* Posts by CruentusVulpes

4 posts • joined 14 Sep 2015

Your top five dreadful people the Google manifesto has pulled out of the woodwork



I wish to inject only two points into this swirling issue:

1. People having and wielding authoritative power have proven THEMSELVES empirically to have common traits that render THEM incompetent at making any decision that attempts to rectify social ills. These common traits need not be expounded, but let us safely agree that illustrator and author Scott Adams more than sufficiently captured them in the body of his works. In regards to this issue, THEY commonly try to “solve” one social ill by introducing a host of others (e.g.: quota systems, political correctness, Jim Crow, fascism, affirmative action, Apartheid ... ad nausea, ad absurdum). Google management is not the first (nor will it be the last) to blunder down this mine-infested rocky road. It’s a case of smart people making dumb decisions.

2. If Google had any notion of actually addressing this problem, they would have already noticed it and corrected it, internally, years ago. The problem has always been that they do not just hire competent people – they hire people who also “feel” competent…to them. THEY share the same hiring practices as Google. Everyone has this problem…privately: young, hip, urbanites hang out with other young, hip urbanites; god-fearing church folk hang out with their equals; etc. We form tribes. It’s a trust issue hard-wired into humans. One can blame Google for being human, but not misogynistic. If Google, et al, truly wish to create a blind meritocracy, they first need to remove the human element from managerially social decisions.

I wonder how such a technologically advanced group of programmers and scientists should go about that…hmmm?

We're all saved. From the killer AI. We can live. Thanks to the IEEE


Good in theory...

An IEEE standard (or any standard) is a valuable tool for all qualified, competent engineers. Compliance is mandatory in many applications, especially in government. However, true adherence to standards is only as strong as the conscience of said engineer and his owning management. I was involved with testing of government systems for battlefield use. One of the many tests we ran was compliance to IEEE Standard C95.1 covering human exposure to radio frequency fields. The standard is plain and simple in its requirements, yet some (quite a few...many...well, actually almost all) the systems that were verified compliant were not. No amount of reporting, cajoling, or threatening would amount to management on either side of the contractor/government fence in doing anything less than pencil-whipping compliance. I am afraid that, given the lucrative nature of AI, anything less would happen with the new 7000 series; but those standards are good in theory.

Vanished global warming may not return – UK Met Office



has anyone actually read the report (short from merely looking at the synopsis, which didn't seem to jibe with a lot of the report)? when did science become a faith-based practice? after reading most of the comments, you'd have thought the reg article insulted the virtue of some commentards' mothers. belief belongs in the unprovable...it is not a part of scientific method - no matter what a person chooses to believe. <sigh> one commentard actually refuted the article by saying other news sources came to a different conclusion. the article is supposed to instigate...in that regard, it was highly successful.


Other media outlets don't agree with your conclusions (which is odd after reading the MET report). It seems most reporters are reporting other reporters' articles and citing them and their reports as source documents. Did any of them bother to read the actual report? Nice to see general media not letting facts get in the way of their opinions.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020