's easier for a two-car family to adopt an EV for one of their vehicles than for a single-car family to make the same commitment.
I would like to see some actual numbers on the "lots and lots of people" you mention. Not that I deny it, but it would be nice to quantify those "lots".
Incorrect. Renewables (wind, solar, hydro and biomass) account for around 30% of the kWh consumed in the UK per year. Add in nuclear, and you can see that over 50% of UK electricity generation - by volume of power generated - is - well, it's not quite true to say "zero carbon" because there are costs associated with transport and installation and maintenance and what have you, but "very low carbon".
Audible hasn't even launched its AI-powered book subtitles and publishers have already fired off a sueball
Old-skool publishers vs Amazon
Part of me wants to see both sides lose this, but only because it's good to see both of them lose everything.
Another part is wondering when the companies that call themselves "publishers" are going to wake up to the fact that their business model is broken, and Amazon is one of very few companies who may have both the capability and the incentive to help them rebuild it.
"Shall not be infringed" applies to "keep and bear arms". Nowhere does it say anything about the right to attach said arms to an independent controlled vehicle.
Unless you can define the drone itself as a weapon - and I think that may have implications that you wouldn't be entirely happy with.
This is why Brexit is as bad for Europe as it is for Britain
All these years, Britain has been the number one moderating force keeping Europe away from this kind of idiocy. Since it withdrew from the decision making, the EU has made more and bigger strides in the direction of full-on stupidity than it ever did in the 30 years before. (Well, discounting the euro, at least.)
It's sheer pie in the sky. The total EU budget is only €165bn. Which specific European nations do you think will be up for donating their money into a €100bn fund on top of that?