Re: It's what's inside the counts
Please do not use exponentially for ‘really big, or something like that’. We do not have any alternative words for an exp()-like functional dependence.
442 publicly visible posts • joined 15 Mar 2016
There won't be. And it does not even take a killer app to kill the planet. Just a web of AI assistants hallucinating videos for meetings which other AI assistants will then attend and summarise and schedule more AI meetings… But perhaps keeping AI busy in pointless meetings will at least delay the uprising?
The thing is, I do not want to win the lottery. Winning the lottery is [mostly] a curse. Reasonably high stable income is much better.
And I do not want any tech bro to ‘win the lottery’ either. Why should I want more monopolistic megacorporations controlling everything? We are still trying to deal with the current bunch…
I was responding to this statement in the article (and I assume so did lglethal):
> ISPs are required to collect the real names and ID numbers when customers sign up for services
It does not talk about people using the connection, but about people *signing up for services*. And the ISP definitely has identifying personal information about them. Whether it specifically includes some kind of national ID or not is irrelevant – they have sufficient personal data regardless.
The basic obstacle is that even a half-hearted attempt at this (and I have tried) is huge PITA. It can be achieved in high-profile cases if you throw lots of resources at it. But everyday scientific poking and tinkering would basically halt. And that would be the end.
I am much more afraid of the deluge of ‘papers’ which are basically faked using generative AI. Many have adopted the shotgun approach, betting on getting some of their nonsense past peer review by chance, long before current LLMs appeared. And now they are able to produce nonsense in much large quantities (and finally also correct grammar).
Probably neither as it is too short and required little creativity.
That said, copyright is not patent. Copyright covers concrete expressions of ideas, copying and derived works. Provenance matters much more here. Two programmers can independently(!) write very similar code and both have copyright to their respective works. That is just how it is.
> Try it. Open Outlook, pick up an email with the mouse and drag it to the desktop.
The test does not start by running Outlook. I would have to get, install and set it up first. On a different machine. My desktops are set up so that they cannot even have any icons on them…
Sorry, can't be bothered to do that.
So, still does not parse. Thanks for the thumbs downs though.
Time calculations are inherently complex and difficult.
Every object in the universe has its own proper time. If you do any kind of measurement based on physics (i.e. any measurement whatsoever) you must use proper time. It's the correct time for description of how physical processes go for the specific observer.
Different observers can disagree on which of two events occured first (if they are space-like).
The idea that there is some single time barely works at the scale of counties with our current time meaurement precision.
The mess created by humans is just a big and ugly database of weird rules. But it is not fundamentally mind boggling – unlike anything coming from relativity.
Paperless is and always has been an instrumental goal, not a terminal one. As another story reminded us not so long ago: Bad software destroyed doctors memory. If they cannot do paperless right, keeping dead trees is the lesser evil.
R is nice. It is even more readable then Perl!
But seriously, if you learn Python for pandas, with some luck you might end up learning Python, a generally useful programming language. With R you end up with a lanague which is very efficient at specific things and frustrating when you need also to do some ‘normal’ programming.
> Do you seriously think that ANY company would ignore a market segment where they could make money?
Could they? Companies ignore market segments all the time – precisely because [they think] it is not worth it. Sometimes they are right, sometimes not.
Accessibility is hard and tends to or force you to change the design, i.e. get in the way. And Apple are not in the ‘everyone uses this’ business. They are ‘overpriced tat to show your superiority’ business. If everyone used Apple, Apple users would no longer be special. So to keep the air of exclusivity they actually need the unwashed masses to use something else.
> Your existing is wrong!
Did anyone say that? Please calm down.
So, what to do instead? Generate vast quantities of such images. For everyone. For non-existent AI-generated lookalikes. For whoever and whatever you can in all possible variations. Make them easily available. Let everyone know.
Then they become banal and useless for extortion. Of course such pictures exist. Of course they are fake. Who cares?
Sure currently there would be legal problems, and with minors this is not likely to be an option, etc. But generally, the ease with which they are generated is not the problem; it is the solution.
That is basically the right approach to all ‘smart’ devices. In some cases there can be benefits if the thing is programmable or remote controlled or something. But… The piece with the complicated software has to be disentangled from the hardware. You have hardware which actually does something – and with that you may or may not have a computer (whatever the form factor) which provides the smarts. And they can be replaced independently. Because they have very different upgrade cycles. Then it perhaps can work.
If we stopped chasing the upgrade, I haven't noticed. Sure, the reason for upgrade used to be ‘it brings these nice things I need/want’, whereas now it is more ‘my old stuff is no longer working – again’.
But perhaps we are reaching some kind of equilibrium. I would not call it a good thing. It means about half of ‘improvements’ will make things worse. Probably more than half, knowing humanity and the second law of thermodynamics…