Okay, well I'm asking the author why they developed their own analytics tool rather than using an industry standard hoping there's some reason beyond motivational phrases.
Satantango was screened with a full dinner break in the middle (long enough to see another movie in the interim) when I saw it, but this one I went to had to be spread out over two days
Same here. I’ve been dedicating New Year’s Day to a long movie for a few years now —- Trenque Lauquen last year —- and the habit is working out quite well.
Why do you think we have fully self driving cars instead of just more simplistic beacon systems? Why doesn't McDonald's have a fully automated kitchen?
New technology is slow due to risk aversion, it's very rare for people to just tear up what they already have to re-implement new technology from the ground up. We always have to shoe-horn new technology into old systems to prove it first.
There are just so many factors that get solved by working with what already exists.
About your self-driving car point, I feel like the approach I'm seeing is akin to designing a humanoid robot that uses its robotic feet to control the brake and accelerator pedals, and its hand to move the gear selector.
Open Pilot (https://comma.ai/openpilot) connects to your cars brain and sends acceleration, turning, etc signals to drive the car for you.
Both Open Pilot and Tesla FSD use regular cameras (ie. eyes) to try and understand the environment just as a human would. That is where my analogy is coming from.
I could say the same about using a humanoid robot to log on to your computer and open chrome. My point is also that we made no changes to the road network to enable FSD.
Yeah, that would be pretty good honestly. It could immediately upgrade every car ever made to self driving and then it could also do your laundry without buying a new washing machine and everything else. It's just hard to do. But it will happen.
Yes, it sounds very cool and sci-fi, but having a humanoid control the car seems less safe than having the spinning cameras and other sensors that are missing from older cars or those that weren't specifically built to be self-driving. I suppose this is why even human drivers are assisted by automatic emergency braking.
I am more leaning into the idea that an efficient self-driving car wouldn't even need to have a steering wheel, pedals, or thin pillars to help the passengers see the outside environment or be seen by pedestrians.
The way this ties back to the computer use models is that a lot of webpages have stuff designed for humans would make it difficult for a model to navigate them well. I think this was the goal of the "semantic web".
And the only cost is destitution for a few hundred / thousand / tens-of-thousands (/ hundreds-of-thousands?) of people, since that $12.7 trillion worth of homes will by no means be sellable on the market for $12.7 trillion if they can't be houses anymore, and home equity is 45% of the net worth of the average American homeowner.
I'm sure stripping 45% of thousands of people's net worth won't have significant economic or cultural impacts. Truly, the market is a miracle.
> I'm sure stripping 45% of thousands of people's net worth won't have significant economic or cultural impacts.
"Climate migrations" has been an alarm bell for a long time. It's just people didn't want to listen.
The issue with your statement is if it's a person or human-created entity that's doing the stripping, that's a problem we can address. When it's the environment we live on doing the stripping, well, that's simply a predicament.
If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the groups that have been propagandizing for the last few decades that carbon is a myth and we're completely decoupled from the ecosystem we live on.
What's the solution? Having every one else pay so people can live in areas guaranteed to be hit by increasingly strong hurricanes? I pay less for car insurance now that I live in a rural area than when I did in a city. That makes sense. If you want to live in a nice climate by the beach, go for it. However, be prepared to pay for it.
At some point the rest of us have to stop paying for people's stupid behavior.
US taxpayers have funneled untold billions of dollars into these states to prop up their real estate industry by providing FEMA flood insurance at hugely subsidized rates, while the private insurance that's becoming unaffordable only covers wind damage. When you see those photos of towns wiped away by a hurricane, that's flood damage, and your tax dollars are paying to rebuild those houses in the same place. Over and over.
In a just world there would be legal liability for some of the real estate industry folks who persuaded people to put all of their net worth into an asset that's going to be blown away in the next hurricane, and other consequences for the politicians who enabled and encouraged them. The odds of this happening in real life seem to be about zero.
My preferred solution would be to declare unlivable areas national parks and buy out the homeowners via eminent domain (at a quantity that lets them maintain a significant percentage of their home equity, since the home is no longer sellable).
Regardless of climate change: punishing people for where they live is, historically, a great way to kick off a revolt or a civil war. People need to move out of storm zones, but the move needs to be executed mercifully or those who are forced to move will have little incentive to consider themselves members of society (to everyone's detriment).
My real point commenting initially though was that this situation is an excellent example of the failures of raw capitalism. Raw capitalism is a system perfectly willing to allow, admit, and increase inequality of outcome based on deviation from initial conditions. In contrast, societies only work long-term if there are some guardrails on inequality of outcome (otherwise, what is the point of cooperation?).
If ten or a hundred thousand people are at risk of losing half their net worth, that's the kind of thing a functioning society should probably step in on to lower the burden.
This is one of those annoying thorny issues. Looking at the farmers recently asking for government handouts. The writing has been on the wall for at least a decade in Florida. You build a home at ground level near a flooding zone and bad things happen.
That's the thing though, right? If everything is getting continually more abundant (it is), and most people aren't getting more wealthy most of the time, shouldn't that be considered a problem?
investing has risks involved. Everyone knows that house values can go down after 08. It is well past time to stop subsidizing people who want to live in disaster prone areas. They can live there, but they have to pay to rebuild their own stuff
Yes, market self-regulation is an inherently violent form of regulation. There have to be victims first, before the thing can change.
This is one reason why legislation is a smarter, better form of regulation. But capitalists rely on promoting the evil in people, and do not care about anyone but themselves. So it is preferable to them.
The article is about $10 billion dollars in fraudulent transactions that PayPal has allowed that the banks had to catch themselves. Given that, it's hard to say the OP is speaking in hyperbole.
Why not use Microsoft Clarity?
> The bots are getting creepily good at mimicking engagement.
You would think Google Analytics would help a lot with this, but they seem to not care.