Comment Re:Advertisers are worms (Score 1) 318
Advertising always worms its way into everything.
AC
A pox on both Netflix and the advertiser's houses, they have made worms meat of us.
Advertising always worms its way into everything.
AC
A pox on both Netflix and the advertiser's houses, they have made worms meat of us.
I cannot comprehend this entitled attitude. on cable tv you see ads. in a magazine or newspaper you see ads. before movies you see ads. during movies you see ad placements. so it's not like Netflix is proposing a crazy new concept, to show you an ad even though you pay a subscription. why so angry bro?
Perhaps, but I subscribe because I get ad free programing. if they want to show ads thats fine, I'll just move on to something else. I'm not angry, just voting with the wallet.
Most CS professors are paid market value. You can look up salaries at public schools. You'll find that at the ones that compete with CMU, the salaries are all in the range of what the researchers would make at a company ($100-250k). Bonuses are a little harder to compete with. But, in CS at least, grants cover a ton of travel. To publish in CS, you have to go to the conferences you're publishing in, unlike the rest of science which just has journals. That more than makes up for the lack of bonuses as far as fringe benefits go.
Quite true. There is a big difference in the market value of a researcher who is doing cutting edge research in a field that is relatively new vs the value of a research in a field that is mature enough for companies to see practical applications for the research. The former attracts researchers because they can explore new ideas and develop thing that don't exist, but they will be paid by academia standards since that is where much of that research is done. Once they can apply their research then they become much more attractive to private companies who are willing to pay much more for their expertise because they plan to develop commercial applications to make money. Universities can't afford, nor do they need, to pay equivalent salaries.
Now, the one benefit you get from industry is that you don't have to write grants. But, you also have more job security in academia. What worries me most about this is that when this bubble bursts, Uber will be one of the first companies to go (at least, research at Uber will go quickly). These researchers will now be stuck without jobs in a market that will be very hostile towards PhDs. For their sake, I hope they all vest quickly enough to get a nest egg before things go south. (it's going to happen, it always does)
-Chris
While I agree they need to get while the getting is good, if they were good enough for C-M they can probably return or find a similar gig if they want to if Uber crashes and burns, although Uber says they have a million dollar liability policy so even if that happens they met be OK for a while.
That way it can't be overwritten by software. Or at least require an internal jumper to be set before any writes can happen. Any user updating their BIOS would be fairly experienced so taking the lid off an setting a jumper wouldn't be a problem for them and people who arn't technical could just take it to a store.
Or, ship each Mac with an encrypted dongle that must be unlocked to do a firmware upgrade. You could even print the key on the dongle so you wouldn't worry about losing the key; if yo lose the dongle then still allow an authorized service center to do firmware upgrades. Of course, this my be a solution in search of a problem.
GPs will be fine. People really like having a human Doctor. Particularly an American-accented human Doctor. Unless the Hospital can bill the insurance company extra for using the human GP they will continue to use the human GP. And the insurers aren't likely to pay extra so the hospital can replace a GP earning low six figures with a computer. Moreover computers would make really shitty GPs, as they are unable to figure out whether you have high blood pressure because you're about to die, or because you're nervous that a robot has just grabbed your fucking arm.
While I agree with much of what you said, I don't think it will be a robot grabbing your arms much as a PA or NP who sees you and the computer does more of the analysis and the PA or NP does the final analysis and diagnosis; and the NP licenses will allow independent practice in all states and not just some as it is in the US today. It's not so much that the computer replaces the human as changes the role and training of the human, and thus the costs. In addition, a broader move to NP's and connected, computer assisted practice, could make primary care more available as well.
OTOH, many specialists entire job is reading a chart. The chart's format does not change much. Interpreting data is something computers are great at. Watson was already measurably better at reading certain specialized charts then actual Doctors back in '13. Those guys are gone. They make more then a GP does, while frequently bringing in less revenue, and the patient's aren't going to ding your Medicare quality ratings because a behind-the-scenes Doctor they'd never met got replaced by a computer.
This is just like any other skilled work that can be automated. The textile machines of the early 19th century were demonstrably worse then many weavers, but they were a) cheaper, and b) better then the average. So as of 1840 or so weaver was no longer a career option. Computers are already better then the average specialist in some fields, and they will be cheaper soon enough thanks to Moore's Law.
I'm not so sure here. I've worked with specialists and while they do a lot of chartology the decision making process is more than just what the chart says; especially when it comes to final treatment and decisions on a person's health. I agree a computer can take a lot of the analysis work off of the specialist but for the real skill the have is knowing what questions to a ask and how to followup to solve a problem, not a rote review of a defined operation procedure that can be codified. As one put it, it's as important to know when not to operate as when to operate. Will how they interact with computers change? Certainly, but I think the GP is more likely to see a greater impact than the specialist; at least in the short term.
I suspect quite a few other jobs behind the scenes will be automated. For example, why have a human X-Ray Tech analyze your pictures when computer image analysis is getting so much better? Heck, why have a team of Medical Specialists who make ($500k a year each) when a computer program can read the data and do the work?
