IIIIIIIIIIII's comments

If you see humanity as a brain and a human like a neuron, the network produces outcomes unimaginable from looking at the individual. Which is easy if you look at an individual stone-age human, and even they are actually more advanced thanks to culture and groups (tribes) than an individual human would be (which would be more akin to a "Mowgli", grown up without learning from and support of the group).

So it's no surprise who you know is important - the brain is mostly about connectivity, not about the individual neuron.

Just a model for thought, obviously not a complete description ("every model is wrong"). I think the value of this model, if you can warm up to it, is that you stop worrying that "it's all about the connections" - because it really is and it's useful that way because that's a major point of how a network works. So do work on your connectivity! And also just like in the brain, a few high-quality connections are worth much more than a thousand low-quality ones.

You assume ads will be recognizable as such, but even today we have ads that few people recognize. From waves of reddit /r/funny posts about certain sitcoms or sugary beverages to product placements in articles, shows, films to magazine and news articles, not always recognizable as ads because often they are not actually ads but actual articles that only happen to mention some products. Very nice for publishers who get whole articles that they don't have to do much to produce.

So even today even 100% human "ad blockers" are unable to block a lot of ads because they are unaware they are looking at one.

Your question has been answered already, I'd just like to point out there is a second "advanced" mode in uBlock Origin: Basically, you disable loading of everything by default and a click on the icon shows you what servers the page tried to load stuff from. Then you can enable them on a case by case basis, temporarily or add your selection as a new permanent rule.

This is independent of and in addition to the lists, they are always used. It gives you much greater control. What I do is first load the page with everything disabled, then I enable piece by piece until I get enough of the page working. Most of the time it's obvious, for example when there is a big white space on the page where you expect a video to be and you see that youtube.com was blocked you know they tried to show an embedded Youtube video. If you want to see it you enable that domain and the page refreshes. Etc.

I used the default mode of just the lists for most of my life, but now I can't imagine my life without the advanced mode. (As a Chrome user) I don't miss NoScript any more (yes I know that does even more).

This is not the end of the arms race.

At some point we will have AI designing and AI delivering ads, and while we may have AI designed to prevent us from having to watch ads we don't want we will also have AI that watches everything, gathering and filtering information that is too much for us to handle but tuned to our needs since it's "our AI". Then the race will be that one AI wants to trick the consumer AI into giving their information more weight and attention.

So instead of the race humans against humans we'll have a race humans => AI ("sellers" of anything, from goods to news) => AI (consumers) => human (us).

It's going to be a lot more complex: Right now all that people on both sides have to know is human psychology. In that future they'll have to understand the potentially far more varied world of possible AIs - and if that isn't enough the complex interactions between them and also between the AIs and the humans.

Are we creating the diversity and complexity that we remove from the biosphere (the ongoing mass extinction and/or reduction of many species) anew but in a completely different space? In addition to technical systems we are also getting much better (and better faster!) in controlling biological systems, creating our own ideas. At least some programmers of the future will write their code in DNA - or possibly even something more complex, something that can encode completely new proteins that the current code can't represent. And then there's combining biology and technology... an explosion of complexity and diversity?

I studied CS more than two decades ago. I kept up to date and continue to do the odd course in my field, but what I consider an amazing experience (for an IT guy) was when I spent the last few years taking hundreds of hours of courses in biology and medicine. Looking for new ideas? Take an introduction to biology and genetics course instead of learning an only very mildly different programming language, for example (free): https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-biology-secret-life-...

Could be true... it made me click, and I only click on every 15th headline or even less.

So, I'm not allowed to say that your complaint has already been addressed by the very architecture of this site and that ironically you waste your and everybody else's time much more so than what you complain about?

Are... are you alright, sir?

> I didn't intend on reversing a question.

I didn't talk about "intent" but about what you did.

> Nope.

Ahh, somebody likes selective quoting. Care to read the entire section next time?

> If you knew me, you might reconsider that evaluation.

I know what you wrote and that's what I responded to. I don't care what you do with the rest of your life, I don't see it so there is nothing to comment. I commented on the visible part.

As I said: just don't vote, period. You are not the only reader. The problem of what rises to the front has been solved - by voting. You add noting but completely useless noise, making your complaint quite ironic.

What does that have to do with the topic??? Do you think newspapers should report illnesses of old people? What a risible response!

