igk
open source FPGA workflow. ASICs is more tough
we also never sleep ;-)
thanks for the explanation...it will be interesting how netflix will handle it. The "reasonable thing" to do would be to either a) plonk all of those "superfluous" engineers into creative fun mode ala xerox park or b) set them onto formally verifying the stack and then sack them slowly/stop hiring, at least as far as can guess from the outside of the entertainment industry? Though handling 3D/VR+developing teldedildonics (does netflix do adult content?) might give the techies continued legitimacy
I am not familiar with this phrase, what does it refer to? Or are you referring to my current favorite programming language and the need for it to go mainstream? ;-)
You can also have another perspective on this: with the lack of investments in moonshots and every less actual work to do, we are now entering the "entertainment industry" phase of our society.
You could argue that Netflix creates the on-demand-video equivalent of long form writing, youtube spans from that to shlock novels and comic books...so with vine gone (it's still gone right?), maybe snapchat or instagram will fill the video equivalent of tabloids spanning to facebook posts.
As I've argued in a differnet post, the problem isn't too little theoretical knowledge, it's that uni is just seen as "the highest" and people who just want practical knowledge go to a place which is supposed to give you deep insight into the theories and research in your field because it gives the status qualification.
>Another problem we have is that motivations are flawed for our Professors. Many Professors want to conduct research and don't care about teaching the material, on the other hand you have some Professors that don't want to research and would just enjoy teaching the material, yet everyone is incentivized to conduct research because its the only way to progress. I think this is fundamentally wrong. Its bad for the students and bad for the professors. If a professor just wants to teach he/she should be allowed to focus on that area and be judged by how well his students can actually apply the learning they acquired in the course. If a professor wants to research he should be judged by his research.
This follows from my point above. We mix "I just want a job students" with "give me moar theory" students and the profs who (anecdotally) love dealing with the second type (explaining things to interested newbs is stimulating for insight) have to dumb down things enough so the job hunters can get their employer mandated checkmark
>There are so many other problem areas as well, for instance, I think we should allow much more mobility between disciplines than is currently the case. I've studied computer science and although I'm quite familiar with computational finance I would probably not be allowed to get a Phd in Finance since I've never taken business/economics courses. Although if you tested me on any number of financial subjects I wouldn't have a problem describing how to model/analyze/forecast the data. So there are a lot of arbitrary hoops that keep people down and force you to not to change you field of study.
That I actually have to disagree with...I know loads of CS and EE majors in economics, the reverse less but also. Especially at the PhD level, as long as you did something relevant, you can get in.
> Its also very difficult for older people mid career to get a degree and increase their personal capital that way. These again are just some problems that we need to address but "flawed in the extreme" - I tend to disagree on that one.
This is indeed a problem, but for example my alma mater has started offering part time degrees, with 25% of the workload required per semester and twice the allowed maxmimum study time. So there is change
Having worked with both, the difference is noticeable. The FH guys are actually usually much better engineers in "standard" problems, cleaner code etc, but if you have to drop down abstraction levels and make your own techniques, the university guys tend to fare better(already filtering out incompetent people). It's a different education, with different goals. One is more general and aims to deepen your general understanding, Hoping you'll be able to derive the techniques. The other focuses more on practical application that will get you a job now and hope you'll learn the deep understanding with time. But there is not as much connection between what is taught as one might think. Likewise, ask any professional trader what they think of academic finance.
My tl,dr is that I think university or something should have the explicit goal of teaching "useless" knowledge with the aim of giving deep understanding. Then everyone who just wants a job can avoid that, and we don't have to water down the curriculum
University education should not be or promise jobs, it should be about understanding certain fields on the deep level and being confronted with the bleeding edge of knowledge. Right now we are conflating the two, meaning we have a large number of students wasting their time in classrooms when for their goal they should either be getting deeper, tougher confrontation with the subject (if they want to do research/understand deeply) or practical "on the job" education (if they want to get a job). BWL is the worst culprit of this as far as my friends who studied it describe it.
1. Digital selfdetermination. Having the right to not have pictures of you made public (where is a setting that automatically UN-tags me and blurs my face in pictures I don't approve?) as a private person vs. having a right to talk about public individuals, companies, filtering etc. without impedance
2. Following on that, collaboration with law enforcement instead of deleting/censoring.
3. Retroactive denial of usage. This applies more in the EU, but how does facebook plan to address the idea/need to revoke usage of my personal data after it has been used/possibly sold (IIRC you don't sell data directly, but that might have changed since then)?
4. Data takeout: what about making it easy to download and archive all posted content, but also uploaded content related to the individual (tagged pictures, mentions)
5. The status of facebook as a transnational, as "infrastucture" and it's relationship to the democratic and social systems in different countries
6. The ethics of curating and counter curating topics in the feed/related content for powerusers
7. The role of the defacto largest dataset on human communications and the use of that for AI research as well as the impact of AI and automation on society. Combined with that the position facebook would take on possible solutions like UBI
8. The impact of the "highlight reel" on depression and mental health. Studies have shown that heavy facebook use correlates with depression
If anyone knows more about this and wants to explain why I'm misunderstanding this I'd be thankful :-)
In the engineering world, if it talks like a memristor, and walks like a memristor if you squint a bit, we are damn well going to use it like a memristor. Hence we are happily building and testing nonvolatile storage (MRAM, ReRAM, PCRAM) and other applications - I'm gonna start research on applications as ML accelerators in May :-)
For a substantial part of the population, this happens:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wiki-hole
If you have ready access to information, you hunger for more, because after you understand one concept or fact, you NOTICE all the other things that depend on that, be they new things building on top or inconsistencies in other fields conflicting with your new knowledge
Click around...project of IHS...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Humane_Studies#O...
None of the concepts are wrong, but things are more complicated. For a short summary on the idea of Inequality of Bargaining and consequential hollowing of the "voluntary" transaction you can check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power
Interestingly, one area where this is taken into account, is study design (i.e. thinking about when a reward will skew the results/be unethical towards participants)
For some discussion see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3646546/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600442/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600442/#S2titl...
This time was just about a millisecond ago.
Your last sentence confirms me in this. "The government" is made up of people who got into power for idealistic or selfish reasons, yet you refer to it as its own entity and concept. This gels well with the "lay of mine" concept of freedom, less well with the "we as a whole enable us all" flavour.
Obviously, I am biased, and I might be interpreting things. If so, please corrent my misunderstandings if you have the time.
A right to privacy and a data letter (every outlet and company must inform you via mail about any data, articles etc on their servers/in their publication in which personal information about you is involved, if they are either supplying a service or writing the story) would fill most of that niche in my opinion
Right to autonomy I agree, that is basically stallmann. First sale doctrine, freedom to tinker, software freedom...things like this
Right to anonymity goes into dangerous territory again...you should have a right to not be surveilled(privacy), which makes it harder to connect you to your speech (good). But if somebody figures it out,having the right to stop that is ...dangerous again.Especially with the bullshit idea that corporate money is speech, that right would make it illegal to unmask bribery
In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis for freedom. "Negative freedom" - don't force me to do things, don't touch my house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have the means - is more dominant. Hence, people don't seem to like the idea of having to pay for "other peoples freedom". It's more palatable to think of taking care of just your kids/relatives - there is a limited number of them, and you can probably do that without actually giving up a lot of property. Buy a big house, move your parents in there, you still have a big house afterwards.
Of course, this also leads to (or is equivalent) to a "fuck the poor" mindset