One method is that your neighbors may report you. In China, part of the social credit system is that your neighbors will report you for doing anything against the law or the rules. So they may not 'block' you from putting it up and getting internet through it, but try going to work the next day you may be blocked from getting on the train.
Basically any attempt to make statements about "the" social credit system in China is going to be at least slightly wrong, since there is no single system. There are several pilots of different possible implementations, but no complete system yet (both of your sources actually mention this). Some are run by private financial companies to determine eligibility for their loans, some are run by city governments to provide credit rating for companies (e.g. https://wzcredit.gov.cn/ ) and apparently some rely on neighbors reporting each other. (This is the first time I heard about that one, though.)
The blacklist that prevents people from buying high-speed train tickets is http://zxgk.court.gov.cn/shixin/ and it usually works as a court-ordered punishment between fines and a prison sentence. The intention seems to be to target people who owe money and falsely claim not to have it by preventing their ability to spend it on "luxury." I.e. if you have the money to take a faster train, they'd prefer it if you used that to pay your debts.
I'm not sure how that could happen. No matter how much money you have, this stuff takes time. There should be multiple independent companies providing satellite internet at low-cost with thousands of satellites each within 2-3 years (SpaceX Starlink, OneWeb, BlueOrigin's, etc).
I'm not sure how China could physically accomplish such a task - to prevent those companies from finding a market, despite being so far behind themselves?
>> at low-cost with thousands of satellites each within 2-3 years.
Not for a few decades. The first customers will be/are airlines and ships, both of which are willing to pay top dollar. Then will be the governments (air forces etc) and logistics companies (fedex). Only once all those high-price/profit customers are happy will anyone talk about prices comparative with current consumer satellite options (explorenet etc).
The days of flat panels on rooftops talking to multiple low-orbit sats will come, just not for another generation or so. Cubesats won't fit the bill. These will be expensive networks of expensive sats.
I'm hopeful but I've seen what seem like legitimate questions as far as how much bandwidth Starlink could actually provide a given customer once they ramp up customers. As far as I know there is no real guarantee or anything from Starlink (understandable) but I'm a bit concerned about that.
It will not take SpaceX 'decades' to enable widespread commercial and personal use of the network. It is SpaceX's intent to use it as a revenue driver for the early work on the Martian colony, which is planned to get started in 5-6 years. Therefore Starlink must be operational long before then or the whole plan fails.
Also, I think Starlink's launches are planned to ramp up significantly in the next 1-2 years, immediately enabling multiple use cases popular in multiple very large consumer industries (gaming, streaming, etc).
Don't believe the hype. Any KSP nerd can work out how many sats would be needed for coverage at a given altitude (thousands to keep two above horizon in leo). Then any networking nerd can work out the number of hops and downlink stations needed (hundreds). Those thousands of sats will also need to be replaced as quickly as 10-15% per year, unless they are going to get their own propulsion systems, seriously multiplying their cost of launch/operation.
Take a look at the difficulties in setting up downlink stations at a global scale. To facilitate the dreamed bandwidth the number of hops between satellites will have to be as low as possible. Hundreds of large base stations will be needed. New land must be purchased, new laws passed, and old laws abolished. Unless spaceX intends to have Musk elected to the presidencies of many nations, the regulatory hurdles alone will take decades.
I don't understand this logic. SpaceX's bread-and-butter is building technology and setting up processes to lower launch costs to hilariously low levels.
> Those thousands of sats will also need to be replaced as quickly as 10-15% per year, unless they are going to get their own propulsion systems, seriously multiplying their cost of launch/operation.
Multiplying by.....10%? I think they would laugh off those costs and easily pay for that with the huge margin they are likely to be eyeing.
> Take a look at the difficulties in setting up downlink stations at a global scale. To facilitate the dreamed bandwidth the number of hops between satellites will have to be as low as possible. Hundreds of large base stations will be needed. New land must be purchased, new laws passed, and old laws abolished.
Can you cite this? What new laws must be passed and what old laws abolished? Also,
> Unless spaceX intends to have Musk elected to the presidencies of many nations, the regulatory hurdles alone will take decades.
This is hyperbole and clearly not true. Countries make deals with businesses all the time, especially when the business is likely to bring opportunity and money into the country. I have a hard time imagining a world where leaders and countries are anti-SpaceX to the point of stalling negotiations until Elon is 75 years old and already lives on Mars.
Lastly, citing unknown video game nerds and believing their interpretations over the CEO of a public company (yes I'll count Tesla here, it speak to his dedication of running global-scale changing companies) and the specifications of a private company with ~10,000 employees? It just seems less likely to be true that video game nerds know best here.
Downlinking issues in Canada, not exactly a hostile marketplace:
>>> The government decision: Primary telemetry, telecommand and control facilities and network operations centres must be located within Canadian territory. A description and planned location of these facilities must be included in licence applications. The final location of these facilities must be confirmed by Milestone 1, with construction completed by the launch of the first satellites (Milestone 3), as defined in CPC 2-6-02, Licensing of Space Stations.
Read up on space law. Read about who controls data from spacecraft, who has veto power over it, and who controls the radio spectrum needed to talk to satellites.
>>> Lastly, citing unknown video game nerds and believing their interpretations over the CEO of a public company
If you play KSP you know of what I speak. A CEO cannot overcome physics. Anyone who plays KSP knows what it would mean to create a network to pass a relay over a given spot in leo every hour/day/minute etc. This is basic orbital dynamics, something KSP teaches very well. So yes, if a CEO is ignoring the basic realities of motion, then I would cite to a video game (aka a physics simulator).
Engineers who make mistakes that harm people are still responsible for the mistakes they made. You cannot just claim "it was a bug" and get off scot free if your code harms someone or otherwise breaks the law. Also there's no need for this sarcastic tone, "have you never..?"
> I doubt it was an engineer who deliberately removed the text but kept the contact import functionality.
Why would you doubt that? I personally think that situation sounds quite likely. But either way we're just speculating.
Also, don't ignore the part of the parent comment that discusses the manager's (and implied other decision markers) that result in the decision being made to make an illegal change to the code.
Engineer, or manager, or QA assistant - someone or some group of people will have made the change. And "oops that was a bug" doesn't count. Corporations and their employees must be held to the same laws and standards to which the rest of us are held. "Ooops I didn't mean to do that" doesn't fly as an excuse to break the law.
> Should a developer be responsible because the cookie banner they implemented wasn't compliant with the laws of 100 countries even though the legal team already told them it was ok?
Yes. 100%. "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse, ever - Nuremberg is the obvious extreme example, but it's true everywhere.
In fact, "I was just following orders" often is a valid excuse. It didn't work at Nuremberg because it was an extreme example. The orders there were to do things that could not even conceivably be legal, so those who carried them out were considered to have knowingly acted illegally.
When the orders are to do something that is plausibly legal, and you have good reason to believe that it is in fact so, "I was just following orders" will probably work in most jurisdictions.
Iff they have confirmation from their product lead that what they're doing is perfectly legal and it isn't obviously illegal, I agree that there's no liability.
If it's either obviously illegal or it's clearly at least dodgy and they didn't get explicit confirmation from the project lead, "following orders" is not a valid excuse.
To take the VW case as an example: if your project lead tells you to implement a way to recognise test conditions and adjust the performance to reduce emissions, that is dodgy af and you should at least get confirmation that this isn't illegal (i.e. that it's not intended to cheat on certifications but maybe just for certain internal testing scenarios). In the end the entire chain of command that led to this being implemented is guilty, but if the person implementing that behavior knew what they were doing was illegal or at least suspect and they didn't get confirmation, they're still guilty.
We don't all need to be lawyers to understand the basics of our laws. Knowledge of the existence of the law is assumed for all citizens. Ignorance of the law has never been a valid excuse when the law is broken.
(Yes, the US does have some new problems with private laws being passed, where the public is not allowed to know the law itself - and this opens up huge scary things. But that is not what is being discussed here and I don't believe is relevant.)
Facebook have broken a huge list of laws. But recently from my reading I think the current issue is a breach of contract. They signed a legal contract with the FTC and then broke it, hence the fine.
There doesn't seem to be any debate that Facebook broke the law - just debate about what the punishments should be.
> Computer science defines AI research as the study of "intelligent agents": any device that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of successfully achieving its goals.[1]
yeah, but these days AI is applied to anything related to machine learning. most of current AI is supervised learning, which doesn't fit your description
> “We found that on days when managers reported high email demands, they report lower perceived work progress as a result, and in turn engage in fewer effective leader behaviors,” says Johnson.
It seems this is largely a disparity in expectations of work. The managers self-reported feeling like they got less done when replying to more emails. But isn't supporting their team and being able to rapidly answer questions often part of a manager's job? And if not, perhaps they are in the wrong role.
I would be more interested in measuring overall team productivity, not just the manager's self-reported version. I think you might find that the high-email-throughput teams do get more done with that extra emailing, even if the manager feels like they have been less productive.
I was about to post something similar. Let's say, as a conservative estimate, a manager oversees 5 ICs. Let's also assume, generously, that the manager becomes 50% more productive if he or she doesn't reply to e-mails until the end of the day. If the "overflow" from that strategy causes the ICs to become even 5% less productive, the gain in the manager's productivity is more than wiped out, and the team as a whole is worse off.
A large part of a manager's job is to shield his or her team from e-mails, Slack messages, and other productivity-sapping interruptions. If a manager is grading him or herself by their individual productivity, they're doing management wrong. If an organization is grading its managers by their individual productivity, rather than whether their teams are meeting their objectives, the organization is doing management wrong.
I agree with your point completely. What are we measuring? Some people's work is intended only to make other people more productive. Knowledge work can't have everyone 100% isolated to get 100% productivity. This is a sliding scale and where good managers get paid for maximizing their team's productivity.
Emails are one medium to support my team. They're not suitable for a rapid response to anything. If something is that urgent it warrants an in-person conversation or video conference.
E-mails are great for medium to large scale logistics and status communication: organizing meetings, ensuring participants have access to necessary documentation, and communicating the status of some on going project.
Lack of narrative. It's less disturbing if you're in the mode of listening to background music, but for active listening, classical music is so much richer.
I believe they selected some of the best-sounding pieces. Playing with their tool (which is a lot of fun) is more hit-and-miss: some interesting results, but also some slightly unpleasant music.
> When Gallup investigated the responses more closely, it found that being under 50, earning a low income and having a dim view of President Trump’s job performance were correlated with negative experiences among adults in the United States.
> But there still isn’t enough data to say for sure whether any of those factors were behind the feelings of stress, worry and anger.
> “We are seeing patterns that would point to a political explanation, or a polarization explanation, with the U.S. data, but can we say that definitively? No,” Ms. Ray said.
The United States is under attack from Russia. We are involved in a propaganda war, a real physical war attacking our election infrastructure, and the President encourages it to continue while cutting/removing our ability to secure our elections and defend our democracy. He states that he is intent on not leaving office peacefully in the future and that he likes China's one-party for life.
I get that this may not be conclusively proven to increase stress on Americans, but I would be _shocked_ if it were not a major contributing factor. Every single person I've spoken to IRL about the Trump-related-stress-and-depression concept eagerly agrees that this is weighing heavily on people in a very constant, deep and personal way.
Obviously, personal finances, job security, and other close things are likely equally or more important. But Trump has also eliminated many people's feelings of financial security or job security, as he has personally chosen to hold paychecks from a million people on a racist vendetta, directly removing those people's personal income while still demanding they work.
Surely it can be said that at least for some large portion of Americans, it is true that Trump's policies and behavior on the job _Are_ hurting us.
To these people I would probably say, the problem isn't Trump. The problem is the effects of a 24 hour news cycle coupled with social media. Another election cycle or two and he will be gone and the stress will remain. News agencies find a new stressor to focus on is all
What you said is so mild compared to the rhetoric deployed by right-wing HN commenters every day--few of whom get the same reprimand from the mods that you just got.
> He states that he is intent on not leaving office peacefully in the future
Source?
> Every single person I've spoken to IRL about the Trump-related-stress-and-depression concept eagerly agrees that this is weighing heavily on people in a very constant, deep and personal way.
Is it possible that that's the goal of the media right now? To make things seem so bad that they can swing political opinion?
I mean look at this article. They focus on the negative but fail to mention in the headline that we also have the most positive experiences. That's framing and is very dangerous when done at scale.
1) Trump talking about conceding an election which he didn't lose. Even Hillary took until the next day to concede.
2) A disgraced lawyer who would have said anything to appease the house in that statement. Also his statement is opinion, and is obviously talking about recounts / lawsuits similar to the Al Gore / GWB election. Thinking the president would use force of any means is ridiculous.
Edit: Generally editing your reply after I have replied is bad taste.
> The President is directing a genocide and is upset that it is not progressing faster.
Yeah I'm done talking with you, that is just a ridiculous line of thought backed by 0 facts.
Edit: Everything I said here was strictly factual. I'm not sure why it's so quickly downvoted so here is a source to back it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkw15LkZ_Kw. And one more, regarding the trains in particular: http://fortune.com/2019/02/22/china-social-credit-travel-ban...