They started building it 2022, and expect it to be operational in May. In other words: its already pretty much finished.

You are a bit late to the party to shit on its prospects of getting off the ground.

The difference being that finding waldo in a sea of faces almost but not quite waldo, some with the right hat but no glasses, some with the stripe shirt but no hat, etc etc is a lot more representative of the real problem.

It always starts with a synthetic or toy problem but, again, its about selecting a good representative proof-of-concept to be for it to be convincing.

If you showed me the exact same waldo image recognition system and demonstrated it finding waldo on a blank page, it would in fact be the same system, but this demo would not "prove" the concept very convincingly, right? The engine is the same, but the 'proof' in the proof-of-concept is far less persuasive.

120 bytes of binary for a dead simple cpu, likewise, is just not very persuasive. Its a very weak demonstration like using the image recognition system find waldo on a blank page.

It is like demonstrating a system can see toy boats through a 5mm sheet of slightly tinted glass and then talking about how the same tech will be able to help researchers find shipwrecks at the bottom of the ocean, after a century of decay, half buried by silt, ... from a satellite in space.

A proof of concept is a non-production demonstration that provides convincing evidence you'll be able to scale it up and do the ACTUAL thing in the real world that you claim it can do.

This demonstration just isn't convincing. It is too small and simplified a case to justify the grand claims.

Except in this case the real world problems are several orders of magnitude more complicated than the toy problem of reverse engineering binary source of a 120 bytes of code for very simple 40 year old 6502 processor.

You've assembled a lego space ship and then claimed you are qualified to design and build a real one.

Not confused at all. Don't blame the voters for the candidates.

"Do better in 2028 or you'll have Vance."

I think even Vance would be a solid upgrade.

I'm well aware. It was a subject matter that appealed to a wide audience. It had very high budget, and was a project Cameron was passionate about. It was very well constructed technically. The costuming and set design was beautiful, with fantastic attention to detail. The cinematography, visual effects, and sound editing were all top notch too. It genuinely deserved *most* of the awards it won.

But you can have a very very well produced very very stupid movie.

It was was dumb screenplay. The love story was painfully tedious and silly, and we all knew the boat was going to sink before we bought the ticket and that's what people were there to see anyway. The boat sinking is what won best picture. Not the love story or the characters party to it. It was simply not a compelling story all. It was an extremely well produced spectacle about a sinking boat, but the actual plot?

Reminds of another technical acheivement spectacle film... also by James Cameron, also won multiple awards and nominated for several more (collectively 9). Also with a painfully stupid plot: Avatar.

Titanic? Really? I had more empathy for the guy whose car they defiled than either character. Hundreds of actual real people died on that ship so we could have a back drop to a trite and unbelievably sappy romance about fictional characters? The ending was beyond annoying too with the whole throwing a unique priceless heirloom into the ocean, you know to "let go" of Jack. you know -- that boy she knew for almost 4 whole days.

"the Democrat college educated voter will vote for a dingbat who knows nothing."

We would have even voted for a potted plant because even a potted plant would be a better choice.

"I voted for a 3rd party candidate."

Would you like a sticker? Supporting a 3rd party is nice and all but in the current US system, voting 3rd party in any remotely competitive state amounts to not voting. Basic game theory stuff. I'll vote 3rd party when we have a proper STV system in place or something comparable.

Or perhaps to compete with Tesla 3.

In the 80s/90s we were tasked to read several novels from grade school through high school; The Incredible Journey, Where the Red Fern Grows, In the Heat of the Night, The Hobbit, 1984, To Kill a Mockingbird, Romeo and Juliet are some that I remember reading for school. I know Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm, and Farenheit 451 were also on the curriculum as friends took those in other blocks. And those are just the ones I recall... there were others.

Its a work in progress:

Hockey Puck, Black, 6oz

https://www.canadiantire.ca/en...

My understanding is that despite the competition catching up in terms of the image creation/editing capabilities Abobe is still where you need to be to when you need to manage font licensing and pantone color matching and print workflows.

