Documentation is part of the overall UX design.
The internet never forgets. Even if they learn to purge/hide their stuff, it's extremely likely that it's referenced or stored somewhere else, especially if the person had some level of notoriety before running for office.
Maybe, but deleting them when they're still not well known (as in this case) would make it much less likely than the content can be found; and if such content is still recovered from archives, it would be obvious to anyone that an extra effort was paid to dig in the dirt to find anything juicy or salacious. (It was obvious in this case to anyone who understand Twitter, but that is still a minority of the general population).
When I've read "web support" I though "Cool! I will finally get good support to run QT apps on a standard browser". But alas, it just means running a Chromium engine embedded in a QT app. Who wants to run web sites in an app nowadays instead of opening them directly in a browser?
Last week in my country, a new political party overrun the previous party in charge of the municipality for about 30 years (yes, those thing happen in Europe sometimes).
The day the new government took charge, the displaced party dug out some four-year-old tweets containing a silly joke about nazis (the kind that would gather a +5 funny and some grammar nazi "corrected for you" replies around here) when the man had not even a politician. The same day, all the traditional media were reporting on their front pages as if it was the man's true opinion instead of a joke, reaching international press and forcing the councillor to resign (you may have heard about it as the "communist politician supporting the holocaust").
As long as the public falls for such obvious tactics, and until politicians learn to trim their twitter and facebook timelines when they run for office, this is bound to happen again and again.
Spanish general health secretary called anti-vaccination campaigns “irresponsible" and said: "The right to vaccination is for children, not for the parents to decide".
The child is in critical condition, though he's now being treated with a serum expressly brought from Russia through an emergency procedure.
In cases where a project is no longer actively being maintained, SourceForge has in some cases established a mirror of releases that are hosted elsewhere. This was done for GIMP-Win.
Editor's note: Gimp is actively being maintained and the definition of "mirror" is quite misleading here as a modified binary is no longer a verbatim copy. Download statistics for Gimp on Windows show SourceForge as offering over 1,000 downloads per day of the Gimp software. In an official response to this incident, the official Gimp project team reminds users to use official download methods. Slashdotters may remember the last time news like this surfaced (2013) when the Gimp team decided to move downloads from SourceForge to their own FTP service.
Therefore, we remind you again that GIMP only provides builds for Windows via its official Downloads page.
Note: SourceForge and Slashdot share a corporate parent.
Link to Original Source
Uhh, precedent. Double the resources, double the ability. This is well known.
That is magical thinking. It has no place in proper engineering practice.
There are zillions of reasons that interfere with ability to work faster in larger problems - yet they can be summarized with the words "non-linear growth". Try solving the Travelling salespeople problem twice as big with merely twice as fast hardware, it will slow to a grinch.
It's not like AI is going to run on some unknown substrate.
We know the substrate of brain power, gray cells. This doesn't mean that we understand the way they work together to create intelligence. If we ever create an AI, it will be so complex that we'll likely be in the same situation with respect to how it works.
"We" don't have to make one. All we have to do is set an AI towards self improvement/production of better AIs. THAT is where superintelligence comes from. All we have to do is make one that is an idiot savant geared toward AI design.
We do that with every new generation of babies, and it hasn't produced a super intelligence yet. What makes you think doing it ON A COMPUTER would make any difference?
Let me guess. It involves the hunch of the elephant, the baking temperature of the refrigerator and the airspeed velocity of the unladen plane?
There's no need for it to be abused. Just tag each POI with an <unconfirmed> tag and hide them on the map by default (but show them in searches) until they get reported by multiple users.
I couldn't care less about the TV except that it has to be diverting resources from improving the browser.
Does it? Improvements required to run the browser on a TV will necessarily involve making it more lightweight and portable, i.e. less dependent on the quirks of specific platforms.
No one else can because it will cause Google's CTS tool to fail verifying which won't allow you to ship with Google Play.
Conversely, if someone else built such system and it worked to keep all vendors updated, it wouldn't matter much that it failed to validate in Google's CTS. In that situation it would be relatively easy to migrate everyone away from Google Play -developers first, and users would follow- to an alternate app market supported by the maintainer of such successful system.
Now that I think of it, that would be the most likely way a strong contender might use to take control of Android from Google - in fact, that may be precisely what Microsot has in mind for their recent partnership with Cyanogen - the old Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
I don't want a nanny-search moving the things I'm looking for down the page. Just give me what I searched for, nothing more, nothing less, no "judgment" about what I want to see.
So you'd rather have a complete database dump of all the web pages that contain your search terms, in random order, to do your own filtering among petabytes of data each time you look for "what you searched for, nothing less"?
'Cause any time you use a web search engine that provides just a few results, there *is* a judgement involved of which ones should appear at the first page; and Google is in the place it's now because their judgement was much better than any other search engine at the time. Including "mobile friendly" is only adding one more criterion to their ordering that they think will work well for a majority of their users.
Link to Original Source