la_barba

The foundation issues grants, and all of this is public information. Can you point to which grants you have a problem with and why?

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/how-we-work/quick-links/gran...

Some of my friends working in the drug discovery domain are on that list and so I know for a fact that the money, or atleast some of it, is going towards a noble cause.

That's a bit like not writing any new code unless you fix every single bug in the existing code. The counter-argument being that newer code will improve the design or fix some architectural issues, or handle upcoming feature requests better, etc and indirectly improve upon the flaws in the existing code. Its not always zero-sum.

So, why not do both, and prioritize the money accordingly?

Well, there are many topics that we do science with, and which have multiple variables that we can't always control for, especially if you're doing survey studies for health, or disease or other macro-level stuff. It seems like the extremes of micro and macro of most systems of knowledge are always subject to a large amount of variance. That said a lot of macro-economics is very hard to replicate, making it of dubious value.

I think the point is that Google wants fuzzy boundaries between things that were never fuzzy to begin with, until they started confusing people - whether they intended to or not.

If you asked any person- How do go to your favorite website before the omnibox, they had a clear set of steps that worked. If you asked them, how do you search for recipes they had a clear set of steps for that too.

Google's omnibox/(aka keyword logger) made that boundary fuzzy and made it confusing for people. Earlier, people very quickly learned to recognize what is and isn't a valid url, because an invalid URL simply didn't work - this was a very very useful skill/knowledge to have. And every-time you had a typo you noticed it immediately. But then Google insisted on merging the URL and search bar and started correcting their typos and mistakes and people started losing this knowledge/skill. So now.. a lot of non technical folks I know type the url in google's search box in weird ways .. like "wwwfacebook" or "facebook .com" or other typos. So now, nobody actually knows what a valid URL is. That makes them easy targets for phishing and scamming. I'm not blaming this entirely on Google, but they did play a part. Google doesn't seem to realize how they're fucking up things even if that is not their intent.

That's the nerd pacifier. They will remove those flags eventually as they have always done.

I disagree. Given their history and given their capability, I give them an excellent chance to hang on to their current dominant position. They're still producing drool worthy glass.. the RF 28-70 F/2.. the RF 50mm 1.2 is the tits. The new 600 F/4 III is sublime.

Well,.. the government is taking drug addiction seriously, so on principle I don't see why tech addiction should be a-priori excluded from discussion. I'm sure good people on both sides can disagree as to the measures that need to be taken..

Looks like you have a good plan there :)

Yeah, I think you are forced to re-train how you pickup and use the phone. An older non-smartphone could be easily picked up by grabbing the entire girth of the phone. With smartphones, people learned to pick it up using the side edges without triggering any touch interactions. Old-folks found this confusing as they constantly kept inadvertently dialing someone or launching random apps. At-least with the change from non-smartphones you got a bump in functionality, the face-id change seems to be entirely superficial to me. I'm still rocking my 6s, but will have to eventually upgrade when Apple slows down my phone with their updates. I held on to my 4s too till it became unbearably slow..

One feature I'd upgrade for is if Apple completely sealed off their phone and made it waterproof.

How are they put to shame by everyone else on AF? Could you be more specific?

Because they want you to buy their expensive, professional EOS Cinema products for video use which have all the features you need.

What is your budget?

Well, the EOS R and RP are entry level cameras. They have yet to release a professional series mirrorless camera. Comparatively, the 1st gen Sony mirrorless systems were pretty bad. They had tiny bodies that overheated, had poor battery life, and had slow unreliable AF. Ofcource, The EOS R and RP won't be compared to Sony's 1st gen, which is very fair, but I don't think canon has failed in this market.

Financial reports don't demonstrate anything. You're providing an explanation without actually demonstrating that the provided explanation is the real reason. A shrinking DSLR market has been predicted by analysts (and manufacturers too) for ages now. The primary reason that keeps coming up is that people simply don't want to carry yet another device when their smartphone does more than an adequate job for general purpose photography. More and more the advantage of a larger sensor and better optics is only realized in a small range of professional usecases - Sports/action/wildlife photography, low-light events/astro photography, printing massive billboards, etc, etc.

>I think there is a untapped market for some higher end camera with interchangeable lenses that can seamlessly integrate with a modern workflow.

Sure, maybe there is. The real question is.. is it a tiny $1-2 million market or a larger 100+ million dollar market.

You forgot one qualifier, the most expensive -professional- cameras. Different professionals have different needs. Every camera is designed with a usecase in mind. Off the top of my head professionals photographers need:

* rugged tank-like construction - 1D, 5D series mag-alloy bodies check, weather sealing - check

* reliable AF - check

* awesome battery life - check

* professional support services that can service/repair/loan products with a super-fast turnaround time for when you have a gig.. - check

* high quality optics - Canon L glass, check

* high res sensor for billboards - 5DSR check

* huge library of lenses - check, check and check

In all of those things Canon and Nikon (and even Sony to some extent) excel. I don't think the features you want are useless or provide no value, but you have to look at the bigger picture and take the entire market into consideration. People are using smartphones not just because DSLRs don't have certain features, its that they don't want to carry yet another device when their smartphone does an adequate job.

