We watched Moore's law hold fast for 50 years before it started to hit a logarithmic ceiling. Assuming a long-term outcome in either direction based purely on historical trends is nothing more than a shot in the dark.
Then our understanding of the sun is just as much a shot in the dark (for it too will fizzle out and die some day). Moore’s law was accurate for 50 years. The fact that it’s tapered off doesn't invalidate the observations in their time, it just means things have changed and the curve is different that originally imagined.
No — that incident was due to a high pressure area (saturation diver living quarters) being opened to a low pressure area (the atmosphere at large), resulting in explosive decompression. The submarine in question is a low pressure area in a high pressure environment, so essentially the inverse of the Dolphin accident.
I’ve heard that the continued presence of ashtrays isn’t a vestigial design feature so much as an intentional holdover, so that anyone who breaks the “no smoking” rule still has a safe place to put out their cigarette.
And that's probably why they need to constantly remind all the passengers that there is no smoking in the bathroom, and please don't tamper with the smoke detectors in there, we really mean it, please ignore the emergency-use ashtrays.
I only skimmed the piece itself, but the title of this article is in extremely bad taste -- makes me doubt that the author really intends to consider the pros and cons of AI research in good faith.
Let me guess -- this is another alarmist take pushing the Yudkowsky narrative that we need to halt AI research and nuke datacenters.
Hah! I had this idea in the car the other day ("like ratemyprofessor, but for landlords") -- the big issue I got hung up on is authenticity. How does this tool ensure that reviewers are actually tenants, and not landlords trying to boost their rating?
I worked for a while at a company that everyone hated, and there was an ongoing war on Glassdoor between the narcissistic CEO and the employees. Every new employee (and there were a lot of those because turnover was high) left negative reviews, and periodically the CEO would get on with a bunch of sockpuppet accounts and leave positive reviews. It was a small enough company that we knew they couldn't be real (they claimed roles that were all accounted for, and they'd all show up over a day or two with the same writing style), but Glassdoor has basically no verification and never responded to our reports. The only action their moderators ever took was to remove our reviews if we tried to call out the inauthentic ones.
I think someone tried that; the issue lies with reviewers that really "spill the tea" (fellow kids, am I using that right?); specifically that Glassdoor can be legally compelled to unmask the reviewer.
> How does this tool ensure that reviewers are actually tenants, and not landlords trying to boost their rating?
I have only ever felt the need to tell other people about my landlord when they were really terrible. I had a landlord that I liked once, but “getting to hang out with a cool dog sometimes” wouldn’t have compelled me to seek out and contribute to a review website.
I would simply treat anything on the site that’s even slightly more effusive than “I have had little to no reason to interact with my landlord” as patent garbage.
This is how I pretty much treat all reviews these days. There is relatively little incentive to lie in a negative review (a competitor could try to trash on you, but I've yet to see that become a big problem and it would be potentially actionable), but there are lots of reasons why someone would want to manufacture positive reviews. So I typically just read through the negatives these days and see if there's a common theme.
upload proof of address with your name on it when creating the account, like a bank statement or electricity bill.
The only way for the landlord to cheat it is to set up fake accounts with companies and get statements sent to them. Probably possible but a lot of work for 1 review
And how would the service verify the statements? Why would it take a fake account? It's not that hard to get a sample statement and modify it to seem real. If you could get confirmation from a bank or utility that might be enough to prevent forgeries, but what incentive would there be for them and why would they want to share private information?
These days those are mostly electronic, it's not hard to edit the text in a PDF to make it show a different address. Not something an average person can easily do, but trivial for a motivated attacker to pull off with a bit of money or the right friends.
Also, if it has your name on it then it's no longer anonymous.
Photoshop seems like a straightforward way around this method of verification. It works for the DMV here in the States, but perhaps only because lying in that context carries legal penalties.
How about this scheme: a service that provides a hash of your {SSN, DOB, domain of a web site}, which allows anyone to cryptographically check that the domain is part of the hash, but not SSN or DOB, and which is required to create an account. This guarantees that any physical person can create one and only one account on that web site and also preserves anonymity.
I finally caved and installed Windows 11 a couple weeks ago. From a user perspective, I think it's much better than Windows 10, but the privacy aspects are concerning.
I remember that when Windows 10 came out, there were several projects which aimed to remove or disable most of the telemetry that it shipped with. Does anyone know if such projects also exist for Windows 11?
It all depends on how you draw your Venn diagrams, I suppose. Is Chrome a massively complex browser, or is it some window dressing and bookmark syncing sitting on top of Chromium, that itself is really just a simple UI around the Blink rendering engine. GNU/Chrome, anybody?
