While I sort-of agree, with management always looking for cheapest (not "cheapest possible that still gets the job done"), their replacements will likely be worse.
I expect that quite a few people knew that there were a lot of not adequately secured and Internet-visible DB installations. It was only a question of time until somebody with the criminal energy to use that came along.
Morale: If it is insecure and connected to the Internet, it will get hacked sooner or later.
Did I claim to be an expert in "not making typos"? It is however telling that you did not understand what I wrote and your skills seem to end at identifying the typo.
The whole point was that most programmers do technical work on the level of engineers while not being qualified as engineers. And that makes the results so bad.
Well, both "strong AI" and "true AI" are keywords in Wikipedia. It is defined (simplified) as the ability of a machine to perform "general intelligent action". There is no consciousness requirement, but a "generality" requirement. And that makes all the difference. Strong/true AI is AI that is not specialized for one tiny problem, but can solve general problems.
Whether actual intelligence (whether natural or artificial) is possible without consciousness is an open question and besides the point for the current discussion.
No, it does not. Actual science at this time says "we have no clue how this works". There is zero evidence either way and that makes the question open. Or have you forgotten that actual intelligence gets observed nowhere else? That alone makes a default to the physicalist explanation exceptionally non-scientific. Or maybe you think consciousness and intelligence are emergent properties of complexity? If so, that would be "magic" right there, because the whole cannot be more than the sum of its parts in physics.
The actual scientific fact at this time is that the question is completely open.
Incidentally, you are wrong about "quantum". The human brain is awash with quantum-effects. They happen all the time in the synapses, and there are about 1,000 trillion of those in a human brain backed very densely. Nobody knows what even tiny deviation in the probability distributions could do.
No it does not. Read maybe some actual scientific results? The current scientific of how this works is "we do not know". That is for brains where actual intelligence can be observed. A fruit-fly, for example, cannot be called "intelligent".
It is no surprise to me that the ones creating and operating this platform are just as incompetent as the "graduates" they produce. Mediocrity breeds mediocrity...
Well, maybe. Combine Watson with this and that may change.
These are defined terms. They are not _my_ terms. Look them up before spouting complete nonsense.
Look it up. It has a defined meaning.
An unsubstantiated claim at best. At least actual Science claims no such thing.
Aaaand fail. I did write "strong/true AI" and hence you are the one that does not understand the "AI effect". Incidentally, the AI effect proves my point, because there are perfectly good terms for what often is called (non-strong/non-true) AI these days and hence there is zero need to call it AI. Pattern recognition, statistical classification, automation, etc. all far better terms than the entirely misleading unqualified "AI".
That is pretty much bullshit. You fail at understanding programming _and_ math. Seems you are in the avant-garde of the drive to be even dumber.
Here is a hint: Transitivity is one of the defining properties of an order-relation. If you do not have it, you do not have an order-relation and some nice things that an order relation gives you do not apply. But you can, of course, have non-transitive relations, and some other nice properties may apply. There is absolutely nothing in math that enforces transitivity.
For example, even simple things like hash tables and balanced trees are beyond what most current CS graduates can implement or do understand. Forget about things a bit more complicated like a complexity analysis, or a formally specified invariant or pre- and post-conditions. If you do not understand the basics, all higher-order constructs are meaningless because you can only memorize how they behave, but you can never understand it or verify your understanding. And your understanding will at the very least be incomplete and partially wrong.
CS continues to fail (and in fact it is getting worse) at education engineers. Yet the human race knows that for technology you need engineers as soon as you are customizing things or doing new things. Until and unless this gets finally understood and becomes the norm, software and everything built around it will continue to suck badly.