Comment Re:Can they hijack the mic to get this info? (Score 1) 42
Not swiping their fingerprints, just swiping the finger while using UI in general, is the claim.
Not swiping their fingerprints, just swiping the finger while using UI in general, is the claim.
that wouldnt be there otherwise.
As if the people paying the taxes that funded welfare would not have spent that money if they had it.
Here's the money flow without welfare: Employee 1 -> Buys goods or services -> pays employee 2 -> buys goods or services
Here's the money flow with welfare: Employee 1 -> pays taxes -> employs goverment employee -> distributed to welfare recipient -> buys goods or services.
Notice that in the second example, there are two unproductive workers for every worker, where in the first example there are two productive workers, and no unproductive workers. The pernicious thing about welfare is that it prevents productive economic activity by diverting funds in a way which results in no additional productivity for the economy.
Ironic.
Try reading next time.
Wouldn't accuracy be folded into the overall size?
If you have a model that generates the gigabyte of text, but with a number of known errors, you just append the errata data to the end for a correction pass.
A 100% accurate model would need 0 errata, so the error rate just becomes a size a penalty.
I tend to follow news and politics fairly closely and this is an allegation that I was not aware of.
Do you have anything substantial to back this claim with?
The problem with this isn't the technology, but the fact that journalists are willing to lie in order that they may sell advertising. A truth-in-journalism act would result in not in deepfakes being published, but rather ignored, by the press at large.
The problem is not the technology, but the fact that journalists are willing to lie with whatever means at their disposal.
A few years ago I ran the numbers for a career of 20 years. Turns out, when all things are considered - the overtime, the time and money spent getting a college degree:
There are exceptions, of course - the truckers making $85k working for WalMart, for example, and the boot camp coders making $33k, but overall, the opportunity cost and tuition of a college education doesn't make financial sense for those who just want to make more money. The people who end up making the most per hour worked either run their own business, or work in the skilled trades.
Because I'm doing something I like, I'm not bitter, but I can't recommend software engineering to anyone who just wants to make money. The people who just want to move from poverty into the middle class would be better served by just picking a trade and working hard. Unless you really like programming, software engineering as a career is just going to burn you out. Like anything else, the folks at the top of the pay scale love what they do, and those at the bottom hate it.
Which is why software engineers make more than truck drivers.
Because corporate America requires employees to be physically present in the office, they have to pay the mortgages of employees in prime real estate locations.
Because corporate America uses the salary system - which often requires unpaid overtime - they must pay higher salaries, regardless of whether the employees actually work the hours commensurate with their salary.
Because corporate America frequently lays off employees en masse, every employee needs six to twelve months of salary in savings - again, which increase the amount the company must pay for labor.
In other countries, where employees are guaranteed weeks of vacation time, where employment is on a contract, rather than at-will basis, where companies actually do long-term planning, software engineer salaries are typically half to a third of what they are in the US. American companies are literally paying two to three times what they would otherwise pay in salaries simply because of their own inflexibility and inability to do long term (i.e. beyond the next quarter) planning.
Well, considering the technology is 80 years old... Germany created coal->gasoline plants during world war 2, I'd say that it's just a matter of political will.
As for scale, if you build a plant which produces it, you can start small and start by blending it with traditional fossil fuel sources until you've built out enough capacity to completely replace petroleum. That is, the conversion process can start right now, even if it takes a decade or so to completely replace all the petroleum sourced fuels.
Think about it this way: I can remember when gasoline was $1.10 per gallon. If we'd started this project back then, gasoline would probably still be ~ $3 per gallon, but it would all be carbon neutral, and we'd have about a third of the CO2 emissions problem solved.
And only one party is trying to remove a candidate from the ballot, because even though he's a convicted felon, etc... there is a very real fear that even though they beat him last time, they won't be able to do it again.
Let's look at the facts.
Therefore, if Trump is allowed to run, he'll get the nomination and stands a good chance of losing (again) to Biden. But if Trump can't run, any of the other Republican candidates (who at least appear as if they're not insane) will get the nomination, and stand a very good chance of beating Biden come November.
Which makes me think the Democrats hate Trump so much they're willing to cede the White House to any Republican candidate other than Trump. Otherwise, they'd let Trump run, and ruin, any Republican hopes of winning the White House.
What's it like living in fear all the time?
I was just thinking a belt. Is there a particular reason the vibrations have to come from inside?
Perhaps the authors never imagined that such a tool could be used by drone to identify and autonomously eliminate anyone carrying a gun... the military application of such an AI is just to tempting to ignore.
Imagine if the police could be followed around by a drone which would automatically shoot anyone carrying a gun, before they could get it pointed in the officer's direction? Imagine what this would do for "crowd control". Imagine that errors in judgement would be directed against a faceless corporation with deep pockets and highly paid lawyers.
An AI which can identify weapons of any sort sounds like an authoritarian's wet dream come true. Maybe this isn't the world the authors envisioned, but it's the one they've helped create.
Apparently some guy whose name rhymed with "steen" had an extortion racket where he threatened to expose people's sexual habits...
Whatever happened to that guy?
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro