leafboi

Yeah but do you know the use case of such information? Nobody cares about what you tell alexa on a daily basis.

The NSA isn't interested in you period. They just want access to all data so they can hit a specific target.

There's technical capabilities and there's technical interest. Your and there analysis fails at the "interest" part.

No But recognition and analysis has...

I use it for ad hoc hands free navigation while driving. It works 60% of the time and I don't have to intervene with my hands.

60% is sort of like a gamble with no downside. Do I have to stop the car or can I just set the destination while driving? I would have to stop the car anyway were it not for voice activated commands.

I wonder how many people here have personally been wrongfully shot at by the police versus just watching it on the media? I for one have been shot at several times after being mistaken for carrying a gun when it was really just groceries.

Even I don't want the police defunded.

You need to live in California where these fires have been ravaging the state year after year for the past decade.

What you're saying is true, but this fire was not a good thing. Trees don't do well when you set forest fires year after year after year.

In all likelihood the answer is no. They won't survive.

You got a point. I think the controversy lies in situations where an AI has to differentiate between threats and innocent bystanders.

So really what the OP means is the ethics of what to kill and what to let live should not be left to an AI.

I'm just saying the ethics of deploying AIs to kill is logically equivalent to deploying mines.

>I’m telling you I don’t know. Are you 100% sure that all alternatives are best?

Don't know what? I made a bunch of guesses but you haven't specified what you don't know. What do you mean by alternatives that are best?

I am saying that apple should not impose monopolistic regulatory practices in the app store, what alternative are you talking about?

>What if this prompts governments to have app stores regulated as public utilities? To me that sounds like a nightmare.

Yeah like how the government regulates the stock market. Sounds like a nightmare, we should not regulate the stock market.

>If I were interested in reducing the ‘monopolistic foothold’ I can always get an android phone, can’t I?

The google play store does the same shit. It's essentially a dual-opoly.

But AI's can qualify as mines. Sending out AI drones is like deploying mines that kill anything within a certain radius.

Not true. If no one has capital to invest then less people will buy stocks even if expectations are high. The price of stocks also reflect the current spending power of actors in the economy.

You're telling me you're not interested in getting rid of apples' monopolistic policies?

You're telling me that you're not aware that if epic wins then it means apple has less of a monopolistic foothold over the app store?

Who cares. The whole point of free market capitalism is to have self interested actors competing to create change that benefits society as a whole. It may not work all the time but right now this is an example of the invisible hand at work.

If it were not for competing business interest what human is altruistic enough to throw this many resources at taking down apples monopolistic iron grip over the app market?

Support Epic not for their moral reasoning, support them because their interests align with yours.

Why do you assume it's me who doesn't understand. It's you who doesn't get it.

There is no difference between losing information during lossy compression and deleting information during lossy compression. Lossy compression means that data is literally lost aka deleted.

You can compress an entire memory into a single bit or into nothing. Lossy compression is a gradient where maximum space saving involves total deletion. Medium space spacing involves partial deletion and no space saving aka lossless compression involves no deletion.

Let me put it this way. A JPEG is lossy compression, there is literally deleted information when you compress a picture into a JPEG that cannot be retrieved. Do you understand this concept about the pictures you see on the internet? If you decrease the size when saving a jpeg in photoshop you actually lower the image quality to the point where you can lose a ton of information (aka deletion).

A png is an example of compression without loss. Same with zip, tar or rar file. The original file can completely be rebuilt from a a non lossy compressed file BUT NOT a JPG because a jpeg is a lossy compression. Get it?

Please thank me for teaching you. Or don't reply because you're too mad at being wrong and not appreciative of the fact that I didn't "give up" on a you.

Make fake facebook account. All problems solved.

Except we have a mathematical theory of information, and memory being information we know that it must exists within the bounds of that theory. Hence, memory is compression.

CMake is a meta programming language designed to compile into Makefiles.

It can compile into visual studio projects or xcode projects. That's how it achieves multiplatform support.

Basically by writing it in CMake rather then make you've automatically written your make file as well as many other platform configurations. Of course the caveat like the OP is that CMake syntax and design decisions are just plain bad.

In all cases memory exists as compression. If the memory is completely absent then we're talking about something that doesn't exist, there's no point.

>increases suicidal ideation.

