75dvtwin
I think what Intel needs is a culture of innovation. Where things can be experimented with, failed, evaluated with data-driven insights.
I actually think somebody who is creative, can articulate vision, and act effectively on criticism (eg change direction), be just a little less -inclusivity-building and more meritocracy-building -- is all they need.
Somebody like Elon Mask.
Then, the commercial bonds (for good sound companies), loose values. Then commercial bonds investors loose their investment...
So the loose-loose sitation were are looking at:
a) continue printing money out of thin air -- raising inflation and indebting the generation of kids who do not even vote yet
b) get the current economy go into depression.
It seems like the current generation, with their choices of leadership and the habits is responsible -- so ( b ) has to be chosen (to be fair).
But since we do not live in the world where accountability is a thing -- ( a ) will be selected.
I do not think it is 'kosher' by any means... but this practice exists in western societies where corruption is hidden behind 'book deals', 'documentary deals', incredibly 'visionary' stock market investors (that sit in US congress and senate), etc.
In other places, same corruption -- but not hidden behind the financial instruments
So the solution, it seems, would have to be some system of cooperative, transparently weighted contribution to the ranking process
As many as it takes to maintain the US dollar as reserve currency, and necessary access to mineral resources.
What I do not know if NATO was able to change regime in a country, without having it (NATO) being directly involved in a conflict.
In my understanding if NATO was able to change a regime, there were expressly military boots on the ground (or bombing campaigns like in Yugoslavia)
Some of these regimes are horrible to their own people, so the change by NATO (acting an alias term for 'US') is good.
Sort of like the Spanish Conquistadors stopped the horrors of the Aztec empire [1]
[1] https://www.iflscience.com/bizarre-child-sacrifice-confirms-...
The inflation apparently, does not just affect the currency value -- it also corrects the value of salaries compared to the outcome.
I am also expecting that 80% of the companies behind the 2,600 apps in this list: https://theresanaiforthat.com/ will close those efforts down within 2 years.
The next iteration of businesses/sites that come in place of dpreview -- will be ad-ridden, small budget enterprises like
emulsive.org
100asa -- for more professional photographers, and
photrio.com for the film camera, and film-development crowd.
I do not like petapixel -- because they ask me to register with google or discuss not interested in any of those...
I am surprised that dpreview was owned by Amazon. Never knew about this.
This is often called HDR.
The issue with combining images together is that it works for static objects well, but if things move -- it does not. So low-noise digital sensors still seem to offer much better results.
And certainly, startup-time (or app selection time) + focusing speed, is simply unmatched by phones compared to DSLRs or mirrorless with phase focus detection
I do think that Denoising images with AI/ML will be common place even in open source Image processing tools like Rawtherapee.
So DLSRs having APS-C or full frame sensors with lower megapixel count will do well if images are post-processed (or in camera processed) wit these AI tools.
In fact, I was thinking that buying a used DSLR from 2012 circa for 150$ bucks -- will yield similar results as a 2K camera or a 1k smart phone.
Phones are easier to transport/carry. That's has been their reason to take over the lens+camera systems.
But I think camera makers can make photo gear fashionable again :-). I am working on some ideas in that area :-)
I would also suggest that 'owned by public sector' does not mean 'public good'.
Even when a private corporation influenced/directed/controlled by federal authorities -- it is problematic.
I do not know of a political system that can effectively check federal government so that it stays for public good.
Money-sponsored or various threatened-by-force election models are not effective at checking that premise.
A person who had trained themselves taking (and reviewing) 100s or 1000s of pictures of one particular camera, and one or 2 particular lenses of fixed focal length (prime lenses) -- would have developed a mental model of how a given picture will look, before they take it.
It is that 'pre-physical' mental modeling maturity, that allows experienced photographers to transition to artists (same is for film development and analog printing processes, as well) and stay minimalist at that (as far as gear).
Camera makers are aware of this I think.
This is why cameras with non-detachable, single focal length (prime) lenses are very popular, at any time.
Before it was Yashica Electro 45 [1], now it is Richo GRIII [2] (as examples).
It is also notable that camera makes who make popular SLRs/mirroless cameras such as Nikons, look for current/modern trends of what a 'favorite focal lenght of a lens' is.
For example Nikon recently announced that they will be making 26mm pancake lenth for their Z mirrorless line.
26mm is an 'unusual' focal length, the standard wide-angle is 28mm. And these lenses are usually not pancakes (pancake means very slim / thin lenses that are barely sticking out of the camera body).
But this 26mm focal length is the length (equivalent) of an iphone camera. That's clearly why they are picking this unusual focal length -- and making a optically high quality lens that will fit their full-frame Z range of cameras.
The full frame camera sensor (or even APS-C sized or m4/3 sized sensors) allow to take pictures in low light situations with out flash, while still autofocusing reasonably fast -- much better than with a phone camera.
I would also not be surprised if Nikon would also develop a new Z camera body that will be just big (small) enough to just host these small lenses and that will have perfect integration with phone and pocketable.
So that the camera can utilize this lens, creating much better low-light opportunities without a flash (allowing the photography be more discrete, and take advantage of natural shadows in composition).
They will have to solve battery dimension issues (full frame mirrorless requires more power than a smaller sensor.)
Nikon, I suspect, will also probably enable the post processing to utilize new or (even app-store like) filters to add various effects.
Point I wanted to make is that fixed focal length, single lens, single camera -- enables 'trends', mental-model training and probably other interesting features in the whole word of photography that I do not have words for.
Camera makers certainly know this.
So minimalism in that sense is great, but requires a lot of training and practice :-)
[1] http://www.yashica-guy.com/document/chrono.html [2] https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/gr-3/
I made mistakes -- but majority of them were on soft-skills sides of the problem.
The university names mattered little, and in many cases effected person's self-promotion efforts/abilities. That has some value, but not when it is 'instead of' high ethics and technical skills.
Perhaps, it is time to relinquish the presumptions of moral superiority -- and just discuss technical details without the drama ...
I am saying that you wrote does not cover full spectrum of how the virus replicates, therefore your comment does illuminate the complexity that's present in interaction with our immune system. Which includes, according to the NIH paper I referenced, antibody-dependent-enhancement (ADE).
In other words employers should not looking for 'how you a acquired skills', but instead for 'what skills you have'.
---
Same as when you publish scientific paper (or a Talmudic treaties, for that matter) before it gets accepted....
It should not be relevant the name of your scientific advisor, institution, or whether you grandparent a famous Rabbi (if we are going with theological texts..)
---
Yes, by eliminating the names of your school from the hiring process you are also eliminating that little detail that the cost of attendance for 1 year undergraduate at , say, Vanderbilt University -- is 80,000 USD [1], and that you could afford it...
But the approach I am suggesting does more than that -- it incentivizes employers to consider skills of the hires, and not the 'image' of the schools they came from.
Which, in turn, will incentive the schools to prioritize education quality over hyper-marketing.
Certainly I am not advocating to hide personal achievements (eg participation in relevant open source projects, STEM olympiad's, or other relevant endeavors that build not just technical skills, but also a good character).
I am also saying that there needs to be a system of incentives, that then, produces, organizational/hiring practices that favor non-tool-specific employment process.
[1] https://math.ucr.edu/home//baez/theoretical/theoretical_web....
In my view John is an exceptional educator, inspiring, energetic and accommodating to many people.
I do think, however, his 'save the planet' efforts are misplaced. I think the mathematical tooling and theoretical machinery to help technical initiatives in planet saving -- exists.
What does not exist is honesty in country/world wide policy making.
Every crook wants to be viewed as 'idea generator', planet-saving-angel -- as long as tax money get diverted to whatever causes -- through their 'sinks and facets' of control.
I am not advocating to give up -- I am advocating to use talents that these folks have to figure out how to achieve transparency in political, contractual system of incentives.
If they would work with investigative journalism to find who the crooks are, how they divert public money, how they have selective outrage against one entity, but not another doing similar things -- that were the focus should be.
It adds to discrimination and unequal treatment.
Asking if you a have a degree form an accredited university is OK.
But which one of the universities -- is like asking how much are you paying for your rent/house, and what type of neighborhood you are living in (and so asking for address has to be prohibited too)
Not only 'the vaccine' (meaning Covid-19) vaccine. Trust to CDC is lost, trust to FDA is lost, trust to Executive orders on health policies is lost.
Trust to major news networks, trust to health pundits -- is lost.
On top of that, of course, trust for non-health related 'institutions' (eg FBI, CIA, NSA, FISA courts) -- is lost.
Everything from here on coming from the above institutions -- will be viewed with skepticism and distrust.
Hell, probably trust in legitimacy of election process is lost too. Will see, I guess.
My point about the article -- is that fails to consider the whole system in a country like US...
No longer will western politicians be able to point out to authoritarian dictatorships -- from the point of moral authority.
The "Whatabout-ism" is now 'normalized', and will continue be normal discourse of international politics for a very long time.
