quakenul

> It makes a lot of sense. People don't need a CS degree to do programming or even to be really good programmers.

Even more so (and maybe more shockingly) you don't need to be a capable programmer to get a CS degree. I have worked with people who have master's degrees from respectable universities who have not used Git or a command line in their life.

And yes, both are teachable -- but then, everything is. It is hard to quantify exactly how much inexperience in any given discipline hurts the outcome to what degree, but I feel there is a strong bias towards algorithms over practical skills, including having worked on and completed real life projects, that does not correlate well with their importance in common real world situations.

Yeah, neither can I. Lucky for both of us, that is not what this application is about.

If you want to compose even better emails, learn how to be good with formatting. The linked article makes a fine case of how to.

Just like paragraphs (which are just another form of formatting) using indentations, list items, font weights and capitalization correctly will help you structure any text and get your point across more easily.

It's important to keep in mind that email is quite literally the only domain, where this is even a topic of discussion, solely due to legacy reasons. I do like not having font color and h2 tags abused, but the key to that is email literacy, not taking away formatting options, that are helpful in making the medium work better for humans.

Getting in touch with two foreign languages in school is not uncommon, but speaking up to four (including your mother tongue) with any sort of sophistication definitely is not normal, at least in western Europe.

Apologies, I should have been more precise: A cpu will win when you start isolating and creating a scenario to test for APM and TTFA (obviously), so if you are interested in advancing strategic and tactical AI capabilities – basically out-thinking the human – it makes sense to cap those solved parts to make sure you are winning because of progress you make on your objective.

It comes down to what you are interested in. Right now DeepMind seems to be focused on beating humans on strategy and tactics, which is reasonable, since those are the contested areas and cpu winning on APM and TTFA has been solved for long ago. To not confuse one for the other, putting limits on the later (at some point maybe even stifling itself beyond what a pro player could reasonable to) seems like an excellent way to go about it.

Well, since you can literally build game engines in free spreadsheet apps, probably none, but, as you noticed yourself, the selling point is the UX/UI, which seems to be excellent.

Any game/activity that you have to join a club and pay a membership for (i.e. Golf, Tennis) and also play professionally would qualify, so a subset of entertainment, engagement, excitement, relaxation, thrill.

To be clear, this is not Spotify blocking small artists without a label getting on Spotify. This is about bands not being able to upload directly, requiring them to use any of the cheaply available distributors instead. This is mostly likely an anti-fraud / anti-copyright infringement / QA move.

Nope. Just like physics is exactly not how an atom bomb got dropped -- in an extremely important distinction between physics and atom bomb dropping -- there is a very important distinction between government intervention and going to war.

In a complicated world things will correlate. I hope this neither makes a generalised case against physics nor government intervention.

When things go bad government should intervene to protect people. These steps are always going to be extraordinary, because the situation is extraordinary, but it is the very role of government to apply necessary fixes without false pride for any economic or governmental models.

Of course, questions as to how one ended up in a bad situation have to be asked. Underlying issues should be fixed.

But when things get out of hand, when extraordinary action is deemed necessary to adjust for an untenable situation, it is not only right but paramount to take action.

As is with all issues, people will disagree with any specific course of action. By all means, vote to that effect.

It gets tricky as soon as you need labels and/or more complicated visual feedback attached to "dumb" buttons.

The touchscreen is "lazy" in that it can defer thinking hard about your problem space and I can see why that alone would feel scary in a car.

On the other hand, there is only so much foresight you can have when you are innovating. Developing a Tesla might simply not be feasible without the flexibility a touchscreen gives you.

> As a User Experience Professional, I was never able to grasp the true user's need for touch screens in cars

The flexibility to benefit from rapid product iteration. If you think of cars as mostly software products that receive updates over the air, a flexible interface makes a lot more sense (even though I agree that it makes for a pretty bad user interface).

> A self-host solution by its nature requires some investment in the techniques and would take greater effort (that's how most open source projects make money).

That sounds like a pretty good reason not to run your own solution then, so I guess we can meet there.

> Look, I'm not trying to sell my solution here.

Yes, you are.