Same. -ish. Pair of NJ national guard F16s flying a training mission off the coast of Atlantic City back in the summer of 2000 or 2001. One went crash into the ocean. Pilot ejected and the other one circled until the coast guard found him and picked him up. Watched the whole thing off the beach while on vacation.
I don't know this guy. I haven't even googled him or looked at his linkedin. All I see is his incentive structure and see him acting exactly the way I'd expect someone to act if their expectations of their career progress weren't meeting harsh reality, and there was a quick buck to be made talking trash about The System.
More food for thought: Oppenheimer was scared shitless of the bomb and Einstein opined on World War 4 being fought with sticks and stones. The future isn't written, but neither ww3 nor ww4 have come to pass as predicted.
Based on what? What makes something wrong or right in production providing the toolkit works and exists to allow it to be widely adopted and mass produced, and the end goal of the device is achieved?
Exactly. About the only thing that matters for "in production" is "meets requirements", whatever those may be. It's pretty rare that one of those is "squeeze the maximum possible performance out of a single-cycle multi-hundred MHz MCU". Sure for mass, low cost consumer products, it's worth pending a lot to save 10 cents on the MCU but it isn't for most of us.
I've seen similar complaints before: "Arduino has no place in production,
I've seen that too. I now point them to Finder PLC. It' an industrial unit that is basically an arduino with relays etc in a nice box.
Dude.
Back in the 80s I was running basic on a machine with a tenth of the RAM and less than a thousandth of the computing power. It did not "confound the learning process". These days I also often use the Arduino environment because the performance is adequate for me needs and so it's a waste of time to slog through the datasheet and do it all by hand.
Who cares if they are a bit different from python? I don't write C++ on an MCU in the same way I'm writing it on the server because I'm writing very different things.
This really sounds like nerd snobbery to me. Modern microcontrollers are so ludicrously powerful now many people dipping into them won't need to scratch the surface of the performance on offer. And that's ok.
Holy fuck! How brain-dead do you have to be to believe a piece of software is any more dangerous than any other tool if misapplied properly.
Half or more of the Fortune 500 hlis sitting on enough chemical, biological, and industrial capacity to kill a good chunk of the world all kinds of dead (and has been for the better part of a century or more) and it isn't a problem. Because people fundamentally don't want to die, and they especially do not want to die poor.
Why the ai fearmongering? Misplaced religious zeal certainly has some explanatory power. Even if it comes from self-styled science-types.
So tldr: pix or it didn't happen. How exactly are the robots gonna kill all humans? By what mechanism? Specifically. How exactly will "recursive self improvement" work if the humans ain't around to plug in more graphics cards and memory?
All nonsense. Oh wait it's election time isn't it?
Ah well, disregard then.
However, it's because I believe many great consumer technology leaps were driven by porn: photography, home video, the internet, the smart phone, etc.
The smartphone??
I mean it was convincingly invented, if not widely used by IBM in 1993. It was made to look very impressive (albeit wired) in the late 90s by Olivetti. And of course PDAs approaching from the other end being more computer and less data. J2ME phones came out which were a pile of shit. Maybe you could get a shit game on them. I don't really know if Blackberries count: they were messaging first but did they have any generality beyond that? There was of course the legendary N900, and some impressive (for the time) yet deeply wonky Symbian devices.Then in 2007, Apple came out with a rather good dumbphone which was turned into a smartphone by Cydia, which Apple then got in on the game a year later (which is a bit weird if you think about it).
None of those were porn. It was all about connectivity and messaging and nerdy shit especially businessnerd shit (except the N900 which was real nerd shit). Then fashion, then just plain old usefulness.
I mean that's not to say people don't watch porn on a phone on a plane (shit head in 23A knows what I'm talking about you utter wanker, but not in that case literally thank god), but I don't there's a convincing case that porn had a significant role. Pocket computers were obviously useful, even more so with a data connection, and people had been trying to get them working for years before it finally took off.
Is this true for animated films too?
Yes.
What about hybrid live action and animated?
Yes.
Animated films that are CGI based rather than hand drawn/painted?
Yes.
Hand drawn that are computer "painted"?
Yes.
In the hard sciences, one usually is happy about advancements, not about keeping it secret until one publishes oneself.
Haha, no.
If you don't publish papers, you don't get a job and so you won't be doing hard science anymore due to an imperative to eat and find shelter. So no, no one is happy if someone takes their mostly complete results and scoops them to publication. It's also why that's widely regarded as what's technically known as a "dick move".
A t shirt?
Maybe a jumper. Maybe when a light jacket at the lower end. But a thick jacket at 12 degrees? Nope!
Wait what?
The nighttime lows in SF were 12C. That's think jacket weather???
I think Americans now spend so much time in climate controlled buildings that they've forgotten what weather is like.
hostiles.
Unless you want to up your probability of being treated as hostile.
This is an apolitical statement, as true about filming and following an employee of $disfavored_business as it is about wearing a yankees cap to a redsox game.
I wasn't there and all that, but if it were me with the camera, I might have taken the extra half a minute to go up to the guy and introduce myself before filming.
Let's reach back to what I hope is a basic level of bullshit detection we might have exercised at some point in the last few decades when a clueless politico said something clueless about the internets.
How does one enforce, or even measure, such a "slowdown" exactly?
The thing he's talking about policing is writing code and running it. Perhaps a little more capital intensive than writing a crypto suite without fully abiding by ITAR or reverse engineering DVD CSS, but not in any way that matters.
You're not talking about keeping a lid on the exact geometry of nuclear bomb design that's the difference between a boom and a fizzle, or the secret sauce of enriching uranium or machining plutonium. You're talking about typing code into a computer.
Presumably he knows this, or should know it. Perhaps he's yet another silicon valley figurehead, but either way: it's a joke and/or a lie whether he believes it himself. So who exactly is the mark who's the intended audience of this PR?
Politicians? Media? Investors? Idunno. None of those make much sense to me.
Maybe it's just a healthy dose of stupid.
It can, lots of countries, especially America regulate things outside their borders.
Laws can be enforced against local subsidiaries or any foreign executive who happens to wander into an area you have an extradition agreement with. Or in Americas case, any country you can successfully invade to kidnap someone. And in Putin's case anywhere you can get an assassination squad in. Also Israel's Mossad unit is notorious for plausible deniable foreign enforcement.
This isn't a question of should, it's a question of what can physical be done.
Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems theory.
