Comment Re:We don't know what to do with AI (Score 1) 11
But whatever you do don't use it to make clean room implementations of Office!
Dude.. how fucking funny would it be if someone actually showed up to the competition and presented EXACTLY that.
But whatever you do don't use it to make clean room implementations of Office!
Dude.. how fucking funny would it be if someone actually showed up to the competition and presented EXACTLY that.
...please help us figure it out. We welcome all suggestions. Please. Anything.
If you aren't going to use to make weird porn then why did you even bother building it?
None of the specifications seem to be useful for the advancement of science. Honestly, this seems more like a Skunk Works project.
News for nerds: No; Stuff that matters: Yes
You unfortunately have found yourself on the short end of the English version of a most vexing parse.
If you try to find the flaws as a defender, you have already lost.
Non-sense! There are plenty of very well designed software packages built using defensive programming practices that still have security flaws. To claim you have already lost when using those measures is to claim that only code with years of tireless review like NASA's near flawless software is good enough.
Just because we lacked the resources to find software flaws didn't mean that there were never massive vulnerabilities just waiting to be discovered, it just means it required dedication to find them. The lack of investment in security is about to be laid bare for all to see. Those that are actually interested in making secure software now have the opportunity to get even closer to that goal. Everyone that has been doing (and continues to do) the bare minimum is about to get a lesson in the importance of investing in real security.
Good security is expensive but having bad security is about to cost a whole lot more.
The issue of daylight savings has largely been solved by shifting clocks a minute every day for sixty days. The obvious problem is that we didn't build our electronics based on the concept of variable lengths in the days. However, we could mandate that all new electronics either have a built-in calendar, have NTP capability, use celluar towers for synchronization, or not have a clock at all and at the end of a decade or two we could switch to a much healthier approach. However, it will never happen because of businesses like trains, airlines, financial markets, and international logistics rely on a synchronized timeline which means it would need to more than just a single nation that uses this scheme but the whole world.
TL;DR: it's just not lethal enough of a problem to get solved, especially when the money changers get involved.
The estimate is about $1.8B per day. Which has cost consumers (not businesses) ~$100B thus far.
Rule 99: "Trust is the biggest liability of all."
what did you trade for reliable access to electricity?
The ability to stargaze and an increased probability of burning down my house. How dare they take house burning away from me! It makes me so bad it makes me want to set something one fire... like a house! Wait... OK, so just stargazing.
Consoles are usually using out of date hardware by the time of their release.
"usually"? I think you mean post PS3 when they started making x86 based systems. Anyway, designing, testing, and coordinating the construction of millions of these takes time. So sure, "out of date" for children with no grasp of what goes into building hardware, but when the systems are designed, they are cutting edge.
it's too expensive to do it fully custom.
Well that sure is funny because everything used to be fully custom.
If you're not Nintendo then people expect to be impressed by your graphics - the last Nintendo which fit the bill was the N64
they got burned on N64 because the carts caused the price to be high. However, the lesson they learned was that high-end graphics weren't worth the cost. Literally all of their systems use dated technology. However, they are brilliant when it comes to marketing. Also, they will sue the shit out of you for anything.
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken