That's cost, not practicality. Like it or not, the EV isn't as flexible when it comes to ownership, because you need a place to charge it. A product that is less practical has to be cheaper to compete in the market.
>>A product that is less practical has to be cheaper to compete in the market.
Unless the downside doesn't matter to you, then obviously it doesn't. Our e-Up was more expensive than a regular petrol Up, but it was absolutely worth paying the extra for the convenience of being able to charge it at home - it's like having your own personal petrol station in your own driveway.
For someone else, that might have been an inconvenience and the car would have to be much cheaper to offset the hassle - for us it was worth the premium. So it's not so clear cut as you present it.
As long as users are better than 50% accurate, it shouldn't matter if they're experts or not. That being said, it's difficult to measure user accuracy in this case without running into circular reasoning.
My experience is that you get out what you put in. If you have a well-defined foundation, AI can populate the stubs and get it 95% correct. Getting to that point can take a bit of thought, and AI can help with that, too, but if you lean on it too much, you'll get a mess.
And of course, getting to the point where you can write a good foundation has always been the bulk of the work. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. I'd argue it's more the result of the CCP bankrolling the Chinese electronics industry to the point where roughly 70% of all electronics goods are produced in China. The concentration of expertise and supply chains is staggering, and, imo, was really born out of geopolitical strategy.
No, its not. Transistors used to cost $1. Now they cost $1/billion or something. It's all because the 10s of billions of fixed cost incurred by fab is shared among customers. If we create less chips, the fixed cost wont reduce.
> of the CCP bankrolling the Chinese electronics industry to the point where roughly 70% of all electronics goods are produced in China.
But we don't see this bankrolling in absolute values. Rather, it's due to regressive taxation, low (cheap) social security for workers, and very weak intellectual property protection.
This. Governments are signatory to a huge number of agreements, and are members of various NGOs. Things start out as being representative of some will of the people, but over time it becomes a millstone around the government's neck if it the arrangement becomes politically difficult at home. And of course, those arrangements often morph to be to the benefit of those in charge.
What happens is that you get arrangements like the EU demanding migration quotas that the populations of various individual countries despise, or an automobile market that gets progressively more expensive as environmental legislation puts ever more pressure on manufacturers. And of course, if you're saving the world, who needs cars anyway? We should all be living Hong Kong style to save the environment, so we need more urban density.
It boggles my mind that you think this stuff is being pushed by the right. Expansion of government and surveillance is a hallmark of the left, and indeed this latest wave of surveillance is being pushed by progressive governments in Western Europe and Australia.
Governments of both flavours are ignoring the voting public, for various reasons, e.g. they are signatory to agreements that no longer work for the public but are difficult to break, the public is increasingly economically irrelevant compared to businesses, and, of course, the greedy self-interest of the politicians themselves.
I agree with you on the third paragraph, but it's also the reason that I believe the US will be okay compared to other Western democracies (an opinion I'm not sure you would share, judging by your post). The Constitution is already a thing, and is on its own a declaration that certain rights derive from a higher authority than government. The second amendment in particular is under siege (again, by the left), but does equalize things in a way that many of its opponents are reluctant to admit.
The constitution is being summarily ignored by the current administration. There is a right to trial in there that we've just totally blown past, and the deep integration between party insiders and media consolidation is a sideways assault on the first amendment.
The idea that "they're coming for your guns" is something we can begin to discuss when the first step to curb our mass shooting problem is actually taken. For now, it's a little ridiculous to infer that there's any kind of 'siege' on the second amendment given that we have them all the damn time and they're not slowing down.
I would ask folks in the EU whether they think they're leaning left at the moment. Reading their news it doesn't seem to be the case [0 1 2 3].
Just out of curiosity - in what concrete way do you think the second amendment serves as an equalizer? Do you imagine that the government sees an armed populace as any kind of a threat?
Leaving the left-right debate behind for just a second - I smell that there is something perhaps we may agree on. Representation is fundamentally broken. Even given our ideological differences, how do you feel about direct democracy? I think we'd benefit.
>The constitution is being summarily ignored by the current administration. There is a right to trial in there that we've just totally blown past, and the deep integration between party insiders and media consolidation is a sideways assault on the first amendment.
To what extent does the US have the right to maintain its borders? The idea that anyone should be able to enter the country illegally and be given the right to due process presupposes that the state has the resources to deal with the volume of people who decide to do that. And in most of the world, it would be uncontroversial to suggest that people entering a country illegally have -- effectively, if not necessarily legally -- zero recourse should the state decide to remove them.
>The idea that "they're coming for your guns" is something we can begin to discuss when the first step to curb our mass shooting problem is actually taken. For now, it's a little ridiculous to infer that there's any kind of 'siege' on the second amendment given that we have them all the damn time and they're not slowing down.
There is a sustained anti-gun lobby, and California has taken significant steps to restrict gun ownership. The US is too far gone for any one government to be able to swoop in and completely remove all guns, so the goal is long-term. Sway people's opinions, change the culture, and implement controls that skirt the edge of violating the second amendment, or set a precedent for limits on the second amendment. I don't live in the US, but even what I see as an outsider looking in makes it clear that this is happening.
