This has been a huge frustration with AI investments as I’m invest in industry and “AI ETFs” just invest in anything with AI on the website. Investors have absolutely no idea how AI works or what it will disrupt, and I genuinely think 99% of all investor sentiment towards AI is non-sense
The company I work for try to add AI/LLM on everything, instead of trying to improve/fix the underlying problem, they now just add the magic AI and everything is “perfect” now.
As an ML engineer and AI developer, I don’t see the real value at all, not to mention the added cost of using LLM
Going down the tangent of people working in the industry...
I unwittingly fell into low-level coding for DL software stacks about 7 years ago.
At first I was merely uninterested in the topic, compared to my teammates.
Now I think there's a serious possibility that LLMs and other new DL capabilities will be a net negative for society. I'm actively trying to get other work.
I know that if I don't do the work others gladly will, but the status quo seers my conscience.
Already confirmed as there is one 8 year old girl reportedly in the fatalities. This attack will add to the stereotype that Israel attacks indiscriminately.
Is "stereotype" the right word when it accurately describes what's been happening? Amnesty International, the UN, and even the president of the United States have described their attacks as "indiscriminate".
Tbh I only use the word stereotypes because speaking in absolutes here leads to really grimy political discussions with under the guise of semantic or technical discussions. Anyone with eyes can see that Israel acts with protection of the US military and has no reason to be specific with their targets, even while being scolded by that military
Delayed update rollout is an enterprise level windows setting that’s used by my company (as well as on my personal windows machine through regex edits) specifically to protect business critical systems from this scenario. While Microsoft and cloudstrike should not have pushed this broken update, are they actually responsible for Delta or anyone else’s losses? My opinion is no, but we’ll see how a lawsuit shakes out.
I wish they would stick to one version and just stack up additional features and fix existing UI crap. It feels like the only reason to keep adding major versions is to half-ass some major UI rework before giving up because their new UI doesn’t have feature parity with the old one. Feels like we’ll have three control panels soon enough at this rate.
It’s clear that Microsoft’s iterations on Windows aren’t working, and their management of windows needs to be reworked. At a certain point the constant “stop improving existing version and start the next one” has to be seen as silly by upper management, right? Is there any business benefit to constantly updating major Windows versions that I’m not seeing?
Actually the source I linked lays it out pretty clearly:
> That (in)famous statement was actually spoken by Jerry Nixon, a developer evangelist at Microsoft, whose job is to get developers excited about developing for Microsoft Store, at the 2015 Microsoft Ignite. Nevertheless, the technology media blew it up, and soon everyone was accepting it as gospel. But it never was.
But still, I just want stability. Also the lack of support for older hardware - I just built a PC four years ago and am being told its not good enough for 11? No thanks.
They're stuck trying to figure out how to monetize a product that people don't want a subscription for. Their only choice is to keep releasing new versions with different features (or sneak in advertising) and hope people keep buying in. Unfortunately, people haven't really wanted a new version of Windows since it switched to the NT kernel. So it seems like every new version is a lose lose scenario.
> Is there any business benefit to constantly updating major Windows versions that I’m not seeing?
Well sure! Remember that whole kerfuffle over Windows 11 requiring TPM? A new major version means new hardware requirements and new hardware requirements mean new vendor obligations. It's their silver-bullet solution for whenever hardware vendors get uppity.
Not too many people "buy" a retail copy of Windows; you either pay for it as part of your computer, or it's included as part of an enterprise plan. They'd get all that revenue without pushing a new major version.
Absolutely true; Gaza’s system of government has collapsed since long ago, and the “democratic” election, that many people use to justify the equivocation of the Gaza population and Hamas, involved less than half the population of the enclave and had numerous other issues that make the Hamas rule a farce.
That being said, even those that didn’t vote for Hamas would probably not have elected the PA, as public trust of Palestinians in the PA has eroded due to Mahmoud Abbas’s unwillingness to step down and the perception that the PA is a puppet government.
All this to say that Palestinians lack a trustworthy government, much less a government that could be responsible for turning in the Hamas members the ICC wants to arrest.
If you think like this, then "warcrimes" are bullshit. The whole point of the UN, the Geneva convention, warcrimes legislation, ... is that it would apply 100% in situations where government collapses, in situations where there is nothing but violence, in civil wars (arguably worse than the current situation). That genocide is forbidden AND punished even in the total absense of public trust, in the absense of government, in war, ...
So that's the problem I have with the statement: it's true, absolutely, but if we think like this then human rights aren't human rights, but merely subject to governance. Your statement is true, but is a denial of international law. If your statement is true, you may as well abolish the international criminal court. After all, if a government exists, there's no need for them and if a government doesn't exist (or doesn't apply) then, as you say, the rules don't apply. So what's the point?
Your statement is true, but the world would be a much better place if your statement was false, and therefore we'll at least pretend it is false.
(and, of course, if you think like this, then absolutely anything goes in war)
Considering the abuse of the automated dmca system, I imagine YouTube will continue to side with the publishers for a long while, even in cases of legitimate use. There’s way less liability in false positives than false negatives for them.
While the current over marketing of AI is a fad, this person is making a dumb claim. AI is genuinely revolutionary and the next step in modern computing.
I think interestingly enough, AI confidence percentages have encouraged more developers I work with to give me confidence percentages. Even for myself, I think it’s helpful, as I’ve been told more than once that someone thought I was confident because of “the way I said it”. Even if those percentages are a guess, saying “60% sure” or “90% sure” changes how people act with that information.
