They are using pre-fab (not sure if this article mentioned that). Makes things so much easier where buildings can be built in factories with similar standards. Lots of new builds nowadays have so many little issues due to bad quality control.
Even with prefab components this is an amazing achievement. I suspect that here in Germany we would still be waiting for the hospital to treat the Marburg virus patients to be completed.
Have we even defined 'intelligent' might mean? As in, we had the Turing test as a bar and we are close to that already. What is intelligence then, last I checked, there wasn't a definitive answer do it. We'll need it so that we can label AI as I properly - or maybe we don't care so much... If it's close enough...
Once we start seeing cheaply made, imported yes/no engines (masquerading as AI or knowledge) flooding the market, the definition of intelligence will be lost on marketing anyways (unlimited data, superfood, etc)
A predictive model, whether created by ML (regression, SVM, NN, whatever) or something rules-based born out of data analysis is reliant on quality data, which can be expensive to get. There is also a catch 22 where most of the models that are easy to make aren't practically usable because they're not needed in the first place, like a model that tells you if it's a nice day outside; most people would probably take a look at the weather and decide for themselves. On the other hand, a model predicting optimal stocks to buy or self-driving car models are worth a massive amount, but are also really hard to make. Companies will obviously try to sell bad or cheaply made models and may be successful on a small or niche level, but I think most people will recognize the utility and efficacy of a model based on the difficulty of the task it accomplishes relative to their own ability in that task, regardless of buzzwords associated with it. However, a lot of powerful modeling libraries made by really smart people are open source, so maybe what I'm saying is moot apart from sourcing the data.
As much as I hate it, I think it makes business sense for vendors to solder. You can "upgrade" by buying new. I can't imagine the business value of such a laptop - esp now that hardware improvements are slowing down (for the typical use case)
What about dead SSDs or RAM defects? You swap an entire machine just for those components? And what if that 512GB drive doesn't fulfills the requirements anymore?
A) The laws have been specifically designed to allow targeting of certain populations (the "War on Drugs" has had a hugely disproportionate impact on non-white Americans).
The list goes on and on... "Broken windows" policing results in targeting of minority communities. Blacks and Hispanics are significantly more likely to be targeted under "stop and frisk" laws, despite equal (or lower) hit rates for contraband discovery when compares to whites.
If you make a whole bunch of laws that huge swaths of the population violate, and then use them to put subgroups you don't like in prison... it's not so "valid".
I'd argue that depends on 1. laws being put I to place for strictly rational reasons, 2. arrest decisions do not depend on race and 3. punishment magnitude is equal for equal crimes.
containers are implemented via cgroups (and others) and share the kernel. I presume with a unikernel, you'll not be sharing the kernel, obviously..
So concept of a "container" is there and probably the orchestration via kubernetes is all still valid up the stack, so it makes sense to call that "containers" still.
It does to a degree but there is immense confusion on how it does. For example with OPS https://ops.city (I'm associated with the project) we deploy directly to AWS or GCloud as an ami or cloud image not orchestrating qemu on top of an existing linux image. A lot of people until they have actually tried booting one are thoroughly confused on this process.
You could play on top of google nested virt or ami's 'bare metal' but both of those would have performance taxes.
I think in the coming years we'll see the big public clouds refactor their environments to support these in a better fashion.
Programming generally provides people with a lot of power. Either in access to data or obviously code. In that, there is a lot of trust requested and given. I know lots of enterprises add a lot of "scans" and "checks" and limit things to much complaints to remove the "we trust you" from the equation, but still you can't scan for everything.
The open question is how much trust do you want to give?
Of course, 2nd, 3rd, 4th chances are awesome and all - but in reality; as a company with lots to lose.
1. reputationally
2. financially
I feel like if any one person can seriously subvert something, you've already lost. Maybe that's just my perspective from working at international enormous tech corp X, but we've already basically got that problem in the form of employees hailing from repressive states (yeah, Australia, that's you now too) where everything needs cross-signing anyway.
