The problem with your position is that L3's own data shows the port at over 100% utilization. They're not being throttled, they're trying to shove ten pounds of shit into a five pound bag.

Like I said, you can point fingers at whoever the peer is for letting the situation fester, but L3's own data suggests this was passive aggressive rather than active malice.

Are you seriously suggesting that congested ports -> Netflix pays for their own direct interconnects -> uncongested ports somehow proves that Netflix was being throttled? Because, frankly, it suggests the opposite to me (i.e. moving lots of traffic to a different interconnect freed up capacity on the original). Your own link shows the general congestion: see this graph.

You can, quite easily, make the argument that Comcast (or Verizon, or whoever the peer in question is) let that situation fester until it resulted in their "winning" a new customer (Netflix) from level3, but certainly not that their traffic was being treated differently from anyone else's.

For real-estate purposes, especially for 1-2 story buildings, a tethered powered aircraft should be fine. The question is, does the FAA claim jurisdiction over tethered flying machines flying at low altitudes (e.g. under a few hundred feet) and not close to "regulated airspace" like an airport or close to "an obvious federal jurisdiction" like crossing a state line or in the "airspace" of federal property, a U.S. Highway or Interstate Highway, or a navigable waterway?

If the FAA does claim jurisdiction over tethered flights that don't have any obvious "federal jurisdictional nexus" then it's ripe for a court challenge.

Sure, medicinal cannibas may have 250 active compounds, but how many of those - individually or in combination - are necessary to treat 95% of patients?

If we can identify the ones needed to treat the vast majority of patients and synthesize them or find a bio-factory (e.g. yeast) that we can control much better than the traditional source (the plant), we can deliver drugs that are more pure and more consistent than your average joint or brownie, yet still do the job for almost all patients.

If I get cancer and need this for medical reasons, I would much prefer to take a drug that has a known, consistent potency and known, consistent nominally-inactive ingredients than something I cut off a plant.

Games are an awkward state of limbo these days, publishers know they have to start pushing out the impression of creativity and devs try to figure out how to do that without alienating the average player.

Well, there is the Naughty Dog way: stick with a proven formula and polish the SHIT out of the implementation.

As I said, sometimes the problems are not technical in nature.

Maybe back when the maintenance window was created it was created for a valid technical reason, BUT technology moved on and management didn't.

In other words, in some environments, the technical people won't have a sympathetic ear if they ask to cancel the off-hours maintenance window simply because of local politics or the local management, BUT if the maintenance gets botched and services are still down or under-performing through normal business hours, nobody outside of IT will notice.

One way to prepare for failure is to have someone there who can at least recognize the failure and wake someone up in time to fix it.

Another way to prepare for failure is to have a system that is redundant enough that a part could go down and it wouldn't be more than a minor annoyance to users or management.

There are other ways to prepare for failure, but these are two common ones.

I don't know how to determine this, quantitatively or otherwise. It's an interesting question once machine translation gets better, but for now I consider it obvious that something like Google translation does not know what it's doing. Having access to and having translated a large existing courpus of text is obviously not enough, as Google certainly has analyzed more text than a human translator does, and still is wrong whenever there is the slightest possibility of ambiguity (i.e., all the time, in practice).

Anyway, TFA was not about machine translation, but AI. A human translator who translates a text knows that he is translating a text. I am not worried that a computer will, by 2045.

Seriously? It looks up keywords and statistics regarding what other people clicked who looked at similar content.

I can't, neither can computer scientists. Part of the problem.

No it's not, see other reply

This is wholly beside the point. Even if I am deterministic, any human translator understands the text he is translating to a quite large degree, or else nobody will bother with him. The best translation machines understand exactly 0%

Yeah, we have no idea what constitutes intelligence either. Got any other old news?

Anyway, my post was not about "without understanding how he did it" but knowing what the translator is doing, how a sense of self relates to this, the history of the text in question and its context, the context oft he content itself (without which is appears impossible to translate even remotely correctly, as Google Translators mindless efforts seem to be showing), the context of the media, and many other aspects or translation process and translation material.

The machine has no fucking clue about what it is translating. Not the media, not the content, not even what to and from which languages it is translating (other than a variable somewhere, which is not "knowing". None whatsoever. Until it does, it has nothing to do with AI in the sense of TAFA. (The alarmist fucking article)