Newspapers - major newspapers, not yellow press - in Germany reported that the British queen had a cold. And you complain about an actual IT subject making it to the frontpage? Democratically (s)elected by the visitors of this site no less.

You reverse the questions. Why? The man didn't do anything, he just sat there. Those who did do something where those who injured him.

Who was bleeding, the police, a United airlines person - or the passenger?

But it is interesting that you still try to reframe the problem, anything to twist the issue. Do you work for United? I'm not accusing you, just asking, there certainly are more than enough people who are even more obedient to authority than at any time in the Kaiserreich (19th century Germany) whose only way to read any such story is "how can I possibly read this situation so that the big guys are right". Your idea of law and order seems to be top => down, and one-way only, the top guys command, the bottom guys obey - immediately, no questions (again: the passenger did not do anything, reacting to aggression is not aggression!).

The article that I just read following the submitted link was from the perspective of neither, but of someone looking at the hiring process as an observer. The anecdotes are anecdotes and they don't matter except to lighten up a newspaper article for the masses, so we can ignore them - I'm talking about what was actually studied.

It's not an either or - the second (money) merely is a lot easier if the first exists. I've seen startups soon dominated by thoughts of the private jet for the executives and all thoughts dominated by money, wealth and power. Guess what suffered: Actually developing the f...ing product. Lots of internal power struggles, because fast growth leads to a lot of fancy new job titles and offices.

If money is the #1 motivating factor you'll create the company mirroring your goals. Doesn't mean you won't be successful - one of the companies I didn't mention was eventually sold for hundreds of millions (but that was down from billions of projected value earlier after they screwed up due to what I mentioned) - but you can increase your chances of success if your actual product is actually important to you, and if it solves an actual problem.

There was a discussion in another thread (forgot where I saw it) where this exact same topic and video was discussed, and the summary is they seem to have completely messed up their SWIR setup. Well, it's pretty apparent, that technology cannot be as bad as what they show (showing nothing at all) or it would not exist.

Here is SWIR used to see through smoke:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUUIgBut8RU

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keRxJg-gjLE

- LWIR, MWIR, SWIR (long/medium/short wavelength infrared): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pfzO26a21c and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV4hNzDJbF0

- Overview SWIR cameras and applications: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi0x7D5u7Dk

Use cases for such cameras go way beyond night vision, see @5:13 in the last video for a list.

The problem probably isn't the situation 364.8 days per year, but what happens that one time every few years when weather (typhoons) and maybe even the tides align to create conditions much worse than average for just a few hours. See New Orleans... the worst part is that because it's so rare most people (and media) will rant against the "waste of taxpayer money". You have to build very expensive infrastructure that's almost never needed, that goes against human nature it seems to me.

> allows a bank to lend out N times more than what it has in saving deposit.

That is not quite how it works according to the Bank of England:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...

A few summary excerpts

> Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’ central bank money to create new loans and deposits.

> The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:

> • Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.

> • In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money ‘multiplied up’ into more loans and deposits.

> In fact, when households choose to save more money in bank accounts, those deposits come simply at the expense of deposits that would have otherwise gone to companies in payment for goods and services. Saving does not by itself increase the deposits or ‘funds available’ for banks to lend. Indeed, viewing banks simply as intermediaries ignores the fact that, in reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are the creators of deposit money

> Another common misconception is that the central bank determines the quantity of loans and deposits in the economy by controlling the quantity of central bank money — the so-called ‘money multiplier’ approach.

> ...

> While the money multiplier theory can be a useful way of introducing money and banking in economic textbooks, it is not an accurate description of how money is created in reality

> In reality, neither are reserves a binding constraint on lending, nor does the central bank fix the amount of reserves that are available.

I'm just curious since I never used this feature, are you talking about this issue?

> The "Unicode Problem"

> Since DOMStrings are 16-bit-encoded strings, in most browsers calling window.btoa on a Unicode string will cause a Character Out Of Range exception if a character exceeds the range of a 8-bit ASCII-encoded character. There are two possible methods to solve this problem:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/WindowBase64/B...

Uhm... I described an "either...or". So, which one? or do you mean one in which inequality already is a problem? Naturally. The question is if robots change it towards more inequality or less.

> They have more in common with software developers than with welfare or disability recipients.

That was the point of the argument: Will people be the winners and robots the "slaves", or will there be only a few capital owners owning (the fruits of the labors of) not a handful of slaves each, but millions of those modern "slaves" and most people none?