Governments as an organization are perfectly capable of putting down an armed population, but individual members of a government certainly do see an armed population as a threat. I know for a fact that senior members of the (large, US) company that I work for take security very seriously. And though I don't support or condone shooting government officials and CEOs in any way, shape or form, I do believe that all peaceful negotiations, whether they be between employees and employer, or citizens and government, are purchased through a credible threat of violence. Otherwise, there are no negotiations, just suggestions. We're the lucky ones who got to live through a time when those fights have already been had, but there's nothing to say they won't need to happen again.
>I would ask folks in the EU whether they think they're leaning left at the moment. Reading their news it doesn't seem to be the case [0 1 2 3].
Incumbent governments in western Europe are mostly left wing, especially by US standards. The population is pushing right as a response to those governments refusing to address valid concerns of the voting public. This is why right wing "populist" parties are on the rise, but they aren't in power yet. The push for surveillance has been bipartisan at best, and more realistically driven by the political left under the guise of limiting hate speech.
>Leaving the left-right debate behind for just a second - I smell that there is something perhaps we may agree on. Representation is fundamentally broken. Even given our ideological differences, how do you feel about direct democracy? I think we'd benefit.
I agree that representation is fundamentally broken across much of the west, but I believe that the cause is ultimately a crisis of sovereignty.
As an example: it's no secret that there's a major backlash against migration in many western countries, but with the volume of people coming across, what do you do? You can't shoot them, and if you spend resources shipping them home, a non-trivial (and generally privileged and insulated) chunk of your population wants to save the world and will protest. And the business lobby is all over it because they like the idea of lower wages, so you've also got an army of neoliberal economists and lawyers telling you why you should just let all these people stay. Then you've got all the NGOs that your country is signatory to that want you to invest resources in helping illegal migrants, and in the case of Europe, the EU might try to directly tell your government it needs to do its fair share of taking those people anyway. And even if an individual member of government privately thinks there's an issue with an unpoliced border, the party number-crunchers are telling them that these people vote for the party, so letting them stay and giving them a path to voting actually helps the bottom line. And of course, you've also got a few investment properties...
The end result of all of this is that governments change, but the course stays the same, because in the absence of a government that is willing to risk never being in power again no one is willing to do anything. At worst, you get voted out, the next group does the same thing until people are angry again, and then you get voted back in.
Which of course brings us to Trump. A lot of what Trump is doing, at least to me, is reasserting US sovereignty. He's forcing US companies to heel through the H1B visa change and tarriffs, rattling treaties to get allies to absorb some of the expenditure of maintaining security, and enforcing the nation's border. These aren't historically radical concepts. If the US is going to be a country where the government has an opinion and can advocate for itself as an entity, this probably needs to happen, because no one wants to fight for a shared economic zone. And eventually, if a government can't enforce its borders and exercise its monopoly on violence, another entity will fill that void.
I guess this is a long way of saying that I have no issue with direct democracy, but I don't know that it's the answer, because I don't think it addresses the real problem. Maybe it circumvents some of these issues, but how does a direct democracy raise and maintain an army? Or pass a budget?
> The idea that anyone should be able to enter the country illegally and be given the right to due process presupposes that the state has the resources to deal with the volume of people who decide to do that.
No. It presupposes that every human being deserves to be treated with dignity no matter the circumstances. But I don't expect you to agree with me. Your interpretation of contemporary life in the USA is clearly distorted, but again, I don't expect you to agree. You're being lied to, fwiw.
> what do you do? You can't shoot them
There's no reason for me to engage with you further if this is how you think.
What's the difference between autogenerated C code and compiling to assembly or machine code? Seems academic to me.
The main flaw of autocode is that a human can't easily read and validate it, so you can't really use it as source code. In my experience, this is one of the biggest flaws of these types of systems. You have to version control the file for whatever proprietary graphical programming software generated the code in the first place, and as much as we like to complain about git, it looks like a miracle by comparison.
> What's the difference between autogenerated C code and compiling to assembly or machine code? Seems academic to me.
It's an interesting question and point, but those are two different things and there is no reason to think you'll get the same results. Why not compile from natural language, if that theory is true?
The C specification is orders of magnitude more complex and is much less defined than assembly. Arguably, the same could be said comparing natural language with C.
I admit that's mostly philosphical. But I think saying 'C can autogenerate reliable assembly, therefore a specification can autogenerate reliable C' is also about two different problems.
It's fairly standard to prune the hell out of a model for deployment, because many of the parameters end up being close to zero. This doesn't really help with explainability of the parameters, because (imo) that's a dead end. You assume that the data is iid and a representative sample of whatever god-given function generated it, and you throw a universal approximator at it because it's impossible to come up with some a priori function that models the data in the first place.
Latent space clustering is about as good as it gets imo, and in my experience, that's fairly stable for individual implementations (but not necessarily across implementations for the same model, for various reasons), but it doesn't tell you anything about the meaning of the parameters themselves. If the model is well calibrated, you can validate its performance and it becomes explainable as a unit.
Our dog remembers the location of toys at the park over long periods of time, though being able to sniff them out probably helps. He also expresses genuine surprise and suspicion when he sees novel objects (e.g. the large Christmas tree that was put up in the park, a horse and rider), because he knows they're not usually there. He doesn't like fat people, which is embarrassing, but I also knew a dog as a teenager that freaked out anytime it saw someone who wasn't Asian. Just given the amount of back and forth communication that happens between most owners and their dogs, they're very clever. Cats are some of the best hunters in the animal kingdom, but I've never felt that they're there in the way that dogs are.
