carnagii
People with money (inherited or won gambling) fall on the same intelligence spectrum as everyone else. There is a shallow end of the pool there.
There are plenty of smart business people who understand exactly what "AI" is and how to exploit it. That is the whole point of this article.
What do you think cell phones and credit cards are? In all of your examples you do have to provide an ID.
I think that governments should provide a verifiable digital ID the same way they provide physical IDs and that they should provide communications platforms that allow people to communicate with these digital IDs in a way that protects their rights the same way that they provide mail service.
I do not think that governments should be regulating/banning activity on private platforms but should be offering an alternative where private platforms fall short. This is really nothing more than bringing existing government services (ID, mail, voting, parliaments) fully up to date with digital technology.
There is a big gap right now where governments don't understand what they should be doing or are incapable of doing it. They recognize the need for action because they see that things are going wrong but are not proposing or implementing the correct solutions yet.
Excluding fake and paid users (without a declaration of who is paying them) from that space and protecting free speech in that space is essential to having a public policy discussion.
Private corporations have not done this, and probably never will, so government is the only option left.
The fact that Facebook put a system in place to obtain these contact lists is evidence on its own of their value, but that value could also be quantified without much difficulty.
The only real question is: was dropping the consent form without removing the feature an honest mistake or was it done because somebody decided it would result in a lower bounce rate and thus more money for Facebook.
(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
A criminal investigation into whether or not this was really accidental would be entirely warranted here. If there was intent to access this information without authorized access that is criminal.
wanting to fix is pretty obvious. capable of fixing is a different story. biologically there is no fix (genetic engineering maybe? but that is super sci-fi). so we can try to correct with technology or social conventions but those fixes never change the underlying biological defects so how effective can they really be?
Look at the social engineering aspects of organized Christianity. How well did those work? Look at the social engineering aspects of the U.S. experiment like universal education and literacy. How well did those work?
It is a little bleak but in reality universal literacy has been a complete failure (in the U.S. at least). Probably 80% of the population is at the level of what used to be called "knowing your letters" but they are functionally illiterate (they have never done any significant amount of reading in their life, and aren't really capable of it). That is not a popular opinion, at least not for public consumption, so we can't even begin to address the issue because we refuse to acknowledge that it exists.
Keep in mind, from an evolutionary perspective we are exactly the same people who were burning witches at the stake and throwing people in lakes to determine their criminal culpability a few hundred years ago. We just have a different set of superstitions and delusions now.
Examples like this just show how naive and detached from reality that self appointed elite is and how little value their "charity" provides.
This is basic consumer behavior. Receiving a good experience (either service or product) is not notable because you paid for it and expect it, whereas a bad experience is offensive and makes you feel cheated so you retaliate by taking your time to leave a bad review.
What this means at scale is that most positive reviews are fake except for the truly extraordinary products/services that are far above all their peers in terms of quality or novelty.
In order to get decent reviews you have to be able to verify that the consumer actually paid for the product/experience and then you have to apply some sort of sampling methodology and statistical analysis to arrive at a meaningful relative score to other products/services in the same industry.
No review site has any interest in doing this because they are just using reviews to generate free content for SEO, to put ads on, and to extort businesses into paying them to "manage" negative reviews in various ways.
It is a merger, but Softbank will get a smaller stake than DT. "The new company will be about two-thirds owned by T-Mobile shareholders and one-third Sprint, with board representation in line with economic ownership, one of the people said." https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/27/t-mobile-sprint-merger-near-...
There is a decent picture about half way down in this article: https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/t-mobile-sprint-merger/
Softbank is selling at a loss here according to earlier reports that they paid $21.6B for a 72% share in Sprint https://newsroom.sprint.com/sprint-and-softbank-announce-com... and the merger values Sprint at $26.5B, of which 72% would be $19B.
That is not a sustainable competitive position in a capital intense industry.
Spectrum is part of the deal but hardly the only one. Retail consolidation would be a big cost savings. Refinancing Sprint's debt ($40B) with T-Mobile's better credit ratings would save hundreds of millions per year in interest expenses. CAQ for mobile customers is very high, so Sprint's customer base is worth quite a bit.
The really important question is how the deal will affect the competitive landscape for 5G. Neither Sprint or T-Mobile have the scale to effectively compete on 5G and Sprint in particular is in bad shape due to their low credit ratings and high borrowing costs. If T-Mobile doesn't merge with Sprint, either a larger company does, or Sprint continues to circle the drain with low-value services and slowly dies.
If Sprint loses customers then all else being equal this benefits AT&T/Verizon more because, if those customer migrate in proportion to existing market share, they get more of them. So Sprint going down weakens T-Mobile's competitive position.
Whether or not merging with Sprint actually improves T-Mobile's competitive position depends on execution but there is at least a plausible story there.
At this stage of the industry the opportunities for competition at the infrastructure level are limited and regulators should be focused more on maintaining a competitive market for MVNOs that are offering differentiated products like Google Fi and cheap pre-paid options like Mint.
John Legere is denying the story https://www.cnet.com/news/t-mobiles-john-legere-denies-justi... so we will see. The WSJ story could just be an attempt to sabotage the deal by introducing uncertainty.
totally true. but even the dumbest children of wealth will end up in six-figure jobs while the average ones will be top corporate lawyers, sales people, or professors, and the extraordinary ones will be CEOs. The smartest poor kids can excel in college and get the same salary as the dumbest rich kids, but will never move up the ladder because they lack the network.
For poor/lower-middle-class students college is mostly b.s. and you can be doing the exact same job for half the wage because you don't have the connections to get the high salary.
This settlement does not say good things about Intel's progress on 5G.
As 7nm continues to mature there is significant potential for AMD to grow sales if they are releasing a 2nd gen 7nm product at the same time as Nvidia is releasing 1st gen. Small market share means greater growth potential.
AMD is also in a better position than ever before because of having CPU, GPU, and next-gen custom SOCs consolidated on a single process, which means they are a much higher volume customer for TSMC than ever before, which means priority treatment, and they are manufacturing the broadest range of designs on that node, which means their internal knowledge of it is the best.
3Q is the earliest that they will see any revenue from these products, which is why the are forecasting 2Q decline. 3Q will likely be partial ramp, but 4Q should see a big pop.
both things are true. having edge nodes cuts latency between the client and edge, but it also allows priority for longer distances if you have a private network connecting your edges.
> There is nothing to prioritize when nothing has to be dropped.
Prioritization is absolutely required for any safety critical application (remote control in a bunch of different fields). No matter how over-provisioned a network is it can always be flooded, and for a safety critical applications that is unacceptable.
For the high value applications of the future guaranteed low latency delivery is an absolute requirement. You cannot get that with "net neutrality" rules.
The only reason to impose rules that make next gen applications impossible on public networks is to decrease competition for private networks.
Democratic partisans believe the other candidate was involved in a criminal conspiracy with foreign powers and/or engaged in criminal conduct to cover it up, and Republican partisans believe that the Wikileaks emails are full of proof of criminal activity by the other side's candidate. (they have probably never actually read any of the emails, but they believe it, which is all that matters)
Neither of those beliefs are strongly supported by evidence but both result from the fact that both candidates have a long history of dubious conduct that their detractors reasonably believe would be criminal if the laws were equally enforced without regard to wealth and political power.