Read the data and interpret it are two very different tasks. Sure, a computer can make an very good guess based on the rules it has to but to infer what something means based on patterns and something unusual will take a while longer for machine to do as well as a human. I'd say a machine is more likely to replace a GP first since they are treating symptoms rater than cases and most symptoms will respond to standard, well defined treatments. the machine can run the tests and check the symptoms and provide a diagnosis for review by a clinician. The problem, even with that, is the machine won't notice other thing start a person doesn't mention, that could be symptomatic of a different problem.
Truck drivers, OTOH, are already set for replacement, at least for long haul tucks where a truck with a robot driver can drive, at least in proximity to one real driver; so several tucks may only need 1 driver in the future.
1. They can accurately identify students and staff. Since no one has ever created a fake social media account that shouldn't be hard. Just require everyone to provide a list of all their accounts. No one would object to that, correct?
If you even just read the summary you would see that the school board is buying software which is capable of location based identification, so simple fake accounts should be easy to see through. I suppose a brother or sister in the same household might be able to pretend to be you, but beyond that, I doubt this software is that easy to fool.
I guess the question is how do they determine location? If it simply by where you say you are then the software would depend on people accurately entering their location? Geo staged photos? Not hard to fake. I do not know how you extract location data from Facebook. Maybe Facebook sells the data to the software provider so they get accurate data based on FB ability to ID locations? I know sone services use IP addresses which my VPN easily confuses.
1. They can accurately identify students and staff. Since no one has ever created a fake social media account that shouldn't be hard. Just require everyone to provide a list of all their accounts. No one would object to that, correct?
2. Software can accurately parse potential threat from random uses of keywords and not require excessive reviews of material that is innocuous.
3. No one would create fake accounts to cause #2 to occur.
4. No one will object nor have the cash to hire a lawyer if the school demands account information under threat of punishment.
Our government is out of control anyway, anything that allows blackmail, removal from office, misery in their lives. etc is a good thing
While we're at it let's extend it to programmers, DBAs, sys admins an designers who cause us so much misery because they are too stupid or lazy to build secure systems.
I came up with the answer by reading books and online content about common questions asked at interviews.
Wrong answer. You see, when I ask that question I am wondering how well you think on your feet, not that you actually have an answer; since I really don't care about the answer you give. I need to know how you might handle an off the wall question from a client in a meeting and if I can trust you not to say something stupid. I really just want to see how you react; because you never know what a client might ask, or say.
Do you want to know my Strengths and Weaknesses next, or just how many basketballs fit in this room?
Nah, I'm more of a "How many golf balls were sold in NYC last year" kinda person.
On a related note, there is also an infinite number of shapes a manhole cover can have so that it cannot fall into the hole. But don't tell that to the interviewers.
Having asked that question in interviews, I didn't care what you answer d but was interested in how you came up with answers. Answering "so they don't fall in the hole right away is the least best answer.
There are always rare cases where someone is declared legally dead before word reaches their body, sometimes by many years. There will also always be people who voted by mail then die before the election. It's possible the law they were debating was for these sorts of things.
I doubt it. Carter's first election included ballot boxes with votes bundled together by rubber bands. If the county boss wanted you elected you got elected. Voters got their government check abd a filled out ballot at the same time. He went to court to secure his victory. He said it best when asked why he was qualified to oversee elections to identify fraud: 'I ran for election in Georgia.' His book on growing up in rural Georgia is a great read.
Whether cable tv, netflix, or amazon prime, people like to rent their television content by the month, and that isn't really Apple's thing.
They seem to be moving in that direction with the addition of HBO subscriptions to Apple TV. They could renegotiate deals with studios to rent bundles of shows and it Netflix to let people buy Netflix via the App store, for example. If they get enough AppleTV's into the hands of consumers so that they can significantly raise Netflix's subscriber base Netflix may just be willing to cut Apple in on the monthly fee. Alternatively, Apple could negotiate with content owners to create their own AppleFlix and offer a monthly service.
But they couldn't have differentiated themselves. The television market is highly competitive, with intense pressure driving manufacturers to minimum margins. For Apple to justify a price premium, they would have needed some sort of compelling features to differentiate it from every other television, and it seems that they weren't confident that they could do that.
Many of the things that differentiate them with other products (excellent build quality/fit and finish and the benefits of their vertical integration) don't really apply to a TV. You don't tend to notice build quality on something like a TV that you never really handle directly, and there isn't a huge amount to be gained in terms of vertical integration with a television versus connecting an external device by HDMI.
Exactly. TV's tend to be a low margins price sensitive business an that just isn't Apple's game. More importantly, virtually all of the advanced features they could build into a TV they could put into AppleTV and carve out the higher margin part of the TV business and leave the display manufacturers to fight it out. In auditor, building features into AppleTV means they can adapt to whatever display technology is popular without having to pick a winner as they would have to if they built a TV and the Apple TV can simply connect to a new display whenever an old one is replaced an thus Apple's connection with the end user is not lost when the TV is upgraded.
Why go into a low margin business where the technology isn't settled and you have no real advantage to be able to charge a premium that you can't already charge with an existing device?
Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!