Like suicide prevention ideation does not mean all people in solitary confinement want to commit suicide. I venture to argue that most people won't.

That notion goes both ways. How do you know we'll be so bored that we'd give up immortality? Extrapolating from information we already have I'd say we get plenty bored with about 80 years of life... I think we'd do well with another million.

We have examples of this in modern society. Actual prisons where people can spend an entire lifetime.

Most people don't commit suicide.

Stakes are lower. More time to achieve a certain net worth. Once I reach that threshold compounding growth takes over. Two centuries is more than enough to achieve this.

Compression is the correct term.

Using symbols to represent bigger concepts is a form of compression. The representation/memory of an animal in your mind is done using symbols rather than an actual animal.

This isn't speculation. A animal exists in reality as construction of millions of biological cells each in turn made up of billions of atoms. Depending on how big the animal is it could be more atoms that make up your brain. Therefore, for the animal to exist in your mind as a memory there Must be a form of information compression. You cannot fully hold an actualization of an animal in your mind because it is too big to exist in your mind. Your brain holds symbols of the animal.

What happens with a jpeg is the exact same concept as what happens in your memory. A jpeg is a symbolic representation of the actual picture. It is a form of lossy compression because details from the original picture are lost.

There's no need to be skeptical. We live in a physical world where all information must be represented by a physical entity.

By induction there will be limits no matter what. You cannot have an infinite amount of memory in your head. You cannot have an infinite amount of anything anywhere.

However abstract something is, the symbolic nature of an abstraction must utilize at least one atom. For example, let's say we have a big number... <the number nine> that we want to abstract. We can choose to have that number be represented by a single symbol "9" rather than nine actual things. This is the true nature of what abstraction is, using smaller symbols to represent bigger things aka compression. But for that symbol to even exist it must be written down or memorized somewhere. This takes up physical space. Even your computer hard drive must use physical magnets flipped to different polarities to represent memory.

The biggest possible abstraction of a real world phenomena in terms of magnitude is to represent the entire universe with a single atom. In the end atoms take up space and even the biggest possible abstraction of the entire universe must take up the space of at least one atom. Your memories are no different... they are just symbols representing aspects of your life experience. Likely your memories take up much more space than a single atom and if your memories take up space and you have a finite amount of space in your skull, then by logic your memory is finite... this categorically true by logic.

Whether the finite memory problem is solved by garbage collection or whether it's not solved at all and people simply go insane is undetermined.

What is known for sure is that your memory is finite.

Memory is seemingly virtual but in reality all memory takes up physical space, so eventually you'll hit limitations.

I don't know about the whole "damage" part but from a logical perspective you have a limited amount of space in your head and therefore limited memory.

If a thing thinks, by induction it will be finite. I don't know if it will "want" to be.

Just quit. Who cares. You're stuck in this mindset of eternity under management. You're immortal. Do the vanlife for a month, Live on an island, start a business. Chill.

>until boredom overtakes them.

What's wrong with being bored? I only live 100 years and I spend the majority of my life being bored. I want to be immortal so I can spend eternity being bored.

The people who claim they don't want to be immortal because they don't want to be bored don't get human psychology... Humans generally prefer being bored over being dead, period.

I have devops engineers who need something to do otherwise they'll quit and move on to other companies that are working with kubernetes.

I think ^^^ the above is the main thing driving adoption. It's a real social engineering problem. Many engineers like to work with the latest and greatest.

>The benchmark used different number of processes for sync and async workloads.

Wrong. Workers amounts are the same. See the chart with benchmark results. http://calpaterson.com/async-python-is-not-faster.html

>The benchmark was run on the same machine where Postgres was operating.

This wouldn't affect the variance between sync and async results very much because both frameworks were run on the same machine.

>the connection pool was not setup to prevent blocking when a coroutine tries to acquire a connection from the pool when the pool is exhausted.

Real world connection pools have an upper bound limit. I don't see why setting an upper bound limit to be closer to reality is not a good test.

Also you're completely wrong about the connection pool blocking when it is exhausted. See source code:

https://github.com/calpaterson/python-web-perf/blob/master/a...

If all connections are exhausted then the system still yields to compute and incoming requests.

>(for benchmark purposes it should not have upper bound limit and to be pre-populated with already established connections).

Disagree. The real world sets an upper bound. There's nothing wrong with simulating this in a test.