didgetmaster

I wonder if there were any climate change alarmists around 20,000 years ago; telling everyone that the planet was doomed if those mile-deep glaciers covering New York ever melted?

I wonder if 'STOP or I will vote for your opponent' might work. Then again, if that worked, you might just start receiving messages asking you to vote for their opponent instead.

Absolutely. At its core, AI is just another algorithm that is subject to the same 'Garbage In-Garbage Out' principle. As more and more of the data used to train the models, is itself generated by AI; the feedback loop you describe gets stronger.

The same question will be asked in a few years to the robotic companies. If robots are so valuable to do certain tasks, why sell robots to consumers at all? Why not just put the robots you make to work in your own factories?

Has anyone done the math to determine how much electricity it takes to send 1 TB of data around your local network?

Engineer: How often should our software scan the local network looking for new devices? Once a day? Once an hour?

Manager: We might miss something. Since scanning doesn't cost us anything, better do it a thousand times a second!

As article says, the coffee machine didn't 'collect' or phone home a TB of data. It just saturated the local network looking for data to collect. This doesn't cost Keurig or any other IoT device company a single cent. It might have been a bug, or maybe not. Without some bad press, like this post; they have no incentive to change anything

I think it boils down to each individual's personal experience.

If you live surrounded by people who will hurt you, steal your stuff, or act in reckless ways if they think no one is watching; then pro-surveillance sounds more appealing.

If instead you feel that the people around you will behave even if no one is watching them; then privacy concerns take precedence.

While I think there are many atheists on HN, I think there are many who have religious convictions, myself included.

The author says everyone who has too much money must feel ashamed and give it away. This is consistent with most of the 'tax the rich' crowd. Members of this crowd are almost always talking about other people and not themselves (e.g. Bernie Sanders).

I merely asked who gets to decide where the line is drawn between 'too much' and 'not too much'.

I also asked all those envious people who want to take money away from those who have it; if they also think some people are 'too intelligent', 'too talented', or 'too attractive'.

>If we find ourselves with way more money than our share, then we say, "oops, how embarrassing",

And just who gets to decide when someone has more than their 'share'? Is it just money that people are not allowed to have too much of, or do you have the same feeling about other things like intelligence, friends, talents, looks, etc.?

Rich is just a word that is over-used to push political agendas. It is a relative term. I am rich compared to a huge segment of the world's population. I am poor compared to the top .1% of people.

'Tax the Rich' politicians will never give you a number when you ask just who they are talking about. It has to be fluid. Bernie Sanders used to rail on millionaires until he became one. Now he only says billionaires.

Computers are generally useful because we have come to trust the output. How many people would use a spreadsheet that posted a disclaimer that stated (some of the calculations might be wrong, don't use the output without first checking each total manually!)?

Almost anyone can be seen as a hero or a zero if the right 15 second clip is captured. We love it when our best moments hit social media, but everyone also piles on when we are caught at our worst (or what appears to be bad, even if it not).

It is amazing how many haters emerge like in this case, when there is so much more to the story.

Is this one of those cases where the TV is being subsidized by the data collection? In other words, if LG had to turn it off, would they have to charge more for the TVs?

Kind of like so many ink jet printers where the manufacturers will sell you the printer at or below cost with the expectation of making it up with overpriced ink cartridges.

Why do people seem to think that optimization is something you only have to deal with once the software scales so much that 100s of TB of memory or disk space (or thousands of hours of processing time) are being wasted.

It is almost like nobody even thought during the design phase about what might happen down the road.

This is why so much software is bloated and often buggy. Just gets something that half-way works out the door ASAP and worry about the rest later (too often, never).