The problem is, they're likely to. If not now, than at some point in the future. There is a great value to a single unified environment.
The real question is: are you applying for a job or are you trying to license your technology? In all likelihood, a blended negotiation is probably not going to happen unless...If you're talking about trying to license your technology, then you need to talk to the right people. Probably their patent attorney or the person in charge of in-licensing technology. This is usually a protracted negotiation.
While I get that trying to go from job interview to IP licensing seems nigh impossible, I can see many situations where IP licensing is helped by offering to implement the solution.
You could point out that President Clinton bombed Iraq first
You mean Bush Sr.
Of course, that was a good idea and universally recognized as such.
and even in that other 0.01% of the time, it's likely that your compiler will optimize the pretty human-readable code into the cool-but-cryptic bitmasking trick at the assembly level anyway
That's almost universally untrue. The 99.9% is made up of the union of "code that executes infrequently enough" and "code that the compiler can auto-optimize."
Now, predicting what's in that 0.1% is tricky, which is why it is often better to optimize later after profiling reveals it. And may someone protect you from me if your cool-but-cryptic bitmasking doesn't comment what the "if X then Y else Z" logic is.
Now, often times, that 0.1% then can get incorporated into a language feature, or the compiler can automate. Over time, that content will drift smaller and smaller.
If you want to see what happens when Microsoft actually tries a fresh start, see Windows Vista. Where UAC introduced unprivileged by default operation (breaking so many apps that assumed users were admins and bombarding them with dozens of elevation dialogs).
Yeah, but obviously that would break things, look at how little warning they gave developers. They only released an API/standards that UAC played well with in 2001 with Windows XP. Surely that's not enough time to modify their code.
Seriously, I remember being forced to use that architecture in 2004 by what I thought was an overly anal programming lead. Low and behold, come Vista, that software is still chugging along painlessly, but our expensive tools all suddenly require admin access.
But MS will break their backs to maintain backwards compatibility.
What's needed is either to make those instructions INTERESTING (like the Southwest Airlines people often do)
Oh, good lord no. Right now, the announcements are fairly unobtrusive... except on Southwest. I already know the information, so the only value it would have is entertainment. Except most people aren't entertaining, especially when they do the same skit over and over. But my book is. So let me read in peace. As a consolation, if any of the flight attendants are any good, I'll go see their community theater play later.
Can someone please tell me how this move increases shareholder value, which should be Google's top priorities?
Why should that be Google's top priority?
I'd contend that their top priority should be living up to their "don't be evil" mantra.
Most c-sections happen on Friday. Why? They've got to get home for the weekend.
It also gives the parents a whole weekend to recover before the man has to go back to work.
What you need to reinforce your claim is a breakdown of c-sections planned for a Friday in advance, and those that get scheduled *that day* on a Friday.
That said, I agree with the need to question your doctor. But your example sucks.
I read "select" as meaning specific fields (as in, select types of data), not deliberately selected subsets of data... got a quote that helps clarify things?
In other words, they took everything they gathered and pulled a subset that matched criteria that would back the claim that they could detect future crimes.
While it's possible that they did in fact pull a biased sample, this methodology is what I was taught in academia as a legit way to test machine learning. If you have one sample set, first split it into two. Use one set, usually much smaller, to train the neural network. That data set, because it's tuned to find those specific correlations, obviously produced really good predictions. So you use the second data set to test whether the inputs correctly predict the outputs.
Especially considering that said "information sharing" leads to a mere 8% increase in accuracy.
Well, closer to 22%. While it's true that 8% of the predictions are more accurate, what is important is that ~22% of the predictions that used to be wrong are no longer. In much the same way as if it went to 100% accurate, you don't get to bitch about it being only a 38% increase in accuracy. You get to talk about whether it's worth the cost, and how we can get something only 62% as accurate without the cost.
This is one of the reasons why it's going to be such an uphill battle for Microsoft when it comes to tablets and phones. They were late to the game.
They really weren't. I remember using a Windows tablet/laptop convertable back in 199? And a Windows phone (with Office, etc. ) before the first iPhone dropped.
I'm actually not sure why neither one took off. My assumption would be that both were too large, and that probably had most to do with either non-low-power chips or battery technology.
because of the hoover dam.
Which is all green energy, so it's easy for Tesla to live up to their claims.
The same formula is used by Hollywood when someone messes with the occult. The dire, yet vindicated, warning. The monster in the second act. Etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that Hollywood honestly doesn't know the difference between science and magic. Although computers even more so.
I'm far more concerned about the effect of "cops bend the rules because they sooo hate the evil killer and need to get him off the streets" shows. Cops actually do get influenced by that. I think there was a study about that, but it may have been not published because it was too groundbreaking....
Risky to who, exactly?
The research bearing fruit. No one is suggesting removing protections from actual subjects. The article is about funders wanting to fund "successful" (that is, hypothesis affirming) and "publishable" (that is, less contraversial) experiments.
His goal is to somehow shift the funder's incentives so high sucessful completion risk/high reward (either in basic knowledge or specific benefit) stuff gets made.
And I agree. The shit that gets funded at any real level is often piecemeal and uninteresting. Hell, even "we want money to try a similar study with N>35 so we can test a lot of spin off research of this promising study" get shot down for being too out there.%lt;/rant>