No, the survey did not find that "only 40% of workers have high-quality jobs." Rather, the survey found that 40% of people responded to the survey with sufficiently positive responses that were above the arbitrary thresholds. It's not clear if there is much that is non-obvious in these survey results.
In Australia this is a mostly solved problem.
Our phone companies track spammers and our phones say, spam caller.
I also get this with AT&T.
I wonder why the phone and messaging companies aren't more active in tagging and blocking spam calls and messages. Most of these calls and messages are obviously spam, especially when they are repeated in a mass campaign. Do the companies do nothing because (1) they don't know how, (2) they don't care, or (3) they profit somehow from the calls and messages?
About the Monroe Doctrine, we're all familiar with the Teddy Roosevelt part about policing the entire Western Hemisphere, but the original doctrine was that the Europeans should stay out of the Western Hemisphere (especially after the independence of Mexico and Brazil) and that in return the US would stay out of the rest of the world. Of course, that last part isn't remembered as much. US influence around the world today would be a violation of the Monroe Doctrine.
but have users? I wonder how many people are actually using the touch screen outside of machines that are designed as 2-in-1s. Like, how many people are seriously using a touch screen in the standard 90 degree orientation of laptop on a desk or on a table?
I use a touch screen. Not for everything but for select scenarios, like filling out long surveys or opening up lots of browser links in background tabs or quickly clicking on buttons in different areas of the screen when no mouse is available.
Touchscreens use more power, are heavier, and cost more. However, none of those problems are compelling to me, except maybe weight. I bought the LG Gram 14, which was far lighter than any other laptop, including all Macs, and part of that light weight was due to not having a touch screen. I eventually traded that laptop in for a laptop with a touchscreen because the pain from not having a touchscreen only became apparent after not having it for an extended period of time.
> The law "undermines the basis of the cost savings and will lead to bulk billing being phased out," the group said.
Good; it's monopolistic, predatory, and ultimately unnecessary. The entire practice is aimed at driving consistency and forced adoption rates, not anything else.
When the ISPs talk about cost savings, they mean for the ISPs, not for consumers. Bulk billing does indeed remove some costs for the ISPs. Well, maybe that's how the ISPs can convince themselves that they're not lying.
"the US federal shutdown highlights the tension between new spending demands and deficit reduction"
No, this is not true and hasn't been true for many decades. Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, all of them want to spend more. Yes, they want to cut back on on some things due to ideology, but they mostly want to expand rather than decrease spending. There's a huge amount of rhetoric, but the actions never match the rhetoric. The only spending reductions ever pushed across are for programs favored by the minority party.
China is ahead in robots used for manufacturing. What are the challenges to the US catching up? Is it a matter of technology that is nonobvious and presents a moat that will take many years or decades to overcome? Or is it a matter of financing and business decisions, where the technology is known but the business decisions are difficult to make? For example, are automaker unions an insurmountable challenge to automation, so that even if the same robots were available today in the US, American car companies still would be unable to use those robots? That's probably not the case since Tesla is non-union and still not mostly automated.
As others have noted, if US car maker CEOs are full of fear and yet do nothing different, then the real problem is CEO stupidity.
The purpose of this agreement isn't to actually restrict access in the Pentagon. Its main purpose is to provide a plausible legal means to prosecute journalists who write things that the administration disapproves of. It is meant as a threat, not as a restriction.
Yes, because surveilling Americans should be restricted to US multinationals and government agencies. We don't need help from foreign companies.
I'd much rather be surveilled by the Chinese than my own government. All governments are the enemy, but the closer they are the more dangerous they are.
Unless there is a hot military war. Or a hot economic war. The US government targets the rights of individual Americans to advance personal political ideologies. While the Chinese don't care so much about those rights, they are very much interested in stealing industrial and military secrets. Some of these secrets are advantageous in a potential hot military war, but a lot of those secrets are already advantageous in promoting Chinese companies and jobs over American companies and jobs.
