what-no-tests
/s
Also, I like how the focus appears to be on how it will benefit the user, instead of focusing on tech specs.
Data privacy and personal security aside, I understand there will be a reciprocal action between lifestyle and technology. We might have to change our lifestyle to make room for and benefit from new technology tools, just as we have for smart phones.
If kids get interested in it, then it will have a chance. If it's cool and fun, then it has a chance. If it actually makes things easier and better, then it could take off.
But if it has that cringe factor like google glass had, then it will never get anywhere.
The possibilities are awesome, but something like this requires a reinforcing feedback loop on top of a network effect to become successful.
On the one hand, they might be very specific, like "anything other than the Missionary Position between heterosexual couples of the same race and age are banned."
On the other hand, they might have a 100-page document filled with legalese that nobody understands, nor follows.
Perhaps we could look at this from another perspective: If we were in North Korea, how would they regulate the use of AI for the reproduction of the likeness of the Dear Leader?
Edit: To put it another way:
* They either define in clear terms what IS allowed.
* Or they define in clear terms what IS NOT allowed.
Unless they're somehow unaware that, in its current manifestation, technology is a tool that converts knowledge into power.
An improved and expanded strategy for -- with articulated tactics to achieve -- the decentralization of power and wealth, a dismantling of hierarchy, and increasing personal agency, privacy and freedom must not be sacrificed in favor of technology for technology's sake.
Can we even do this? I don't know.
The software just did whatever the ML model figured was the optimal response to the current situation, 10x per second. Often it got the wrong answer, and the NN would be focused on fixing those "wrong answer scenarios" next.
The cars can't drive anywhere the semantic map doesn't already cover.
Ridiculous, and so very disappointing.
We need better methods - maybe something that could generate metaphors like Lakoff suggests in "Metaphors We Live By" but the whole "drive robot cars around a city a million times and make a huge model of it" strikes me as very inefficient.
I remember there was that one guy who said something about repeating the same thing over and over until it became true.
Thanks for sharing!
Any ideas on that?
Nationalize all online selling, and have a central pricing authority?
Where does one draw the line, with an interest in not taking it to the extreme?
AMAZING.
Hackable games are such a great in-road for new developers, and for anyone who takes an interest in software because of gaming.
I don't know if it ever does.
"Reality TV" shows like "Ridiculousness" (hour upon hour of groin-shots) resemble what the movie "Idiocracy" portrayed in 2006 ("Ow! My Balls!").
When "hits" like "Jackass" are given platform and marketed toward youth who partially identify with Steve-O and his band of drop-outs, even though they aren't shown as heroes the emphasis is on the humor of their hijinks not the disastrous consequences of having given themselves wholly to wanton self-destruction.
"The Bachelor/Bachelorette", "Married at First Sight", "Real Housewives of [place]", etc - play on the commoditization of intimate relationships, reducing life partners down to nothing except the degree to which they approximate the standard as presented within the media - a status symbol: as either a Sex Object or a Success Object, and only to the degree that it fits with one's need for narcissistic validation.
I didn't see "Cocaine Bear" but I have heard of "Straw Man" - maybe it's the same thing.
From the Guardian.
Use the right tool for the job.
You've captured the essence -- although we have solutions for when the impulse to rewrite an application occurs, we don't have solutions that don't bring their own problems.
Further, the natural human expectation for the software engineer to be like Chuck Norris, who can Fix Everything Without Changing Anything, needs to be considered and managed.
The opposite - where, as someone else termed it - the new version is based on a grab-bag/wishlist of everyone's hopes and dreams, generally doesn't work out either.
The true path does seem to be:
* setup integration tests that validate WHAT the system does (blackbox), rather than HOW the system works (vs whitebox).
* build the new system modularly, offloading one part of the old system's work onto the new system, one part at a time.
* keep the new and old system synchronized, using eventing/message-queues/etc (this is going to be difficult)
* continue replacing the old parts of the system with their new replacements until the old system no longer exists
* Now you've created the old system again, but the code and architecture are clean and capable of the changes that were not possible before
* Move forward confidently adding new features and capabilities to your new system which does not suffer from the problems of the old system.
If the code has aged and is suffering from many code smells and anti-patterns, a rewrite becomes even more attractive.
"Why should I spend all this time adding a simple feature to this crappy code??"
But writing code is the easy part.
Architecting a correct solution that meets today's business needs and can be built upon, as well as walking the data, users, and business workflows over to the new system, are the hard part.
I've never seen it go smoothly. I want to see it happen, because I'm an optimist, but so far it's not gone well.
No...the organization is behaving exactly as intended.
But I understand how it could look like the undecoded bytefall in the Matrix for those outside the know.
Working in the realm of the abstract, writing software, is a kind of playground that allows for this kind of experimentation.
Paradigm shifts in system architecture and in how we conceive of daily life are in many ways alike.
Recognizing that we have (even if limited) some capacity to adjust to our liking how we think, so we can think what we want (and feel how we want to feel, do as we want to do, etc) is magical and rewarding. To understand that it is only nihilistic fatalism and helplessness of blaming circumstance or others for what - in many cases - is our own shortcoming (with regard the above notes) is actually empowering and inspiring on so many levels.
Anything is possible, if we put our mind to it.
Not everything we experience has a material basis (eg: emotions, inner dialogue, expectations, etc) but can be "anchored" in our minds through symbols. Those symbols can become a kind of vocabulary with which we can communicate with the subconscious (dreams, intuitions, what we notice/don't notice, ritual, etc) to change what and how we perceive.
Crowley's and Israel Regardie's approach to this field is worth looking into, even though there may be less esoteric ways to acquire the knowledge they shared.
Here is a link[0] to Crowley's definitions of Magick, in his view: