> Can't make profitable bluebarries? Tough shit. Free market right?
Why is this good? Do you not want to have access to a wide array of foods? Isn't it nice to have blueberries? Isn't it good that someone can have a farm as their family business and make it work, agriculturally? Would it somehow be better to just let that land do nothing while we all drink Soylent?
I'm not a free market absolutist. If I was, I'd have no problem with illegal labour or buying from slave labour in some other country. Yes, I am afraid of a completely free market, because I understand the Tragedy of the Commons. It doesn't mean I'm going to flip directions and become an advocate of complete state control of industry.
Your over-the-top rhetoric serves no-one and illustrates no point.
No, I don't want extra choice if it comes at the expense of exploitation. I don't want to waste my time having to assess every product and vendor for ethical quality, I want to know that when I'm purchasing everyday goods and services that I can rely on a certain baseline level of equity across the entire commercial marketplace. It creates economic inefficiency by introducing unwanted information asymmetries into the market that hurt both consumers and labor.
My definition is pretty simple, but it may surprise you if you think regulations go against a free market. To me, a free market is one that is transparent and has low transaction costs. And I think this is only possible if it is well regulated by an authority or government.
Warrant proof communication is absolutely in the best interests of the citizens for exactly the same reason it's not in the best interest of the ruling government.
We will be able to explain and understand consciousness in objective terms 1 second after the first person achieves flight by pulling themselves into the air with the bucket they are standing in. About 5 seconds after a computer can run a 100% simulation of itself running a 100% simulation of itself. A whole minute after someone writes a program that can tell if/when any other programs will stop running.
As a question that's dogged us for thousands of years, maybe its time to accept its just a shitty question.
Nonsense. Consciousness is a matter of information processing. We're just biological computers running a program. The so called hard problem of consciousness is really just folklore by now.
Neuroscience will eventually provide a complete explanation of consciousness. I'm frankly surprised we still think in magical terms about consciousness, in this time and age, knowing all we know about how the universe works, knowing how the brain works.
Pragmatic philosophers, such as Thomas Metzinger, have already accepted the failure of philosophy in this regard, and support the neuroscience approach.
I can refer you to Thomas Metzinger's book, "The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self". He went through great efforts to make it accessible to laypersons, such as myself. It's well worth the time.
Side note, I got to Thomas Metzinger from Peter Watts' Firefall. He says something along the lines "Metzinger is THE man" (will try to find the exact text and come back with an edit at some point).
We're still ramping up. So far, our only publication has been co-authoring Activation Atlases with our wonderful colleagues at Google (https://distill.pub/2019/activation-atlas/).
One thing we're thinking a lot about how you can transition from "what" a neural network represents to "how does it mechanistically do that"? I hope we'll publish on that in the next couple of months.
By the way, while I'm flattered by the esteem it implies, I'd generally rather people not refer to us as the "Olah Team", just as you wouldn't refer Google Brain as "Jeff Dean Research" or MILA as "Yoshua Bengio Institute" or OpenAI as "Sutskever AI", etc. I think academic culture of branding groups after the PI is kind of unhealthy.
My teammates are doing the hard work and I see my position as a team lead as just to serve and support them. :)
Depends on the MDM and phone really but, No. Triangulating a cellphone on the network via cell towers is a tried and true feature of wireless infrastructure. Even your phones GPS capabilities are most likely "A-GPS" meaning Cellular Assisted; It'll use cell location data when GPS satilites are slow/unavailable.
GPS toggle isn't doing much of anything besides application permissions enforcement.
"Unikernel" is a overly generic term. Technically the Linux kernel is already a "Unikernel". It's just most of the time its discussed as a negative not a positive and the term used is "monolith".
The project you want is "Yocoto", a complete toolchain to build customized embedded OS images.
You would have to build your own analyzer. Grepping the dependencies from the makefile/build data or just parsing the output of dpkg and translating that into yocto build specs is not unreasonable.
Do you worry about some random asshole kid hurling a re-bar in to rush hour traffic? REing automotive tech, setting up transmitters, and spoofing traffic data to throw a virtual re-bar in to rush hour traffic could become a pandemic unless we figure out a way to fight such attacks.
The difference between these two scenarios is that the asshole kid throwing rebar is easily detectable and to do it has to be at the location of the crime.
The asshole spoofing traffic data, depending on how the transmitters are set up could potentially do it from a long distance away, and may actually be hard to detect.
Emergency vehicles in some cities can emit a signal that changes lights from red to green. It's a felony to spoof those devices, but people still get caught doing it.
I'm sure a system can be made resilient to a single bad actor, but, yes, those attack vectors will have to be thought through.
Unless you have persistent mount to network FSs like NFS or SMB how do you think the ransomware would spread? You sure don't need network mounts for backups.
Cronjob to an (S)FTP server and an upload script trigger to chown/chmod all incoming files making the whole thing WORM (Write Once Read Many).
Once its submitted the same user account can't alter it. Even if the malware is clever and scans for .netrc and .id_rsa and manages to create its own connection to the backup server it doesn't have access to anything anyway.
Yes? This isn't that complicated. You break it, and when competitive browser X refuses to do so, you sell the idea that browser X is compromised for all users everywhere (not just in Kazakhstan)
Stop thinking about the country with literally less than 1% of world internet users and start thinking of the reputational damage a less than charitable presentation of your collaboration with a totalitarian state against your users would do to the other 99%+ of your market.
Apple is openly collaborating with Chinese regime, including allowing the government to snoop on all Chinese traffic, yet they still have a high reputation for privacy. This just doesn't work, people don't give a shit about other countries.
Which is bad news for the ~15m internet users in Kazakhstan. For the ~4000m internet users not in Kazakhstan & generally immune to their rubber hose attack, protecting them from being one BGP fuckup away from being MITMed by a hostile foreign power is much more important.
Work conditions become crap? GOOD. Can't run a business without slaves in shanties tough shit. Free market right?
Product quality goes to shit because you can't afford decent employees in reasonable working conditions? GOOD. The free market in action!
Are you afraid of a free market?