The Apple faithful are going to wake up tomorrow and realize THIS is what they used to make fun of Google and Microsoft for.
It's a pair of REALLY expensive snow goggles. Worse it's goggles with a tiny battery life, a bizarre generated face, it looks goofy and the first time that cable snags on anything...
Imagine Steve Jobs on stage and he says "One more thing..." and puts that on his face, That would NEVER happen.
This is cool in the same way the Newton was!
(edited for typo)
I think Arthur C Clarke has a pithy quote that challenges your argument from authority. "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
To be clear, it's not me who's bringing up the authority of anyone, it's the article's author who does: he's the one calling people "giants of AI".
Which he clearly does to give his own article authority, that it wouldn't have otherwise. He wouldn't write a whole Substack piece to criticise something some random, anonymous user of FB, HN or Twitter wrote. He has to comment on the "giants of AI", otherwise his piece is basically irrelevant, just another voice adding more noise on top of the constant cacophony of opinions on the net.
The same way, when Geoff Hinton resigned from Google, a whole bunch of articles in the lay press (The Guardian, NYT, others I don't remember but scanned briefly) introduced him as "The Godfather of AI". A clear ploy to make the article interesting to people who have no idea who Geoff Hinton is, or what he's done for "AI" to be called its "godfather" *.
It would be much more straightforward for the article author to criticise the opinions he disagrees with by saying something like "Yann LeCun says so and so. I disagree because this and that". No need to say anyone is a giant of anything, to make a big, splashy impression to your reader. If your opinion has weight, it can make a splash all by itself. If it doesn't, tying it up to a "giant" will only make it sink faster.
HN has a similar guideline, in fact:
>> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Basically, an appeal to authority is really the flip side of an ad-hominem: it tries to shift attention to the person, and away from what they said.
__________________
* It's because he, Bengio and LeCun are the Deep Learning Mafia.
I don’t understand why that means he’s necessarily a white supremacist. For one, chances are he wasn’t all that smart. For two - it could just be that he was an anti-Semite, and so he latched on to Nazi iconography.
He's not talking about the right of the "infringed" collective to self-defense. He's saying, I think, that when you as a 3rd party enter the conflict you are adding flame to the fire.
edit: noting that I'm not trying to be pro/con a third party entering the conflict. I'm just trying to be guiltless action.
Isn't it, really, a counter to Woodrow Wilson's, then, new idea of the Constitution being a "living" document?
And it's funny you bring up Thomas Jefferson, who wrote it as a static document with a mechanism to change it (Amendments). Add to that the fact that he said it should be scrapped every generation so it would better reflect the current times. Neither of these approaches argue for it being a "dynamic living document".
Your vendor didn't provide you with free updates to match changes in the larger OS ecosystem. Then you get mad at the larger OS for not supporting the niche software of your vendor.
BTW neither the vendor nor the OS maker is the problem. You are. Your entitlement that the world should grind to a halt to wait for you is.
It doesn't really matter, we have multiple incidents of FSD causing accidents due to outright mistakes, not even "a human would have messed up here too" situations.
Sure, but say I consider myself a diligent driver and I've never caused an accident... what does FSD have to offer me? Yet another random opportunity for a car to fail me. Why would I surrender control for that?
So, if Gnome DE has a zero-day exploit Ubuntu should immediately pull the Gnome Desktop until the upstream patches it? Otherwise, it's not about ethics just time.
This isn't a binary answer, no matter how much you try to cast it as one.
Software exploits are found regularly. But this is different, with the fact that Ubuntu is peddling knowingly vulnerable software, and then with the implicit threat of "Sure'd be ashame if you were hacked by our software we know is vulnerable... cause you didn't pay us for the fix".
I don't know the "best" course of action that applies everywhere. In some applications, you take the chance until the fix is out. Others, you take it down. And in others, you throw on extra detections and remediations to impede the attack. But you know this - you just wanted to get your one-liner quip in.
Ubuntu put crap in the MOTD. They could have just as easily made a RSS feed, and attach it to the security patches, and alert users of impending "bad stuff down the pipeline". But instead, they just SNAPify and shove more garbageware and terrible decisions down the pipeline. Basically, Ubuntu is the next case of Cory Doctorow's "enshittification" of software and goods.
The you of today still knows what you from a decade ago knew. But now, you know what life does to people. That alone makes you MORE then you were, not less.
It's a pair of REALLY expensive snow goggles. Worse it's goggles with a tiny battery life, a bizarre generated face, it looks goofy and the first time that cable snags on anything...
Imagine Steve Jobs on stage and he says "One more thing..." and puts that on his face, That would NEVER happen.
This is cool in the same way the Newton was! (edited for typo)