kylebrown

According to the website, FindBugs was partially funded by a couple of NSF grants. So US taxpayers did indirectly pay for his services.

> But if the startup gods aren’t smiling, and you can’t either figure out the cause and/or figure out how to correct it, it’s time to start working on a Plan B for the business. Plan B often includes kicking off a strategic process that ends up in the sale of the company before it becomes as obvious to others as it is to you that you’ve got a dying shark on your hands.

That sounds not entirely ethical / honest..

Is there a free/open-source download for RiakTS?

Or can anyone recommend something lighter-weight than full-blown Kafka etc.?

Otherwise a broker would just route mom n' pop's orders to the exchange that pays the biggest bribe to the broker (and screw mom n' pop).

A point of controversy is whether or not the 43 students were incinerated. The indedentent experts (GIEI) report insist that it was impossible:

> Dr. José Luis Torero, an internationally recognized fire-investigation expert, was hired by the GIEI to conduct an independent examination into the incineration scenario. Torero, a Peruvian who participated in the forensic investigations of the World Trade Center attacks, has a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, and was previously a professor of fire security at the University of Edinburgh. He currently heads the School of Civil Engineering at the University of Queensland, Australia. The incineration of forty-three bodies in an open-air terrain like that of the Cocula dump, Torero concluded, would have required some thirty-three tons of wood or fourteen tons of pneumatic tires, along with the same amount of diesel fuel; the fire would have had to burn for sixty hours, not the twelve that the P.G.R. claimed it had, based on the confessions of captured Guerreros Unidos sicarios. The smoke from such a fire would have risen nearly a thousand feet into the sky and would have been visible for miles around; no such pillar of smoke was spotted, or even captured by satellite imagery.

The pro-government media is pushing back that its just one scientist's opinion, which is at odds with the opinion of scientists at UNAM (national university of mexico) who participated in the government investigation and concluded that the missing students _were_ incinerated.

Specifying a solution is easy; that's a purely technical exercise. The hard problem is figuring out how we get from where we are now (A) to where we want to go (B); that's a political problem.

Microsoft's first customer was IBM because an IBM VP sat on the board of Seattle National Bank with Bill Gates's mother (the bank was founded by Bill's grandfather).

> Can we entirely rule out the possibility of AI researchers making advancements over time, and then eventually some research lab building one that's super intelligent compared to us? Why?

That's not the thing we should be worried about, or at least that's the point I got from the article. The thing we should be worried about is the way machine learning is applied in the here-and-now: the ethics of big data social networks, the robustness of complex (API-driven) systems, and so on. I fully agree that these issues are much more pressing and worrying than some emergent super-intelligence.

But I thought the article was weak in its discussion of dreams, creativity, and linear "flat data". It links to a June 2015 popular mechanics article about applying a genetic search optimization algorithm to discover gene regulatory networks, downplaying it as not-true-intelligence. But it does not mention deep neural networks and their higher-dimensional abstractions, particularly the psychedelic "inception" images.

The author also mentions "linear reasoning", and says he expects we'll learn more about intelligence from stem cell and Alzheimer's research, and the "tissues surrounding neurons, and the roles they play in contextual regulation." As if to set up some dichotomy between machine and biological intelligence. But what about deep neural networks?? I'm not sure how that would affect the author's arguments, but I'd like to see it discussed.

I, for one, welcome our new corporate data center overlords.