This. She is used to working in a none (to a first approximation) resource constrained environment, in terms of time, money and probably most importantly domain experts that she can draw on to create from scratch the bits that she can't. That is not the case outside of planet faang.
I don't claim an existential risk to humanity, I claim there's an existential risk to our current global civilization which manages to feed, cloth and shelter almost 8 billion people in largely tolerable conditions and which will need to find room for another 1.5 billion before global population peaks. If parts of the world where large numbers of people live become heat stressed to the extent that living in them is impossible without air conditioning and agriculture starts to become a lot less productive in currently fertile areas then the secondary effects of billions of people trying to find somewhere else to live in a short space of time are likely to be not good. I don't think we face extinction. I do think we face having to transition to a low carbon lifestyle. We can either do that in a peaceful way and maintain and even increase the standard of living for the majority of the human race or we can do nothing and face decades of major disruption that kills huge numbers of people.
The problem with this argument is that climate change presents an existential risk for our current global civilisation and ability to support the numbers of people currently living on earth. If climate change (along with the other types of environmental destruction we are currently reaping) is as bad as predicted (and scientists are actually fairly certain of the likely impacts. Read the IPCC reports and then remember that these are the outcome of a process designed to produce the most conservative estimates) then we face an enormous die off of the world's population as large swathes of the planet become essentially uninhabitable at current densities. The costs of mitigating climate change are, in comparison, tiny. A few percent of GDP if we don't replace current polluting industries with cleaner ones. Given this it makes sense to mitigate against climate change, even if it turns out that the predictions are overly pessimistic, because the risks are so high. It's similar to taking out fire insurance. Sure the chances of your house or business burning down are pretty low, but the impact on you if they do is so high that it makes sense to pay the relatively low cost.
I'd actually say it's one of the primary motivations, but then I think that's the reason most people do most things. On the second point freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum and exercising ones freedoms almost always involves impinging on the freedoms of others. Therefore there is a constant negotiation going on that involves the balancing of freedoms of different individuals, not to mention the balancing of freedoms with other ethical goods that people value (like equality, happiness etc.) There is very little recognition in the fsf / open source world that adopting a maximalist approach to a specific set of freedoms - those that fit into the free software / open source ideology - necessarily impinges on other freedoms that many people also value - like the freedom to own and profit from one's labour without further enriching google et. al (Yes there are differences between the fsf and open source camps but they're largely of the peoples front of Judea / judean people's front variety.)
The problem with open source is not that the source is available, that you can modify it to your own needs, or that you can contribute back, it is that anyone can redistribute your software for free, and that you can't discriminate between e.g. small businesses or personal use and Google in your license terms. This cuts off the possibility of actually supporting yourself financially as an open source developer in many cases and is an ideological commitment that mostly benefits large corporations at the expense of individual developers.
Or more accurately - developers create software for free and license it as Open Source because of social pressure within the development community. Large corporations say thank you very much and use it to make vast quantities of money without contributing back financially to the people who actually do the work. Anyone who points out that this is grossly counter productive if you want to build a sustainable ecosystem that doesn't depend on the unpaid labour of volunteers gets shouted down by free software cheerleaders who condescendingly stress that they mean "free as in speech rather than free as in beer," despite all Open Source licenses literally demanding that Open Source software can be distributed for free (as in beer).
As other posters have pointed out this doesn't really hold up. I suspect it's more that since the Reagan era the USA has frequently had a self hating government, that is a government run by people that believe government itself is bad. This has led to a lot of intentional neglect and sabotage of infrastructure in the belief that "the market" will magically provide public goods. We have similar issies in the UK
I'm not going to trust memory, mine, yours or anyone's on this and don't have time to traipse back in time to fully research it, but that is besides the point. The point is that Google have form for engaging in privacy violations that extend to the scanning of personal communications for advertising purposes without gaining informed consent (no I don't think click through t&C's that can be changed by Google on a whim count). Worrying that they might do similar with verbal communications for advertising or other purposes is a legitimate concern that shouldn't be dismissed.
Their bathrooms should be accessible for their employees as well, even if they're not usable by customers, because disabled people should be able to work to.
Or you could see it as them using the Ada for it's exact intended purpose, to force businesses not to exclude disabled customers by imposing an actual cost on them that is potentially greater than the cost of complying with the act. Sounds good to me!
Excels usability isn't bad though. Which is why everyone uses it. It falls down in this (and lots of other cases) but if you want to see what good usability looks like, look at what people use.
Undo has certainly sped up in the latest version and the 2.9 build due for release at the end of this month but there's still a lot of room for improvement. I'm hopeful that the increasing number of large corporate backers are willing to pay for development and improvement of existing features (€30,000 gets you half a developer) which will focus the team on improving the quality of the basics rather just adding more shiny.
I think my issue is that a nobleish idea that supported the freedom of everyone to be a creator has morphed into something (an ideology, a secular religion) that demands that creators not be able to make a living off their creation even if (or especially if) they are providing tooling for corporations that give nothing, or at least very little proportionally, back.
That's not true though. Open source licenses (as defined by the OSI) impose specific obligations upon me as creator - to distribute the source code for "no more than a reasonable reproduction cost" to users, allow users to modify it, and to redistribute it for free if it is bundled with other software, and not to discriminate against persons, groups or fields of endeavour in who can use it.