I'd be happy to be told I'm outdated/wrong on that though...

Give it time, he also doesn't watch TV, but only just recently stopped announcing it.

It's actually pretty understandable.

Despite the meme power of a broken login, the bug affects a fallback feature you might well go years without using.

It requires you have PIN/Touch sign in enabled; which if you've enabled that, that means that is how you normally login.
And that works just fine. Nothing is broken there.

What is missing is a "password" icon in the 'fallback' options to "sign in a different way" (using a password, e.g., instead of a PIN or fingerprint.)

So despite being on the login screen, its not actually something you are going to regularly interact with normally, unless you forgot your pin or something. And its hardly something human beta testers are going to think to explicitly test for, every single build. And since the bug is a missing element as opposed to a visibly broken element, well, its easy to fail to notice something you almost never use isn't there.

Meanwhile, clicking where its supposed to be still actually works, so its entirely plausible that you could have automated test scripts that continue to pass if they've been scripted to click at coordinate (X,Y), or to select the password button programmatically by an identifier or something, and then 'expect' something to happen in response, because the button is there and it works just fine, its just missing its texture or something. This would slip past a lot of test frameworks, the button is "in the model", "its active/enabled", "its selectable", "its clickable", and "it fires a click event if you click", "and whatever it is supposed to do happens", and its probably even "visible" (though you can't see it); most likely the icon or texture is missing or unassigned or referencing a transparency by mistake, and its just a "transparent button". So unless you specifically add checks to screen capture and compare a pixel block range to a reference image bitmap or something, you aren't even going to catch it with an automated test.

Tests like THAT do exist and can be written, but its not usually very useful, and the cost to write and maintain such tests with reference images is huge. change an icon or font or background color and a zillion tests need to be updated. Its a difficult balancing act to decide what to test, even for a highly competent QA team.

It's possible it just outright incompetence too... but in this case, for this bug... its pretty understandable.

Spotify offers lossless... I recently enabled it.

https://newsroom.spotify.com/2...

"a decision and action appear to takes place milliseconds before the conscious mind is aware of it, but phenomenologically it feels like you made that decision before the event happened."

I certainly don't know, and I don't think the research answers that question yet.

But from what I've read its research that raises many more questions than it REALLY answers.

For example, what if the consciousness feedback loop is not "aware" of the decisions (its "output") until they've been dumped to memory and looped around and come back in as "inputs".

So that doesn't necessarily mean you don't consciously make decisions, it just means you aren't yourself aware you made it until after you made it.

In web programming terms, suppose "consciousness" is the local application state view, which is a reflection of the data on the server "memory" and has all your data labels and field contents showing (including the logs of its decisions). Imagine too that a "decision" is like activating a call to the server to make a an update to the back-end database.

So based on the data in the local state, and the running software, the local app "decides" to calls the server and make an update. Lets just say, it just does it -- in particular it doesn't feed that information back to the local state object, no UI is updated, no labels are changed. Yet.

The local state is not updated with even the record that it made the call until it gets the state update from the server a few milliseconds later.

Then, if you are a brain researcher monitoring the application state (aka consciousness), you'll discover it doesn't "know" it called the server, until after the server has been called and returned.

The point is: just because we don't know what we decided right away doesn't necessarily imply that we didn't decide. The brain is an organic system that evolved over millions of years, perhaps having consciousness run a few milliseconds behind is perfectly serviceable solution for the problems it evolved to solve.

Perhaps its even advantageous, waiting for the awareness of the decision to propagate through consciousness before emitting the decision to the rest of the body might cause enough action latency that we're polar bear or sabre tooth tiger food. Better to get the body acting act as soon as the information is there -- there's simply no survival advantage to waiting for it to get dumped back to memory and updated in the consciousness first.

Or maybe consciousness is an illusion, so we can watch a show that aleady happened with no impact on the world around us... but that seems relatively useless in a world with polar bears and sabre tooth tigers.