This article codifies general power structures within organizations: who trumps who when making software decisions in an org and sells that status quo as some sort of useful rule of thumb, when it in fact has no utility at all.
NYC apartment’s lack of square footage is going to make it super inconvenient to store the containers as you await the next delivery and container pickup.
Nope, I’m reading the actual article and using the author’s definition of innovation: creating technology that makes our lives better as human beings. Not a small group of people making something that makes them a ton of money regardless of it being innovative as per the definition above.
I think on average you're right. As the project grows, these generators lose some of their initial value and speed.
If I were to use something like this, it'd be for rapid development initially for prototyping purposes. Then I'd transition to something more bespoke as needed.
If you know all your requirements up front, then starting bespoke from the beginning may be the better route.
Stop thinking about work as something you do from 9-5. Start planning your day around a more organic schedule. I work in 1-2 hours spats throughout the day, interspersed with working out, cooking, reading, watching youtube, etc. You need to integrate your work and life, rather than thinking of them as separate to get the most out of working from home.
In fact, people can't accurately identity peoples faces, there have been many convictions of people based on people recognizing faces in a line up, and their recall of said persons face being completely wrong.
So by your own logic alone this technology should be dismantled.
You defer to a fantasy utilitarian argument, where the material interests of the average human right now should be subjugated to possible technological advancement. This makes your moral and ethical compass devoid of any humanity. This is truly a horrifying set of morals you have put forth.
Public shaming didn't work, literally at all. The article was released literally today, and the program was ended before anyone knew about it other than reporters. And this won't deter other corporations from employing this technology.
We absolutely need legislation to permanently stop this. The free market is not going to magically pop up a competing brick and mortar that doesn't spy on us and/or sell/give our data to other corporations/governments.
This is incoherent. He speaks on cultural/political/economic issues that he has very little actual interest or knowledge on and comes to very obtuse and banal conclusions. The IDW's schtick is to make your "common sense" feel scientific through flawed logic and appealing to your identity by saying words/phrases like "reason", "logic", and "free speech", without actually practicing the tenets of any of them.
The IDW constantly touts the need for experts, who stand in the face of political correctness, while hypocritically not being experts themselves in the subjects they always want to talk about on public platforms.
To relate this back to technology, it's very similar to designing apps. Everyone feels like they are an expert app designer, simply because they can identity that something feels off about an app, and because they use apps everyday. In fact, they aren't expert app designers, and they are simply identifying problems that most people can identify, and have no real solutions to offer. But because the pain of using the app is shared by many people, a lot of people latch on to loud mouth non-experts for pointing out the obvious and making them feel smart.
Yeah this is excellent. I wish he would produce more of this content, rather than his diet-right "mAh FrEeSpeCh" normie political commentary. I've actually heard he was an excellent evo-bio professor by former students. What a waste, but I guess it's cool he gets to hang out with Rogan now, so good for him I suppose.
You are accurately identifying that he uses his identity to hide his class in order to increase his profits. This is what modern corporate diversity initiatives are in a nutshell.
It’s born out of a system that seeks to protect the owners of capital by scapegoating the workers and making it the workers problem, rather than the problem of the people with the political power and money to make meaningful change.
“it’s just a mindset”, takes all responsibility off of the ruling class and places it all on the backs individual. While I’m all for taking responsibility for oneself in a rigged system, I’m not going to pretend the system isn’t rigged and shouldn’t be fixed. Imagine if we promoted approaching flawed and broken software architecture like this.
Communist bandit (Chinese: 共匪; pinyin: gòngfěi) is an anti-communist insult directed to the Chinese Communist Party. The term originated from the Nationalist Government in 1927.
This is direct censorship on behalf of the Chinese Government.
It also demonstrates how disconnected from the average person he was if he almost only saw OSX, when the market was 95%+ Windows.