I wonder how much that can get in the way. I'm sure he adds insights into the development team from likely conceptualizing data and architecture vastly different than most people.
It talks about possibly using machine learning to create many videos targeted at toddlers and using techniques to ensure the next autoplay item doesn't change to another channel.
Google is claiming to be acting in the interests of the public without the same mechanisms accessible to the public for moderating how this ability is used. Today Google can cite public interest, but it is just aligned and not acting purely on the public's interest. Like Facebook holding all user data forever, Google will definitely want to hold all data forever because someone it might make shareholders money.
A judge heard the case for two individuals. That's a pretty fair way to do it. Americans also believe in the rule of law, versus the rule of the powerful.
Keep in mind the idea of libel and slander exists in the US. I’d see this court decision as an extension of those ideas (materially true information that can be deindexed by the subject).
Google would not be removing false results without RTBF or someone being able to afford a very expensive lawyer. RTBF means anyone can actually have a chance at getting false information removed.
My point is that the law is important even for the cases that the parent agrees with. There are clear categorizes for what qualifies for RTBF and they were examined well in this case. The judge rightfully determined that one person has likely changed and shouldn't be burdened by their history, but that another should.
This isn't just a blanket "you can erase things you don't like in the news about you" that some people have made it out to be.
I think that the Google is stepping into the realm of government because they might feel that government services are lacking in this realm. These records and controls for what remains available would be better served in a government setting than a private corporation one.
The best part of law and society is that we get to collectively decide if freedom of speech should be absolute. In this case, the judicial branch says no.
Yep. A society with true freedom lets those like this unnamed person and yourself who want to curtail and destroy it speak anyway. Freedom is never a static thing and the fight against censors is constant.
It's sad to see this battle lost but I hope for Europe's sake they figure out it was the wrong move after this becomes abused by the rich and powerful.
Self driving cars. The amount of time saved for humanity will be absolutely staggering and free up people to spend more time accomplishing more things.
Agreed that a lot of time will be freed up, but I don't think the majority of people will use this time productively. Most people will just end up watching Netflix in their cars instead of focusing on the road.
The real revolution for self driving cars will be what it does to deaths in the 18-35 demographic. A quick Google search turns up this (https://www.verywell.com/top-causes-of-death-for-ages-15-24-...) article that confirms that for the 15-24 demographic automobile accidents are the leading cause of death. Think of how many productive person-years we'll gain if self driving cars are even just 10% safer than driving yourself (and by all measures I've seen, they're way safer than that)!
Edit: To understand the real impact, I've always enjoyed this hypothetical future conversation...
Future Kid: You mean to say that people used to operate machinery weighing several tons? Traveling at high speeds? With a minimum of training?
I think this is the biggest part, and less the "sleep in your car while you commute for 5 hours each way!" which sounds fucking terrible.
Imagine the amount of space and time saved by having 1 enormous lot on the outskirt of town, like an airport. You walk around your dense urban area, call your car, 10 minutes it's there, it drops you off, and parks itself. No circling the block, no terrible big box concrete hellscapes, just Park Slope without the frustration.
I've heard about stories about government agencies and such second hand from family members. To me, it sounds like it breaks down to this because the projects that they are running are not subject to risk of failure. There isn't a small company that is going to absolutely die if a deliverable doesn't meet the market's demands at a certain point in time. Just don't stop throwing money and resources at the project until it is done no matter what.
Government projects are about as efficient as similarly-sized projects in the private sector. You just never hear about private company’s failures because the public has less of a stake in it. Journalists focus on people wasting your money.
The laws requiring publication of bidding documents and damning reports on cost overruns are also mostly specific to public projects. Who knows how much money Apple invested in self-driving technology? Try sending a Freedom of Information Act request to Uber inquiring on their self-driving car efforts.
It is a little more complex. The small company realizing money will run out will start to look at options. The obvious option is cut back requirements/scope until they can get something - anything - on the market to bring in money. If they can slow the rate of losses they might be able to finish eventually. The other option is to show their investors current progress and ask for more money - this is a hard sell but it sometimes works.
In government the first is not allowed - the contract is specified. However you can ask for more and if you have made progress they will sometimes grant you "that little bit more" - remember ultimately they want what you are under contract to make and if you fail they have to start over again with someone else.
As somebody else has remarked, your perception is somewhat skewed by survivorship bias: yes, it seems that these cost overruns are due to a lack of “risk of failure”, but one should really compare it to the overall manner by which capital is allocated and products delivered to market, meaning that one should not be blind to all the startups that get funded and fail to deliver. I'm not saying the two systems are equivalent, but this is the information you must keep in mind to compare them fairly.
They don't have to relay purely on one solution. It would make sense to host certain parts of their infrastructure on GCP if enough of their customers are also located on GCP.
Mess with stuff in your free time. Most of the time people won't want to hire you to lead implementation/designing things unless you have experience doing it which can be a pretty nasty catch-22. Having some side projects side steps that and puts you ahead of a lot of your peers.
Also have a clear sense of direction of where you want to be going and what you want to be doing. Without that management and mentors won't know how to push you along and might come to expect you to remain in the same position for longer than you expect to.
I'm not actually really suited for programming but I love tech and problem solving, like I do write stuff in my free time, I just take forever to get anything done. I've taken up going to as many hackathons as I can, I've attended 2 this semester and know of at least 2 more I'm going to be at. However when I'm at these things I rarely find myself writing any actual code and more of just making sure everyone is on task and finding resources for everyone to leverage. I find myself acting as a project manager most of the time. I don't know how that's going to look to an employer, but the teams I'm on build stuff that apparently the judges like.
Idk if these events count towards experience, but I feel like I'm getting better and better at getting people to the end goal.
Those are really valuable skills too. There is a slant for engineering here since the site is for, by, of engineers. I recently joined a new team and we have a totally kick-ass technical product manager we work with pretty heavily. He is an absolute boon to the team when it comes to interfacing with different parts of management and being able to walk to the talk of the specifics of certain technologies.
For your last point, I'd be cognizant of being able to measure your value objectively somehow. It can be easy to get left behind if the value you provided didn't get tracked because people were only paying attention to lines of code.