Historians 200 years from now 2016-2022 will have to be calling this as a 'Period of Pundits & Institutions loosing people's trust' for many of English-speaking countries.
Hiring narrowly focused people with significant pre-existing experience -- Is always costly.
... and I also think, it is practically always a wrong strategy...
I am fundamentally against micro-managing labor pools by federal government.
However, there are need to be economic incentives (including immigration policies) -- that make it more difficult for employers to hire for 'tool-centric' positions, unless those tools are very expensive physical devices (eg telescopes, quantum computers, etc).
The incentives need to direct employers at training on the job (not at after-work online classes).
When I see on HN's hire threads -- 'if you have Azure experience -- you will get on top of the pile' -- I cringe.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Same pretty much with Ruby/Php Rust/C++ Haskell/Scala modalities of the same problem.
Yes hire people who understand process/idioms/patters, but invest in the f..ing training -- if you need somebody 'yesterday' to help, get consultants -- and have them help and at the same time hire for full time roles -- and train your internal stuff (possibly, even, have them learn from the consultants).
Afraid of people leaving after acquiring the highly thought-out skills ?
-- implement meaningful compensation/retention policies that reflect effort that you spend on training, and risks that you are taking if a person who was just trained -- leaves.
It appears that COVID-19 can also enter cells (these would be immune cells that came to 'help') via so called Fc-pathway.
Therefore allow the virus to multiply even more
"... In addition to viral entry via ACE2, antibodies against coronavirus spike proteins (anti-spike-S-IgG) can induce antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of viral entry via type II Fcγ receptors. ..." [1]
I am assuming you are in US.
First you should do on your a patent search as well as just search -- to confirm that your idea is that unique.
Perhaps you will find that 70% is not unique -- but just did not work because the software tools or hardware was not ready yet.
This is ok. You can still patent how you use new, widely available tech, to solve a productivity issue or such.
Although simple 'method' claims are not as defensible as a triplet of 'method', 'process' and 'software program' claims.
Second, you cannot patent an invention after you made it available in public. So make sure that the timing and sequence of your events work. Also if your patent is not implementable (due to an error in description ) -- you cannot 'fix it later'. So you have to make sure that your idea workable (this actually easiest part for engineers/developers).
Third, do not do Provisional Patent application -- it s a waste of money. It is not a patent, it is an application to get you the 'date' sooner than if you would file a full patent
Then, assuming that you have resolved that you want to patent, and that your idea patentable.
You have to worry about your idea being not just stolen but also turned against you.
So a well funded corp, or well-funded/lawyered-up individual -- may not just do what you are doing, but patent it in a way that will claim that their idea is original, and that you have no right to use it.
So not only that they can steal it from you, they can prevent you implementing it -- if they are that malicious. It is harder if you release open source and explain your idea to all -- but still possible.
Of course, if you do not have money or enemies with a law degree -- the chances of those 'disabling' blows are low. But there is, unfortunately, little in the US judicial system to protect you from those.
Since US law does not require an inventor to implement a patent -- basically a lawyer who cannot code a production-ready system, can do this to you.
Utility patents in US allow you to patent method, process, program. In many patents you will see in Claims sections something is described as a 'method', then the same thing is a 'process', and then at the end it is mentioned that the program implements the 'process'.
So, in the claims section (the most important section), you could describe your invention as 'method', and as a process.
If you obtain the patent, you will continue to pay its fees, to keep it current. The max live of a utility patent is 20 years.
At some point in time, during that period you may turn the patent over to a foundation that allows it to be used by anybody (and they may continue paying fees to maintain it).
This will not protect you from somebody implementing your ideas, but will protect you from being virtually racketeered.
If you decide to work on a patent, consider a patent agent, rather than a patent lawyer.
Patent agents are cheaper (although I do not know by how much), they can represent you in-front of PTO boards, but not in court. Patent lawyers can do both.
If you patent eventually goes to litigation, you can get a patent lawyer at that time (although they will tell you that they are best to write patent too, to make it ready for any possible court defense).
Most patents never go to litigation, and many expire even before 20 years, because the patent assignee failed to pay maintenance fees.
She has been trying to fight the bans on her own, for a while.
Do not know if the new law will help in her cases or not.
I am certain it will be challenged, however.
The legal battles that this will spawn , will be used to sharpen the legal language, evidence, etc.
Overall, the direction that Conservatives will take -- is arguing that Political speech must be protected the same way that religious speech is. So this is a federal level battle, overall.