The title talks about a software quality collapse. That implies that software quality was better in the past. While we all bemoan the current state of software quality, how many of us actually think, "Remember the good old days when software quality was good!"? Or is this complaint-fest simply an acknowledge of the ever-present challenges of engineering software quality, challenges that are not necessarily different than before. As with all things in life and not just software, it's easy to complain about the present and nostalgically reminisce about how things were better before.
Regulations aren't the problem. Don't be a tool.
Regulations aren't the only problem. There are also other issues such as lack of institutional knowledge, lack of skill workers, huge capital costs, very long ramp-up times to create facilities and supply chains, and challenging economic viability especially in the face of cheap Chinese competition. Regulations often address environmental issues, and these exist at many levels, including federal, state, local, and private interests. Sometimes these interests manifest as regulations, but they can also manifest as lawsuits, efforts to interrupt required ancillary resources, public relations campaigns, etc.
Application level encryption (packet payloads) should still work although so maybe the satellites have nothing to do with it if applications using them don't bother to encrypt their payloads.
There should really be two levels of encryption. One level of encryption through the satellite provide and another level of encryption by the data sending, to protect their data from being seen by the satellite provider. This is a two fold mistake.
Isn't this sort of like arguing that IP should have always-on encryption? Not everyone wants or needs encryption, and some may prioritize speed or power instead.
Yes, I don't see this as "predatory" so long as the terms are presented up front. This really sounds like government protecting people from buyer's remorse which is not what they should be charged to do.
Part of the predatory part is the availability of alternatives. As a pathological case, consider a cable ISP that only allows 10-year contract with early termination fees. If there are no alternatives (other than just having no ISP), then the cable company is predatory.
Another part of being predatory is whether the upfront terms are easily digestible. Part of the California bill addresses this aspect, where terms are either hidden or otherwise presented to be either misleading or not easily understood by normal non-lawyer consumers. Buyer's remorse only applies when the buyer initially understood the original terms. Unless otherwise prohibited or punished by law, it's in most companies' interests to push the consumer into thinking he's getting a better deal that actually exists.
This article was written by an Indian student studying in the US. So, he's just citing an example based on his personal perspective. Aside from English, the one language that would be sort of a natural fit for AI training is Chinese. Up to 17% of the world's population can read/speak Chinese, which is close to the up to 20% that can read/speak English. Plus, a large percentage of AI researchers, companies, and models are located in China.
The article's author looks at Common Crawl, but that may not be representative. I suspect that the knowledge sources used for Chinese model training have a significant non-overlap with models trained in the US. I can believe that much of the world's knowledge still lies untouched by any AI model, but the distribution of that untouched knowledge across languages, technology domains, time of creation, etc. is likely much more complex than a simple discussion of just the language dimension.
"If NVDA has to provide the capital that becomes its revenues in order to maintain growth, the whole ecosystem may be unsustainable"
Lucent did this in the late 90s, covering up their ruse with clever accounting that wasn't so clever when it was discovered. This tanked the company and the stock. However, what Lucent did is more like AMD's recent deal rather than what Nvidia's deal with OpenAI. Neither Lucent nor AMD did quid pro quo deals but rather a large outright gift to the customer just so they could technically record a large sale. Nvidia's deals are also geared towards pushing sales. However, instead of giving away NVDA shares, they are receiving OpenAI shares, more like a quid pro quo.
"We are in a phase of the build-out where the entire industry's got to come together and everybody's going to do super well," OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told the Wall Street Journal on Monday.
This makes no sense. There is no emerging market where "everybody's going to do super well." That's always a lie. There will be a bloodbath, which has been true of every single emerging market ever. Most players today will fail. Only a few will eventually remain, and they will be the only ones that will do "super well."
OpenAI is way behind its main competitors (the hyperscalars) because it loses money and has no cash flow cow. OpenAI is likely one of the ones that will fail unless there is a significant paradigm change.
For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp
