Likely it'll be a transition technology for businesses still using phone appointments as their primary API, and eventually it'll ease the path for more direct integration.
1. No oil changes.
2. Fewer moving parts, fewer repairs, longer life.
3. Instant acceleration.
4. Zero emissions.
5. Ability to be fully powered by renewable energy.
If you wanted to invest in lithium, someone should warn you that individuals without special knowledge should not get involved with picking commodities. You'll be buying a lot of volatility with no increase in expected return.
These are the top three holdings in Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (https://www.globalxfunds.com/funds/lit), together composing about 43% of that fund's holdings.
There was another quote in TFA about the potential to over build mining capacity and flood the market.
But sure, buy this and hope it "surges" more than the general market. Given that billions of devices already have lithium cells in them and the historical performance of the Lithium ETF is still quite disappointing compared to the broader market, I wouldn't hold my breath that this time is any different.
The President of the US indisputably has more destructive power than the CEO of Facebook, but the ability to kill people is not the only measure of power. And, how would the President shut down Facebook in an instant? The US President's powers are highly constrained, as many of them have complained about.
I'd like a better understanding of your viewpoint.
What actions do you think Zuck could take which would demonstrate that he has more power than Trump?
And, why do you raise the hypothetical of Trump shutting down Facebook? In particular, it's my understanding that many of Trump's foes are blaming FB for his win.
I only raise the point about "Trump shutting down Facebook" in response to the comment "Facebook can be shutdown by POTUS in an instant." It simply isn't true. The President of the United States often can't even get the legislative platform that they ran on through Congress. I don't see any way they can shut down a major US corporation in an instant, unless with the cooperation of dozens of different parties within the government. The power of the US presidency is staggering and fairly unconstrained when it comes to killing millions of people with nuclear and conventional weapons. It's pretty constrained in every other arena.
As to actions that Zuck could take to show that he has more power than the POTUS? As I mentioned, constructive power and destructive power are of different natures, so that the power of an artist building a great sculpture is not really comparable to the power to smash that sculpture with a hammer.
Power depends on a great many things. The form in which it's expressed, the interactions through which it's transmitted, the cost and refraction period before it can be re-used, all matter.
Nukes are indeed powerful, but media organs have started wars before.
History is your guide, the tactics have not fundamentally changed. The process isn't certain, and, as in many cases, the principle ingredient is disinhibition, recklessness, or ignorance.
And if not Zuckerberg, the next new-media mogul to hold the attention of a few billion eyeballs. More, I might add, than any media empire in history.
I'm not sure that's relevant here. The only way that flies is if the armed forces are deployed against the companies in question, something that is expressly forbidden in federal law. (And if that ever becomes an issue, the USA as we know it has already ceased to exist)
What? No. I was saying that bringing the armed forces into the discussion is, at best, a non sequitur since their use is A. illegal, and B. implies the rest of the system is trashed enough for it to not matter anymore should they be used.
Opinion manipulation is a powerful thing. Something that, in this country, won't be fought with guns.
This is awesome! I've been waiting for someone to release an Excel-type ML product to make machine learning more accessible. This looks right up that alley, and will probably "democratize" access to ML in a number of fields that tend to be less coding-savvy.
Something about me feels that these efforts by IBM and Microsoft around AI are less around providing Open Source tools to democratize AI and more around providing "big data" style tools to "big enterprise". Both companies made TONS of $$$ selling Business Intelligence tools (SQL Server Analysis Services, Cognos, etc). They are smart enough to see the danger in open source tools like TensorFlow, Spark, etc. cutting into their lucrative revenue streams in the enterprise.
In particular, Microsoft has always been great about providing tools for no to low cost at the entry level, to get you (or more likely your company) hooked into the ecosystem. Not making a criticism, they have made some great stuff over the years (see the Visual Studio ecosystem for example).
The other angle is providing these tools, which can be complex to install/configure/manage, as a service offering via a subscription as part of the Azure platform. Recently MS has been hiring every superstar/rockstar evangelist/advocate/architect/engineer/etc to help design/build/promote/advocate for Azure that they can find (See Jessie Frazelle, @catie, and a ton of key people in the Golang world). Microsoft isn't just coming to play, they're playing to win.
IBM and Microsoft can embrace the open source tools Tensorflow and Spark by offering Enterprise Support (I know IBM has made a large investment in Spark). Their competitors would be databricks and Google. By being simply not Google that could win over people. Also, both of them need something to differentiate their cloud offering from Amazon.
Access to AI/ML is already very democratic. Takes little time to set run Tensorflow from a docker image, or learn from Jupyter notebooks, etc... with fully open source projects where you can consult the source code and see how an algorithm is implemented.
In contrast this involves running a proprietary operating system, IDE, closed source, etc... Quite the contrary to anything that could be considered democratic.
Then, ML is all about volume. Open a spreadsheet with more than 10000 rows in Excel and see it squirm in pain.
Takes little time to set run Tensorflow from a docker image, or learn from Jupyter notebooks, etc... with fully open source projects where you can consult the source code and see how an algorithm is implemented.
This is exactly the problem -- what you're describing is not easy for anyone outside of tech to do. If you want to, say, run a simple text classification task and have thousands of labels, this is way overkill. Machine learning has the opportunity to become a common place utility for automating repetitive tasks, and the barrier to entry does not need to be learning Tensorflow, Docker, and Jupyter.
Focus on making the concept of a "social network" less disruptive from a personal standpoint, and more "complementary." There is a wealth of evidence that Facebook, as it exists today, is toxic to mental health and relationships. If you could create a social network that is seamless and complementary to your existing interactions in the physical world, that would be a compelling product.
I would say that part of the reason of FB popularity are the features that are addictive and disruptive. Same with IG. They design for addiction. The question then becomes if you do not design for addiction can you achieve success on the level of FB? If you are thinking in a social sense, then I would ask the question: how might we design an app that helps people connect, without being intrusive and letting people really connect?
