As other posters have noted, 248 days of operation means skipping twenty-plus maintenance and inspection cycles, plus missing one or more engine overhauls. That sucker's going to fall out of the sky due to a hardware problem before the software error gets the chance.

Even in the absence of regular, scheduled, required maintenance, there will be hardware failures due to stuff wearing out, with sufficient frequency to force reboots at less-than-eight-month intervals. Honestly, the FAA is going to ground any airline that was so lax as to get within six months of tripping over this bug.

That's not to say that this bug is a good or acceptable thing, nor that something like it couldn't have much more serious effects. But this particular error is a non-issue from a real-life consequences standpoint.

First of all, this is the link that the story should have included. It includes updates of the scoreboard, etc. On it you will see that even though the brains are collectively beating Claudico, the computer is actually over $100,000 ahead against Jason Les, a feat that almost no human could match. Yes, Claudico is down against the other three, but these are the top players in the world, and most human pros would get clobbered much worse by these guys. Are we really so hard to impress? This is the first time that something like this has been tried, and already, the computer is performing on a level that most poker pros would love to reach.

I don't know about the technology or the algorithm(s), but the linked article is certainly nonsense.

Look, I get it. Nobody wants to admit that they're spending their grant money this way because it's fun to get a computer to play Hold 'em. But that's got to be the dumbest justification I've ever read. Human metabolism is complex, but the pancreas doesn't bluff.

In other words, either the researchers involved are complete idiots, or a Slashdot poster jumped to a useless conclusion based on a strawman argument spun from the summary. Hm.

"Geoengineering is a bad idea." "Why?"
"Because it hasn't been tested and could have unpredictable consequences."
"So let's do some testing and improve our models of how it works."
"No way, we can't be doing research on geoengineering!" "Why not?"
"Because geoengineering is such a bad idea!" "Why?"
"Because it hasn't been tested and could have unpredictable consequences."
...

"It also renews the expiring parts of the Patriot Act through 2019."

No. let that fucking thing die. The PATRIOT ACT and those that support it are enemies of the american people.

and I assert that without the competition of alternatives, IIS never would have been cleaned up as thoroughly as it is.

That's a pretty safe assertion for anyone who remembers how long IIS stagnated after Microsoft had successfully destroyed Netscape. You might recall that Microsoft did almost nothing with IIS for years until Firefox was a credible competitor. How long did it take Microsoft to implement tabbed browsing?

If that 10 years is maintenance free as in I don't have to do anything to it He will win big.
The biggest problem with off grid solar+wind installs is that caring for the battery bank is outside of the abilities of 80% of the population. If musk can make an off grid solar/wind install a zero effort/ zero care system where the drooling masses don't have to do anything.....

That will get the adoption rates way up, if the payback is within 5 years.

Right there. Psychology is as much a science as Astrology and Tarot cards. It's all based on what the observer thinks is normal.

I don't think the principle is meant as a critique so much as a statement of a regrettable tendency in the way that things in employment situations simply are.

So you're only traveling between airports? What about commuting to/from the airport?

So is the Apple Watch not working with wrist tattoos equivalent to a malfunctioning car, failing laptop, or or contaminated drugs/food? You call the GP commenter a shill. You sounds silly and shrill.

If you have wrist tattoos (my guess is you don't) and the watch doesn't work for you return it. Get some perspective, and buy a Google Wear instead.

Yes, in practice it's usually a mix of the two, so the principle is more an abstract model than an argument about real, concrete thresholding.

But the general idea is that by the time someone stops being promoted, if they continue in the job that they are in while not being promoted for an extended period of time, it means that they are likely not amongst the highest-merit individuals around for that particular job and responsibility list—because if they were, they'd have been promoted and/or would have moved to another job elsewhere that offered an equivalent to a promotion.

The best way to understand the principle is to imagine the counterfactual.

When does a person *not* get promoted any longer? When they are not actually that great at the position into which they have most recently been promoted. At that point, they do not demonstrate enough merit to earn the next obvious promotion.

So, the cadence goes:

Demonstrates mastery of title A, promoted to title B.
Demonstrates mastery of title B, promoted to title C.
Demonstrates mastery of title C, promoted to title D.

Does not manage to demonstrate mastery of D = is not promoted and stays at that level indefinitely as "merely adequate" or "maybe next year" or "still has a lot to learn."

That's the principle in a nutshell—when you're actually good at your job, you get promoted out of it. When you're average at your job, you stay there for a long time.