Can I ask why it is that the "foss community" is so hell bent on restricting the freedom of creators to call their software open source if the source is open, or choose licenses that might help them actually support themselves financially? As far as I can tell the "freedom" pushed by Foss evangelists only goes one way - to benefit often corporate consumers. I genuinely don't think I've ever seen a "community" that is so intent on policing language and action than that which exists around Foss.
In my case (in the UK) my employer would have diagnoses of diseases from sick notes, occupational health assessments that include medical information, pension details, payslips and personal details of my next of kin. All this would fall under GDPR protection which a) doesn't just apply to websites and b) includes the "only ask for the minimum you need to do the job" proviso so I can see Facebook's point that it's problematic for them to hand over this information. But I'd be surprised if there wasn't a law enforcement carve out that this falls under.
So change the economic system? The balls to the wall neoliberal, winner takes all, no safety net model that the Anglo American world has been moving towards for the past thirty years is not the only one. The Anglo American post war consensus model which was more redistributory correlated with higher growth rates (not saying it caused them, kinda hard to tell) while the Northern European corporatist, Scandinavian mixed model and Japanese corporatist models have all been successful in both creating economic growth and distributing that wealth more evenly amongst the population. It has always entertained me that the one thing that the average Marxist and neo liberal share is a belief that there is only one type of capitalism.
It's not actually that unusual for a country to have a shrinking population. Italy, Croatia, Lithuania, and a few other central and Eastern European countries currently have declining populations, as does Japan, some due to ageing and a drop in fertility and some due to that plus emigration. Economically and socially they've not entered into the death spiral some people seem to think will happen and are actually doing alright. Countries with declining populations due to war, economic collapse etc. are a different matter but in those cases the decline in population is a symptom not a cause. The transition to a shrinking world population will happen gradually over a period of decades and at different times in different areas of the works giving us plenty of time to for economic and social structures to adapt to deal with it. If it were to happen over night we would be in trouble but it won't.
Of you've modelled it so it has holes in it then yes... This is definitely one of those where it's on the artist to make sure the mesh is manifold, watertight and orientable because you want to turn it into a physical object. There is a nice voxelise feature and some 3d print tools that will make things easier and fix minor errors but they won't help you if you try to export something that is badly modelled.
The problem with the Giesecke approach is that it relies on 2 assumptions being true. 1) that infection brings long term immunity to the currently circulating strains. 2) that covid-19 will not mutate into a new strain with equivalent pathogenicity to which those with immunity to the current strain are no longer immune.
If either of these are false then you will not get a meaningful form of immunity in the population. Currently we don't have any evidence that either assumption is true so pursuing this approach carries an increased risk for very little benefit.
Yep. This should be step 1 to n of designing software for end users. Understand what the users problems and needs actually are by watching them do their actual job rather than working from a description of what a manager three levels up thinks their job is.
Yes because the luxury business customer's wants to have the UHD they paid a small sum for do not trump other people's needs to be able to work from home in order to eat and keep the real economy working because of a pandemic.
If there is total financial destruction at the level of people losing their homes, not being able to eat, having their utilities cut off etc. it will be entirely due to policy choices that prioritise maintaining the current economic system and protecting the interests of the wealthy for the duration of the crisis over ensuring that everyone can survive with a basic, indeed decent, standard of life. By this I mean having their basic needs of nutrition, shelter, heat etc. met. For many (and I'm writing from the UK) this would actually be an improvement over the current situation.
Globally we are the richest society in history by a profoundly long way, we have enough resources to get through this crisis. There is no reason that anyone should lose their home, or starve, or be left without power. But we have to acknowledge that, just as in situations such as WWII, normal economic life and the interests of capital / shareholders / the wealthy have to take a back seat to ensuring that, as far as possible, everyone can maintain a decent standard of life.
This strategy is not insane only if there is also a concerted effort to protect those who are vulnerable while the virus spreads. The problem is there isn't one. At all. None. Zip. Zero. Some care homes are, off their own back, banning visitors but apart from that the old and the vulnerable are not being asked to self isolate or engage in social distancing, only those who have symptoms themselves are being told to self isolate, and not members of their households. Social clubs, churches, pubs, cafes, day centres, restaurants etc. where a lot of older people congregate are all still open. None essential home visits have not been curtailed and people are not being advised to socially distance themselves from the vulnerable.
That's because UK isn't pronounced as a word, it's pronounced as an acronym - yoo kay, so both letters are capitalised. If it was pronounced as a word - yuck perhaps - only the first letter would be capitalises.
Because most start ups fail and when government's fail really really bad things happen? Because government's have an utterly different set of priorities than startups which are founded with the aim of making their founders as much money as possible? Because move fast and break things works of you're building Facebook but not if you're providing end of life care?
I think this is really interesting, because "the enemy landed several of our aircraft(s)" is the sort of sentence I'd have hauled a student up for using as a teacher, because 1) it's a none standard, arguably incorrect usage they've used either because they're a none native speaker or because they're trying to be clever and failing, and 2) because the plural of aircraft is aircraft. Nevertheless the author of this sentence almost certainly meant land to mean something different (shot down) than the author of the first, and we can infer the author's intended meaning despite the none standard usage.
This poorly written sentence is the sort of thing you see all the time in the real world, especially from none native speakers, children, and people writing about a topic outside their expertise. If a program can spot the difference in the usage of the word land between these two sentences and infer what the intended meaning in the second sentence is, then it's doing pretty well. Just inferring that land is used to mean something different in the two sentences is less impressive but still pretty cool and I'm not sure which claim is being made.