ptr_void

I meant to say paid-walled-garden, maybe that was the confusion.

I didn't mean to offend you if you are a content creator or want some content creator to be funded. I just don't think it's much of a technology issue. It's a signal that the content isn't worth the money where walled garden doesn't work.

Also, I think you've misread my comment - I can't see any association between your reply and my comment.

What if we don't pay them at all? I don't think we'd miss out on too much. It might even make things better, getting rid of professons like 'youtuber' and article writers who'se main goal is to distribute ads with poor quality content and clickbaits. People interested in sharing what they know will still do it. Wikipedia exists without writers getting paid.

Walled garden can still exists, if people value them, they will buy to get content, nothing wrong with this. If people aren't willing to buy to get content, it will then be a hint that the content isn't worth the money.

Software is easy to copy and replace. There's little, if any, monopolization of software technology resources. Software doesn't require huge investment/over-head like oil industry. I don't think FB/Google/etc. provide much of anything (or of high value like oil) that is not already replaceable by million other alternatives. One of their key business model is selling ads spaces, but adblocks are also on the rise.

I wouldn't bet too highly on those services.

That sound fine if you don't see any problems with showing a blank page for no-js which was supposed to displays only some texts/images/links.

Google at it again to kill the web, now making commodization of web contents mainstream.

You WON'T BELIEVE YOUR EYE what GOOGLE will do NEXT! - $0.5

Specifying: What are you selling / who are your clients would be helpful. For a list and generic use of different languages, you can just do a search, there's way too many online articles on this.

Example (not super accurate but can give you general ideas): http://carlcheo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/which-program...

'need' : no

'preference' : yes

The whole entertainment industry can go away over the next month, it wouldn't matter much. But most would prefer it didn't. There's also more than enough movies/tv shows/sports recordings/music etc for anyone's lifetime, but most would prefer to see newer ones. Enough people can afford their preference to have new ones produced every day.

I'm a student trying to learn server side programming, I've started with node js. There seems to be a whole lot of modules to help with anything and with ES6 js doesn't seem so bad, and very fast (to write) as well compared to C++ that I've attempted. What are these better languages, what should one learn now for server-side when starting out?

I think, people doesn't necessarily hate the product, they hate the business model.

However, I don't have any realistic replacement business model to offer.

That is probably right for the people who chooses to play video game all day and withdraw in general, but for working people, the risk/required-investment maybe too high. I've also heard that employers do not like self-taught developers as much. There might also be a need for a check to see if development job is actually in high demand.

I'm a complete layman, but I've heard an economist say something different about real wage rising. Doing some searches, I think making that conclusion might also be misleading. Here's some of the stuff I found out:

- There was a recession in 1980s , so it's shouldn't be used as comparison point

- If you look at inflation adjusted historic data: http://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median... - in 2000 adjusted, there hasn't been any increase since 1970s. Since 1970s it's been ~40k in 2000's dollar. Using this: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ shows - ~40k in 2000 is 56.8k in today's money. Looking at real wages for in recent times https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N - the last (2015) data shows: 56.5k So, it looks like real wages hasn't grown at all in recent history.

Note that I went looking for info to match what I've heard an economist say on youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-uRhZ_p-BM4Pei6Xlr_A... (episode 4 is most relevant to current topic)

I think jazzyk was hinting that - with enough pay, people will do what they can to make themselves qualified. There's also the option of choosing the best people they get and start training them internally to make them qualified.

If you are going back, just buying stocks and sitting back would be easier than building a business. Almost guaranteed to be the richest person by 2017.

I don't entirely like this picture of self-taught developer. A self-taught developer should teach themselves necessary theory as well, not just build things. Otherwise one will be biased towards learning only the things that are fun or easy (theory is seldom fun) - and there will be gaps.

That's amazing, thanks for the link.

I don't understand. What exactly do the live map points represents and where does the data come from?

I've heard, it's usually not in the interest of companies like Google and Facebook to sell raw data. It's much better for them to keep control of the data and sell it's use as a service.

Is this supposed to be some sort of academic joke? Reminds me of http://tylervigen.com/old-version.html Maybe this isn't, sometimes science do work in strange ways.

Read bunch of chapters from here and there but didn't complete it. Learned some interesting concepts that I wasn't familiar with, didn't seem like it had any central focus, went on to various tangents. I was recommended to read this to learn about AI, on that, I didn't find it very interesting.

Thank you for making this awesome tool, it has been quite useful to me.

"everyone is right, and everyone is wrong" -- I know you didn't mean it literally as contradiction but probably expressing moral relativism - which could be a very difficult claim to support.

There certainly are objective 'right way' and grand plans of actions. As for the plans of action, they are almost never economical thus ignored.

A guess, but I think it's due to full confrontation of the realization that: What's meaningful is almost never economical.

Yet most employers would prefer to see the college degree

> Where do you think our memories are stored?

You are applying computer metaphor and then asking where the 'memory' is 'stored' or 'encoded'. Metaphors/abstractions are useful tool, but when talking about differences, we should be more careful.

I should have said, A simulated heart in computer does not pump real blood.

The thinking involved for a person in issuing shipment is not same as what computer does. These are not simulations. Just similar looking interface. Like a animated cartoon human, compared to a human.

I've also heard: there shouldn't be any grantee for market as a whole to go up.

Whether it would be faster seems unwarranted to me. But that's beyond the point. Why does faster mean more intelligent?

Bubble sort in a fast computer vs quick sort ? Moving bath water with tea spoon very very fast vs using water buckets ?

A simulated heart does not pump real blood. Also in the process, why should one start or stop at cell level, seems arbitrary, go further down to atoms and electrons etc. or go higher level to mental state or what not.

There are completed projects of smaller organism whose all neurons have been simulated, there hasn't been any revelations.

Our brain doesn't contain any 'data', so whoever decides to extract data from it will have to decide what the data will be or why it would be of any use. There has also been many objections made on why brain correlates are more or less useless on question of mind/intelligence.

More processing, more intelligence doesn't sound right.

If I put a bunch of random reactive chemicals in a large beaker - I don't know what your "information" or "processing" would be there, but there should be a lot of that happening - I still wouldn't call it intelligent.