what-no-tests

Gee if only the Sun were somehow capable of beaming energy to the Earth.

/s

The real question is: why are you using Outlook?

Great website! It looks wonderful on my powerful new Mac.

Also, I like how the focus appears to be on how it will benefit the user, instead of focusing on tech specs.

Data privacy and personal security aside, I understand there will be a reciprocal action between lifestyle and technology. We might have to change our lifestyle to make room for and benefit from new technology tools, just as we have for smart phones.

If kids get interested in it, then it will have a chance. If it's cool and fun, then it has a chance. If it actually makes things easier and better, then it could take off.

But if it has that cringe factor like google glass had, then it will never get anywhere.

The possibilities are awesome, but something like this requires a reinforcing feedback loop on top of a network effect to become successful.

OK so this could go multiple ways.

On the one hand, they might be very specific, like "anything other than the Missionary Position between heterosexual couples of the same race and age are banned."

On the other hand, they might have a 100-page document filled with legalese that nobody understands, nor follows.

Perhaps we could look at this from another perspective: If we were in North Korea, how would they regulate the use of AI for the reproduction of the likeness of the Dear Leader?

Edit: To put it another way:

* They either define in clear terms what IS allowed.

* Or they define in clear terms what IS NOT allowed.

Any group who's core values do not include Integrity is a group to steer clear of.

Only someone in league with or benefiting from the centralization of power, mass surveillance, wealth, and the use of technology to further the rapid concentration and centralization of such could write such a one-sided piece.

Unless they're somehow unaware that, in its current manifestation, technology is a tool that converts knowledge into power.

An improved and expanded strategy for -- with articulated tactics to achieve -- the decentralization of power and wealth, a dismantling of hierarchy, and increasing personal agency, privacy and freedom must not be sacrificed in favor of technology for technology's sake.

Can we even do this? I don't know.

That's very generous of you.

When I was at GM Cruise we were using a "semantic map" - the robot cars would drive around the city trying to figure out where they were based on GPS, and then match up what their LiDAR/RADAR/Camera data showed after going through the "Ground Truth" system.

The software just did whatever the ML model figured was the optimal response to the current situation, 10x per second. Often it got the wrong answer, and the NN would be focused on fixing those "wrong answer scenarios" next.

The cars can't drive anywhere the semantic map doesn't already cover.

Ridiculous, and so very disappointing.

We need better methods - maybe something that could generate metaphors like Lakoff suggests in "Metaphors We Live By" but the whole "drive robot cars around a city a million times and make a huge model of it" strikes me as very inefficient.

flood...the market!

> "By re-running the same commentary it strengthens the original commentary tenfold each time. ... In the wake of these really terrible things, we have this comment that really holds up."

I remember there was that one guy who said something about repeating the same thing over and over until it became true.

The example "Hello World" program source code shows how simple the event-loop style of development looks here. I like it, and it does look like something that could be useful.

Thanks for sharing!

What's the alternative?

Nationalize all online selling, and have a central pricing authority?

Where does one draw the line, with an interest in not taking it to the extreme?