Personally, it seems that giving examples of how hotel owners were refusing Black customers, in the past -- by arguing that they can build their own hotel, and equating this to the Left tech titans vs Conservatives -- will not work.
As race, ethnicity or biologicals gender is not chosen. But religion is.
With regards to theme park protections, I guess they are not speech platforms anyway, so carving out -- for one of the larger tax payers is understood.
This is a raging ideological war in the country that has been going one for more than a decade. Conservatives feel on the defense for some time, the time of questioning the legal weaponry that sides use -- has long passed.
Will be interesting to see how investment banks that have large presence there -- will react as well. They may threaten to leave (and covering up by the demands of their clients) to apply their pressures, as well.
Everybody who has not yet taken side, will have to pick one.
Can a cabal of morally bankrupt bribe-takers wielding selective-outrage-justice weapons against own citizens (Marine Le Pen, Trump, and their supporters)
be scolding another, less-presentable Dictator?
And the Obama admin behavior [1] with the attempted Snowden plane intercept, is not much different either, I agree..
[1] https://www.france24.com/en/20130703-bolivia-president-evo-m...
Because they are using empirical evidence (eg previous data) from 'experiments' that are effectively, unrelated to current situation.
In my personal view, of course,
Most previous elections in the last 30+ years, were between RINOs (Republican In Name Only) and Democrats. Those are pretty much two fractions of the same bribe-taking, accountability-avoiding global Cartel.
This Election is between the representative of citizens of the Republic (Trump) and the Cartel's candidate.
This really did not happen from the time Bushes-then-Clintons took over both parties and turned them into co-existing fractions of one party.
- - -
Another analogy: we do not use same methods and design constraints when building anti-lock breaks control software, as we do when we build a daily revenue reporting system.
- - -
Frame of reference is different basically. And we do not know the tensor(s) that help us to move between the coordinate systems.
- - -
So we are not going to be able to use even 2016 polls (because then folks did not realize how Corrupt the RINOs+Dems are )
- - -
My prediction is that Trump wins, GOP takes House and retains Senate.
This will also be the largest percent wise vote for a GOP president, by Latino and African American voters.
- - -
Will check back in 9 days or so, to see if I was right !
Cheers.
They are free to have their selective outrage, but they are a publisher, not a platform.
And therefore cannot claim protections under 47.230 This is like claiming tax exceptions of a non-profit charity, while being a for profit business
>" ... (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
..."
Seems like a good amount of allegory in that article.
Even reminded me of a Soviet era poet, Vladimir Mayakovsky [1]
Seems Slava would rather to be ruled by oligarchs, bribe-taking political family-clans, proteges of sexual predators, and thought police (hiding behind the innocence of cancel culture [2])
May be that sounds somewhat close to Ukraine where the author lived first portion of his life?
[1] https://ruverses.com/vladimir-mayakovsky/ [2] https://defmacro.substack.com/p/against-xkcd-1357
It could be that Mozilla's role in the whole scheme of things is to act as 'Plausible Deniability' defense for big G.
Which is, probably, what that Mozilla's current CEO lawyer is there for.
Google needed to get rid of Brendan Eich (Mozilla's CEO that was to browsers, like Bill Gates to Windows) - for the plausible deniability defense to work [1]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ce...
I am not sure that it matters 'why they censored'.
Put it another way, I do not think it matters if they applied their own ToS rules correctly, incorrectly, selectively or whatever.
I am not sure that their terms of service, allow them to claim protection under 47.230 [1]
I am sure that the position that the fed government investigators will take.
If Twitter folks (or their crowd-sourced moderators, or committees) gray-out/remove/comment on/hide/edit content that Twitter claims 'is not theirs' -- then it is hard to imaging they are compliant with the 'non-publisher' protections of section 47.230.
Imagine if one is a for-profit business, claiming tax code for a non-profit organization.
Their Terms Of Service mentions: 'Making the world better and being charitable. We do not do business with bad clients'.
Does that make that business less criminally liable for claiming taxes of a non-profit?
To me it does not.
Section 230 will NOT get removed. ISPs and email service providers, and blog platforms, will still be able to use it.
But companies that add/remove/replace/gray-out/delete/hide/push-to-bottom content that they claim they did not editorialize -- will be called Publishers.
So these businesses will not be able to use statutory protections that are available for non-publishers under section 45.230.
An analogy might be: a for-profit-business cannot claim tax benefits available for a non-for-profit organizations.
So the tax-code does not get removed, just because somebody was actively abusing it. It stays the same, but the abuser would face criminal investigation.
