As a Canadian and a scientist, I will tell you that it seems that our current government is very anti-science.

It is my understanding that experts and scientists opinions are not respected when making policy decisions. Our scientists are frequently muzzled. The long form census was recently changed. We have new crime policy that is unsupported by experts. Environment Canada has been cut drastically. I believe that our science minister does not believe in evolution. Experts, statisticians, and scientists have spoken out, have resigned, and have protested. Nevertheless, the majority of Canadians do not seem to care.

Kyoto is only the most recent item. Whether the decision was right or wrong for the environment, the fact is that the decision was political. Canada, today, is anti-science.

I just don't understand how that is anything but a net loss to "just go". If you really need/want to leave, then that makes sense. But if you would have been satisfied to stay if the compensation was appropriate, why not have that option? Not only do you have to start over with no rapport with the rest of the office, no seniority, no earned respect, but your current employer is blindsided and almost surely in rough shape because of it.

Now I don't know the OP's situation, but I'm in a small business. I only have a handful of employees and each one requires months of training before they are effective in their roles in our workflow. In the time that they are not effective, I have to pull 80 hour weeks to do their job and mine. Further, it costs me thousands (a real percentage of our yearly revenue) to advertise, interview, hire, and retrain someone else. I don't have the resources or space to have multiple staff for each role, so if someone just quits on me, it's a disaster. Again, maybe not the OP's situation, but I'm surprised how many posts here think their employer is a faceless entity that would fire them in a second. NOT ALL BUSINESSES ARE LIKE THAT.

I'm an employer. I've invested a huge amount of time and money in my people. Times are tough, so I'm not going around offering $10k raises indiscriminately. However, they are key people who I would pay that much to keep, and there would be bad blood if those people would have stayed after a round of negotiation but decided not to give me an opportunity to consider the situation.

Us bosses are not all unreasonable. Many of us have had to make tough decisions leaving one place for a better opportunity. I've actually had this conversation with each of my employees. I tell them: "if you are ever unhappy or you start feeling like the grass is greener somewhere else, let's talk about it. If the difference between keeping you and losing you is a few dollars or benefits, I want to work with you to find something that works for both of us."

The answer is that it's being taught by Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvig. They are each kindof a big deal.

Very low probability that the course will require you to read that entire textbook, unless it's unlike every AI course I've ever taken. Also, just watching the lectures and not doing the reading will probably be super interesting if it's like any AI course I've ever taken. (I have a Masters degree and most of a PhD specializing in AI and I think this course will be crazy interesting for most geek/nerd/tech-inclined people)

You been trolled son.

Sadly too true. But they're bigger!

That's last year's video. This year's video is linked from the summary. I haven't watched it yet, I'm just pointing out that you are being critical of the wrong thing.

Surprise, click with two fingers executes a right click, and it feels *way* more intuitive than having a separate button.

Actually I know multiple PhD and Masters graduates who studied AI at Canadian and US Universities that have gone on to work for the top-tier online poker companies. Some of them work in Ireland, where Full Tilt's HQ is. Not China. It is run like any other business over there, not some shady racket. I also know for a fact that employees are not allowed to play on live servers.

I presume if they were not afraid of being arrested and hassled some of these companies would setup shop in North America. It would make it easier to attract talent.

I think the original comment was on target. The point is, at an Apple store, when you have decided to buy something and the store is busy, there is no obvious way to be sure your purchase will be handled in priority sequence. There is no line. There is no "take a number". There is just "wander around looking helpless till someone comes over to you". I shop there and have had this experience numerous times.

Sometimes I just want to pay; please let me register that intention so that I can relax and wait my turn.

Because you are taking the time to think this through, I'd like to point you to the well-established research field of voting theory.

It's actually quite interesting. There are many criteria an election might hope to satisfy. Provably no voting system can satisfy even a small set of desirable criteria (see Arrow's impossibility theorem). However, in my view (and many others), the methods that consider all pairwise elections seem in some sense to be the fairest according to my own personal aesthetics. These are called Condorcet methods. They are actually even used in practice for some things, some even in the open-source community.

All I heard over and over was "customers keep telling us they want it". What I didn't hear was "this is the best phone we have". No contradiction. Giving customers what they are asking for is hardly rocket science. Not like they are replacing other products with the iPhone.

Laziness has nothing to do with it. It's kindof a hard problem. The solution is worth billions. Trust me, Google really does not like the amount of spam sent from their own accounts that clogs their own services and defraud their own users. Defeating these bots is a high priority for them and everyone else. Each of these companies is basically an army of geniuses. It's a hard problem.

It always seemed to me that this was a poor argument. Twins have so many incentives, explicitly and implicitly to differentiate themselves and not just *seem* different but *be* different. It seems the example of raising two animals/people in parallel is vastly different than doing it sequentially.

If only there was some way we could study nurture/nature in this way with something that is not human, and therefore could pass an ethics approval application at a research institution. It might give us some insight into development.