1,791 karma · joined October 27, 2012
Sure, you're right in that humans don't understand enough about our own brains to perform such modifications, but that may simply be down to a lack of knowledge, rather than not having sufficient cognitive ability to comprehend the brain.
Additionally the hardware which an AI can run on is generally assumed to be significantly more malleable than our limited gray matter confined within our cranium
[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/MutationObserv...
1. Juice produced at industrial scale are loaded with sugar and are less nutritious than actual fruits (true, but also true of any juice, industrial or otherwise)
2. Juice produced at industrial scale is "unnatural" (also true, depending on your definition of "natural", but merely asserting that they are unnatural doesn't mean they're good or bad for you - naturalistic fallacy)
He can't assert that the chemicals are in fact bad for you because there's no proof of it, as mentioned elsewhere in this comment thread, and by his own admission these are the exact same chemicals you'd find in oranges anyway
[1]: https://joyable.com/
If you want to expand further, all you're doing is making exact, self-contained replicas of the same town in other places on the map. There's not much variety because each town needs the same resources, and each map has those same resources.
Like many games of this genre, the game has a reverse difficulty curve. This is especially true here because of the focus on survival. That means that the first few winters will be spent micromanaging every single resource to ensure everyone has sufficient materials, but after that initial period is over, it's impossible to fail because the town basically runs itself.
A newsletter will multiple items will need headings (for people to scan through if they're short on time), a paragraph for people who need more details. Images, if the articles require them, also help.
Corporate email - not just advertisements, but also invoices, notifications, as such, almost always require some sort of branding. Customers expect them - a plain text email might be regarded as phishing or fake. And why force people to open up an attachment when HTML exists and can mark up those elements perfectly well?
Email also need to carry information of less importance - unsubscribe links, confidentiality notices, signatures, most of which are required by law or lawyers, but which can be made smaller or greyed out so they can be ignored when reading.
You can't do any of the above with plain text. What you need is markup, which guess what, HTML is.
Granted, it wasn't until several hundred years ago that Earthlings began to circumnavigate the globe, but the technology to travel long (cross-continental) distances have existed since ancient times.
Steam itself, by dint of being another layer between gamers and their games, have to justify its existence and value to them, and generally does through a variety of features as well as its legendary sales. But being a marketplace and distribution network alone does not get you anywhere, not when the cost of setting up shop on the Internet is so low these days.
Steam API, which gives you
- Achievements
- Leaderboards
- Cloud save
- Steam Workshop - user generated mods and content
- Multiplayer infrastructure
Steam community, which gives you
- Forum
- Social network - user generated content such as screenshots, game guides and fanart
- Reviews - endorsements from several thousand actual players sells games far better than a flashy trailer
Whether these features are worth the 30% cut is arguable, but these services are far more valuable to independent developers, who don't have the time or ability to implement these, than to developers under large publishers, who may share these infrastructure within the games they publish.
> “I don’t know with 100% certainty, ma’am, but I would guess that [Urbanovsky and the single seller] probably are [the same person],” her lawyer Steven Lefler told BuzzFeed News.
He just admitted on record that his client cost the payments company they used several million dollars.
> “This is a case that I didn’t charge enough money for,” Lefler told BuzzFeed News.
> “But of course, I’m her lawyer. So who gives a shit what I think.”
This is quite possibly the single least professional lawyer I've ever seen.
- The source indicates the site is generated using CKAN (http://ckan.org/). Never heard of it myself, but it is F/OSS, and widely used in other countries. Great to see the government adopt open source software
- The homepage loads 2MB+ without a primed cache, and 600KB+ with, which is really high. The site pulls down a lot of JS - jQuery with a gazillion plugins, Bootstrap, DataTables, Select2, d3.js, and Moment.js.
- The icons are in SVG, which is good, but some of them are really badly optimized - this icon (http://beta.data.gov.sg/uploads/group/2015-06-12-061106.9773...) for the environment category is 128KB (!) which is an absolutely monster for a SVG. The equivalent PNG file will be much smaller.
- The site is not accessible at all over HTTPS - it doesn't even redirect, but just keeps the client waiting until the client times out. It's 2015 - I'd expect government sites to be accessible over HTTPS.
- The favicon is not the icon, for some reason. I really like the design of the icon, although I'm not entirely sure if it is the best fit for the data site. I can see it being used for as a single brand for all government websites though
- Fonts on almost everything need to be made bigger. The graph labels are so small I need to squint.
- The new API looks very very neat. Much more usable than the old one. The documentation can be better, and perhaps should be more front and center, but I guess they need to balance the needs of developers with casual visitors and non-developers. Love the graphs automatically drawn by d3.js for appropriate datasets
- Data is licensed under CC-by, which is quite nice.
A few interesting data sets:
- Amount of mobile data used quarterly: http://beta.data.gov.sg/dataset/mobile-data-usage - Singapore has one of the highest mobile device ownership rates in the world - on average, each resident own more than one mobile phone
- Singapore's total land area since independence: http://beta.data.gov.sg/dataset/total-land-area-of-singapore - Singapore has been constantly reclaiming land since independence
- Number of licensed supermarkets: http://beta.data.gov.sg/dataset/licensed-food-establishments...
- Daily public transport ridership: http://beta.data.gov.sg/dataset/public-transport-utilisation...
Barring any agreement otherwise, the code's copyright belongs to the individual developer who wrote it, though in the case of software projects this may get a little weird when multiple developers write and overwrite each other's code.
The following is speculation, because I've read up on the finer points of copyright laws as applied to purely digital property, but by sharing the code the developer has obviously gave the person he's sharing the code with implicit permission to work and use that copy of that code, although, again barring any prior agreement otherwise, he should also be able to rescind that permission as he chooses.
"The Economist Explains" is a regular column where the newspaper (not magazine, mind you, the Economist is very particular about that) explains a wide variety of issue, mostly current but not always, as in this case, and makes them accessible concisely to those not in the field.
That Bloomberg published an in-depth report on the same issue a few months ago, and this short column appearing now is merely a coincidence, and suggesting otherwise is completely ridiculous.
For a list that want to make the browser more secure, why do they want to remove the only line of defense against sites using fullscreen mode for phishing?
> Disable PDF reader
PDF.js has fewer security vulnerabilities than desktop PDF readers.
> Disable 'safe browsing' aka. Google tracking/logging
This seems like a really bad idea for most users
If they believe that something is lost from the use of CGI in the film, that's their prerogative. As with any works of performance art, shouldn't television and cinema come under the same level of critique?
Sure, we all live a lot better lived with access to medicine, but the larger part of the improvement comes from improved access to nutrition and sanitation.
Besides, even if you disagree with the methodology (which they already admit is a back of the envelope calculation that is likely to be only accurate to an order of magnitude, I don't think the idea in itself, to identify the best way an individual can contribute to humanity as a whole is a bad idea.
I've never seen a charity run an ad that literally gives you money to give back to them. It's such an interesting strategy that I'm curious if it'll work.