And if the abuser was found to systemically and purposefully avoiding to be recognized as 'Publisher' (or as a for-profit business in this analogy), then the criminal penalties would be more severe, then otherwise.
In the instances where each of these 3 attributes (Propaganda, censorship & surveillance) -- are also essential part of a business model -- I would call those specific large businesses as Super-Monopolies.
If we look at any large and successful business that has the above, plus is in the business of end-user Advertisement (that is in the business of promoting one thing over another .. that's advertisement for end consumers).
It fits into a 'super-monopoly' bucket.
It must surveil (to understand the target audience), and it must do it covertly.
It must censor (remove, downplay, gray-out content that does not fit the business model, or, as we see lately, the political bias of the org's leadership)
It has to monopolize the market place, so that every end-user 'walks through a single door'.
It will use propaganda to pacify critical thinkers, and to mislead folks with less developed 'critical thinking' -- that they are 'not a monopoly by any stretch', that they are just and fair, and hard working... As that's a necessary function to survive in a system with anti-trust laws.
- - -
What is, of course, very notable about these 3 attributes -- that they are also a must for Dictatorships and Monarchy style of government.
- - -
If the above is an accepted analogy. There are 2 positions about it ( a) -- that's good, continue on (b) no, that's bad, we need to have constitutional checks that this cannot happen, even if most powerful people try to do it.
- - -
So what could constitution (assuming that it cannot be changed) could look like to prevent a 'country-wide' analogy of a monopoly - a Dictatorship?
- - -
Well, the first thing, is to agree, that no matter how fair-minded, or 'saint' a person is -- given enough power, he/she will get corrupt.
That applies for groups of people as well as for individual.
- - -
Therefore, the first solution -- is power distribution. Under no circumstances political, economic and military power can be concentrated within the power of the same group of people.
That means 'de-centralization', and more practically 'de-urbanization'. Meaning that having small geographical areas and their elected representative wielding most power is good for Dictatorship. So a Constitution must prevent that.
The nuance there is what is 'economic power'. Well that's mostly means, control of tax revenue, and control of within country trade.
Therefore, a good constitution, to avoid corruption would:
- Prohibit same group of people to control tax revenue, to control laws of intra-country trades
- Prohibit same group of people (as above) from having control of military force. And prevent military from interfering within the border.
- Prohibit same group of from forcing a 'single choice' of any article of commerce, education, health.
- Prohibit same group from enforcing any emigration choices (meaning if the person wants to leave the country, they can).
--
Other thing that a good Constitution would do, is to enable the voting citizens to be the 'final backstop', the final judge to decide if actions of elected officials are constitutional or not,.. the final police police, acting as a threat with force, speaking allegorically.
With regard to comment
> I am pretty certain, if our society manages to survive the current times, our attitude to centralization and globalization will change
I think it may be more nuance. Or at least, I am trying to come up with the framework that will let me understand if the country will change and how...
I am speculating, that has to do with 'critical thinking' abilities of voting public...
I have came to read somewhere, that critical thinking is more like an 'immune system'.
We are not born with it, instead ,it develops over time, by experience. When meeting with bad, malignant information, manipulation and lies.
Just like immune system that gets stronger when surviving infections deceases.
Critical thinking does not directly correlate to our cognitive gifts, just like immune system may not be a reflection of visible physiological gifts.
With that analogy, we can say there always be a portion of voting population (due to age, particular environment that they were brought up, fear, etc.) -- that will have somewhat reduced critical thinking (or have in decline) compared to others.
That is, those folks have reduced cognitive immunity to being manipulated. And that deficiency can change (improve or get worse) over time... (it is not static).
Depending on how string & aggressive the malignant manipulation of people is in a particular period -- and depending on the percentage of folks with delayed development of critical thinking at that same period -- we will have different outcomes.
It is that ratio of how virulent manipulative malignancy is, divided by percent of voting population with underdeveloped critical thinking, that will decide the outcome for a country in a particular time period.
- - -
Without claiming an affinity to a particular side in the current US politics, I would say that it appears (at least to me ), that percentage of voting public with underdeveloped critical thinking, is higher now than was say 35 years ago or so.
If we can agree on the percentage of underdeveloped critical thinkers in the current voting population. Then if we can agree on the measure of malignant manipulation (that, underneath reflects stakes)
Then if we agree and find these ratios in other consequential historical periods. We will be able to 'predict' what will happen, with, hopefully, better certainty.
I know this may easily fall into confirmation bias, as we start picking and choosing the percentages, etc. But nevertheless, I hope the above represents a 'framework' to apply.