All in all, I'd probably be more concerned about foreign nationals open to various forms of coercion than I would felons - in the general case, anyway. Of course, there are certain environments where more assurance is needed and not employing from either category is reasonable, and the type of criminal background also matters. For instance, someone from a bad neighborhood who got swept up in gang activity like the guy in the article is probably a lot less likely to try to fuck you over than a serious convicted blackhat/fraudster.
It's also possible to, as in the article, explicitly limit their roles to those that don't touch customer data or sensitive product code, where it'd be significantly more sufficient to parlay access into a quick payout. One ironic thing is that's frequently the exact opposite of how it works in practice: think of all the crooked telco CS reps who've been doing SIM swaps recently. Those roles aren't exactly exclusive positions, and I'd argue they're a good example of why paying people crap combined with poor vetting and lots of access is a bad idea.
I definitely agree with you in spirit, but I feel like in most organizations, there's still lots of easy potential for one person to seriously subvert things.
I think a baseline level of trust is an absolute requirement, regardless of how well implemented your organizational access security is.
I would say that any company source code, by definition, is a company secret, and there will always exist an easy means for an employee to leak or compromise that secret.
>I feel like if any one person can seriously subvert something, you've already lost.
This is technically correct, but most companies (at least in the US) take the easy way out, just like they do for hiring. No college degree means no job offer.
A well functioning IT organization will not be vulnerable to a single malicious person, but having been in the industry for almost 30 years at this point, the number of corporations functioning to that level in IT is small.
The fact that most organizations are more concerned about lowering costs and increasing profits instead of quality means that managers take the easy way out... it's cheaper to just not hire anyone they deem a risk and not worry about improving IT's functioning because they don't see any downside to that in the time frame that concerns them.
Intelligence organizations and other institutions handling very sensitive data likely have way better information discipline than almost any org, but even there singular individuals leak and cause outsized embarrassment.
Interesting point about foreign nationals! Indeed, this seems like a major point often overlooked, despite the recent growing evidence of state-sponsored and state-directed hacking
But this is precisely why Tech is the perfect place for people like this: we already don't trust anyone!
Consider Netflix's ChaosMonkey (or whatever their new simian name they have now). It messes with your IT infrastructure automatically to ensure that your software/system can handle these regular problems. Developers have to consider that hey, these things are going to happen all the time (rather than relying on luck that it doesn't happen) and they build super resilient systems. You ever even heard of a Netflix outage?
Now ask yourself this: How would you build your security infrastructure/system given the knowledge that literal convicted criminals would have access to some parts of the system? You'd become very inventive, creative, and build the world's best system. AAA (authentication, authorization, accounting) security? You'd find some new A's to add just to be sure.
If your system can't handle convicted criminals access it, how will it handle the ones who didn't get caught but now work for you?
true, if tech is the only goal. but I would choose to be lower tech in this case. But perhaps my choices would affect those who might come after me... (That too is both ways though).
Some might bring up all the medical advances that came out of the tortures and "studies" from Japan and Nazi Germany. Certainly many advances were made... My friend once told me that there are certain medical "study" records available that US researchers reference from WW2 in Japanese records.
The tech won't exist In a vacuum though. Suppose this eventually gives the Chinese an edge in precision medicine, your hands might be clean as far as the messy work but unless you ban citizens from visiting how are you going to regulate the health products that will emerge eventually? We can bury our heads in the sand but eventually the rising tide will get our socks wet unless we have the foresight to prepare a little.
HN is a community. Users needn't use their real name, but do need some identity for others to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Look again lots of people here are saying that the research can continue but must be held to not only ethical but engineering standards of the highest order. If youre willing to compromise on those to achieve strategic goals between nation states, than thats a political or moral distinction and ill let it weigh on your conscience if you create a generation of infertile children 80 years from now.
considering that this is organized, I would think you'd get the best of both.
Where kids will learn about rsi and how to mitigate, also how to keep their body in peak condition, etc. Much better than just gaming at home without guidance.