Can you specify what you mean by high ISO performance? Do you mean read-noise or do you mean DR or something else? Canon is very competitive in read-noise and DR. Yes AFAIK they don't have dual-gain in their professional series, but the difference is not "magnitudes better" FWICT.

Read Noise:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS...

DR:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20...

While it may appear so from a retail consumer standpoint, I don't think Canon is lagging behind in tech from an IP and R&D standpoint. The thing is they make the sensor themselves, and the fabs and tooling is super super expensive. Canons MO is to extract as much profit as possible from a pre-existing process before moving over to something new. They already have BSI tech.. they already have the means to create a 100MP sensor as well as compete on AF (for video I think dualpixel AF is already ahead of the competition). Canon has diversified product lines and doesn't want to upset its Cinema EOS lineup too much by offering "too many" features. Sony, being the newcomer has sunk a ginormous amount of capital into fabs and tooling to differentiate itself in a saturated market and it has worked for the amateur and enthusiast crowd. They have a few weaknesses, specifically ergonomics, color science, the smaller E mount diameter, and a less rugged body for professional use (compared to 1DX or D5). It will be interesting to see how they tackle the new challenger..

>but they've made huge leaps in R&D for large telephotos with usable fresnel lenses at 300mm and 500mm focal length.

Canon already has this tech, as they showed in their 400 DO II, which is a freakishly awesome lens.

>his too has been challenged lately by Sony and their partnership with Zeiss

Hmm, have there been any sony-zeiss lenses since Sony started their GM lineup?

Sure, but there are several arguments for doing code reviews/QA/etc that are already convincing. Its interesting.. but I guess I don't see how we can use this new way of looking at code transformations to our benefit.

You can avoid this by not recommending products that are fulfilled by amazon.

You don't seem to be familiar with this. They had a hearing in the Senate, which featured testimony of experts in this field.

https://gizmodo.com/this-is-how-youre-being-manipulated-1835...

Its coming out of a social initiative that deals with the inability of parents to keep social media (and tech in general) addiction of their kids under control. Human beings have a lot of psychological vulnerabilities and, if you watched the senate hearing, you'd know how tech companies exploit some of our innate addictive personality traits to get people hooked on their product. Pick-up "artists" use this to get laid. Advertisers use it to sell their junk products, etc.

Its easy to point out whats wrong, but nobody sticks their neck out and tells people how to fix the situation. Here, someone seems to be trying, and for that I give them some props..

Its possible to me the auto-play setting something that is enabled voluntarily by the user. This would solve your problem.

Okay fair enough.. :)

Google could have designed the system where each claim must be specific to a video url, time, and duration. (I think they have made changes recently to do that, but I'm not sure if they're active) That way the copyright owners are left having to review this giant database of video content. Google helpfully runs audio finger-printing on every video and then lets copyright holders issue bulk claims.

>And if there is no negative consequence for making a false claim, then yes, that's exactly what would happen

Google can protect their creators and counter-sue on their behalf or set aside monies for legal defense funds.

>human reviewers looking at a huge amount of content.

More importantly, humans can be part of the appeals process and will be able to determine if someone was illegitimately targeted. As you can imagine its possible to design various review workflows where humans get involved after a certain level of escalation, or after other automated means have been exhausted etc. Also whats your definition of huge? You seem to now agree with me that this is not every single minute of YouTube content as you originally indicated.

Hmm, but how do you establish whether a piece of code is a liability? Do you account for QA finding no issues, or do you weigh it against the number of years its been used in production, or do you consider that it was written by expert rather than a novice, do you take into account the fact that it was purposefully designed, as opposed to organically etc. I think your theory is nice, but a bit too reductionist to be applicable in the real world..

I fully agree. I'm just pushing back against the sentiment of shitting on the little guy, because of a personal opinion that what this person is doing is vapid or devoid of value to me.

Google has designed a system where a power dynamic where the copyright owner largely gets the ultimate say because of a combination of artificial "intelligence" algorithms, the ability to perform bulk claims, and googles indifference. To insert a human element in terms of an appeals process or deciding which claims have merit, etc, has nothing to do with reviewing every single minute of content that is uploaded on YouTube.

Which version of the C++ standard is this book targeting? Also, any links to reviews?

I suppose you could do the same with Amazon referral links to products that your team has personally reviewed?

I don't want to do math with flawed data. Every minute of uploaded content is not going to face copyright strikes, and does not need to be reviewed.