except that the stack you're swiping between is not represented in the layout of the icons - it's on how recently you've used the app.
ie: if i have photos, calender and safari all on the same row of the home screen, and i open photos, go back to the home screen and then open safari, if i swiped left to right (to go backwards) on the bar at the bottom i'd go directly back to photos, not to calender
because it will reduce competition (even if it's to the detriment of the consumer) - particularly when it comes to cloud gaming.
msft is acquiring both horizontally (compared to their existing inhouse studios - notably their previous acquisition of zenimax/bethesda) and vertically (as activision/blizzard/king are the biggest developer of games for xbox and playstation).
the plan is 2 fold:
1. short term - instead of competing with sony on securing exclusivity, ensure exclusivity by ownership
2. long term - bolster xbox cloud gaming by ensuring that every major game exists on the platform (ideally exclusively)
the idea is that once you have a suprior catalog of games and a working subscription platform, you can boil your customers like frogs via price increases / ads / etc and that they will have no where to go because the games they want to play are exclusive to your service. with this acquisition msft is acquiring some of the most valuable ip in gaming, the development talent behind that api, and the audiences and communities that power it all and locking them down to xbox cloud gaming.
I'm pretty sure it's bad practice but in one project i needed some form of parameterised extensibility (parsing a broad mix of files onto a standard format). So what i did was have other devs subclass an abstract base class I created (with some predefined attributes and methods to fill in) and then generated my execution dictionary based on the attributes of the subclasses of the base class.
This is a great article but there's still a core problem there - why should developers have to choose between accessibility and performance?
So much scientific computing code suffers between core packages being split away from their core language - at what point do we stop and abandon python for languages which actually make sense? Obviously julia is the big example here, but its interest, development and ecosystem doesn't seem to be growing at a serious pace. Given that the syntax is moderately similar and the performance benefits are often 10x what's stopping people from switching???
it's still the theranos playbook, it's just a different image projected. and it still serves the same role - tapping into SV narratives and preconceptions to create an image that is super appealing to investors, the media and employees in order to spin up the hype flywheel, and excuse inconsistencies and misbehaviour. fundamentally both still took advantage of contrasting their traditionally inscrutable fields to contrast their highly visible images and paper over any skepticism.
either way the failing is the same - investors failed to preform adequate due diligence and lent their credibility to things they didn't fully understand because they were distracted by the charisma of the founder and were worried that they would miss potentially outsized gains. as long as large amounts of capital keep flowing to private markets (especially VCs) this will continue happening
there's no actual use of queuing theory in the article though, it's just mentioned as some sort of irrelevant justification. it's not even a monte carlo simulation, it's a bootstrap. you definitely don't need queuing theory to run a bootstrap
>"Most people in AI forget that the hardest part of building a new AI solution or product is not the AI or algorithms — it’s the data collection and labeling."
A lot of those companies are styled as "AI" companies themselves, aiming to automate the process of labeling.
The main winner here really is Amazon. They get a chunk by serving up infrastructure and in labeling through mechanical turk.
> XTX -- the name refers to a mathematical formula used in its trading algorithms
Wow so they do linear regressions?? Incredible.
But in all seriousness, for how long are we going to dress up statistics as some new cool and exciting methods? Are VC's and bosses really this easily fooled?
I heard the same podcast and the argument is actually the same as this line from the article:
"“One type of writing hasn’t replaced the other,” McCulloch writes, taking care to emphasize that the situation between formal language and internet language isn’t zero-sum."
It's just that The Economist made this division much more explicit, and used it as the basis for their argument while the NYT relegates it to a single line at the end of the article...
Do you really need those numbers though? Why not cut down the power a little and make a more fun car to drive? The P1 is RWD and people love driving it.
At the end of the day, a roadster of that price is at minimum a second car and more than likely just an expensive toy. Make it fun.
Safety isn't everything you know. The lowest scoring component (Safety Assist for stuff like speed assistance systems, lane support systems etc...) is basically about removing control from the driver and considering the target demographic for the Mustang, it makes not having them make sense. Some cars are made to be enjoyed and "safety" is increasingly compromising that concept.
They obviously don't. Look at TF2, they refuse to say it's dead but it hasn't received a proper update in a year. Instead, they spread a gambling model across all their current games and now sit and collect profits. Heck, even those "steam boxes" which were supposed to make PC the "final gaming platform" fell way short. Valve is an e-commerce company with a game development side business now and frankly, their recent output hasn't been good...
ie: if i have photos, calender and safari all on the same row of the home screen, and i open photos, go back to the home screen and then open safari, if i swiped left to right (to go backwards) on the bar at the bottom i'd go directly back to photos, not to calender