They don't low ball the instant win because of social engineering. They do it because they don't want the player to take it. Going for the big prize is better TV. The low balling is just to make it more enticing (and also mathematically wrong) to stop. The game show doesn't even care, they buy insurance to cover the prize payment.
Not just AI, but everything. There's an old story about how Ken Thompson (inventor of Unix) once wrote a compiler that recognized the code for a login function and had it automatically inject a backdoor in the compiled output. https://wiki.c2.com/?TheKenTho... So yes, you need to be able to trust your tools. And yet another reason to carefully read and understand what code does, no matter what the source.
They mean parents. If your parents make 200K+, you'll be inelligible. As most college aged students rely on their families for support, and pretty much none of them have 200K (or even 20K) in income themselves. That's the same way pretty much all college financial aid works. Its fair for the majority, although there is a minority estranged from parents or who's parents refuse to help that get screwed over.
The stock market doesn't create money. It moves it around.
But the money wouldn't be sitting around doing nothing if there wasn't AI. It would be invested in other ventures and industries. So it wouldn't be buying servers to run AI, but it would be used to build a factory. Or make video games. Or a dozen other industries. For AI to increase GDP over what it would be without AI in the world, AI actually has to provide value. Otherwise its net neutral to GDP (arguably net negative, if those other industries would have increased the capacity of the nation to produce).
AI investment isn't magical new money being created just for AI. If AI didn't exist, that money would still be invested, it would just be invested in other things. So investing money in AI won't raise the GDP unless AI itself manages to raise the GDP. Of the three factors of production, AI effects only labor. By either replacing people or making people more productive it would reduce labor cost allowing people to do more work. Thus far, it isn't achieving this on a large scale (there are probably individual cases where it has, but they're minor). Until AI actually makes people do more, it won't increase the GDP. Which may or may not ever occur, but it definitely isn't there yet.
Not riddled. There would be certain sections that are unsafe that deal with direct device/memory access. Those could be separated out, and the algorithmic parts of the kernel (which is the vast majority) can use that as an API when needed. Far less of the kernel deals directly with device control than you'd think.
Some of it is real. When I worked there 20 years ago in the printer division, a manager had a demo where he literally stood on an inkjet and it continued to print. The engineers congratulated each other on building such a reliable product. The managers saw that and decided they could afford to make it from cheaper parts. Some things actually were better back then.
That makes it pretty much in line with any other use of a bank. Withdraw cash? They won't get involved. Write a check? Once its cashed it's gone. Wire transfer? If they haven't withdrawn the money yet you can get a hold put on it and get it reversed, but only if it hasn't been removed yet. What more are you really expecting them to do?
The nice thing is it doesn't require you to add another app to your phone or attach to your bank account. It's isn't giving your info to a third party or inserting a middleman. Its just using your bank.
They are the same. They both hold an address that points at the object, either directly or indirectly (Java uses a double pointer to allow moving of data). If you don't get pointers, you won't get references. 99.9% of the mistakes you make with pointers are also there with references. If you don't get that, I shudder to think of what your code looks like.
You understand that every single language has pointers. They just call them references instead, but the behavior is absolutely the same underneath the hood. All the same issues. The only thing you don't have is pointer arithmetic, which should be avoided in C++ as well unless you're in ultra high performance code.
It is possible. It is the core principle of all agile methods, to deliver with every sprint a running product that in theory can be shipped with an installer on a CD.
Ok, in one sprint write enough of an OS to be a viable product. Or a database from scratch. Or a control system. None of these are possible. You could possibly put some compiling code on a disk, but it won't actually do even
You simply do not know how old agile is.
I've been professionally programming for close to 30 years. I know exactly how long its been around for. Everything I listed and more predates agile as a philosophy.
You think version control repositories are an agile thing? RCS dates back to the 1980s. All you do with every sentence is prove how little you know about writing software.
That's by design. So the marketers who keep shoveling the shit can say "you're doing it wrong" to every failure and keep talking about how they have the silver bullet.
Everything on your list either existed prior to Agile and has nothing to do with it, is generally not possible (viable product at all times only works if you're doing something truly trivial), or is actually a negative most of the time (pair programming as a general usecase). Because I can promise you early automation, functional breakdown, transparency, and post mortems existed for decades before the idea even existed.
There's multiple reasons for the quitting. The biggest is education- we now know how bad it is, whereas it used to not be known. In fact at one point it was advertised as healthy. And yes, the warning labels were a big part of that education. So they did help.
Taxes also helped, but to a much smaller extent. Someone addicted isn't dropping a habit because it costs more. They complain, but they still buy it. It perhaps encouraged a few people not to start, but even that was more people now knowing how bad the long term effects are than the actual money.
A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth
