> I wonder how labelling would work with news like saddam hussain's weapons of mass destruction - reported by cia, backed by the goverment as truth, but turns out it was all fake.
There's no need to talk technical about graph nodes and machine learning. It's very simple - the fake news labels are, and will always be biased in favor of the liberal/progressive/Democrat agenda. Objective news is a lie. No one wants to hear it. We want echo chambers that make us feel good. The labels will shift to accommodate this desire.
Indeed we'll keep seeing the mass stream media biased to omit objective news.
Otherwise you would see the US population asking themselves why on earth are their armed forces so deep involved in Syria, just short of military invasion. They get spoon-fed that the country is ruled by a dictator and their population needs to be freed, but so is Saudi Arabia with a far worse regime where people get their heads cut on monthly basis, which are praised as critical ally in the region.
"Fake news" is a way to block the things deemed as dissident from the main stream, effectively blocking the room for logical argument and exposing the facts.
I think there are many people who are interested in truth - whatever it is, without feeling the need to associate their position with any red/blue person (politician).
There was no mention of machine learning (no predictions of any kind) - the idea is to keep track of history of raw data (labelling and it's changes) and report on "reliability score ..." (how many times labelling itself was false).
The thing is it doesn't need to be biased at all. You just keep all data for all sources. There's no "objective truth" per se, there are only true/false labels according to source.
Of course you can create your own "beyond reasonable doubt by xyz" or "government xyz pov" source and assume that this is going to be your objective truth reference. But, just like any other sources, your source will just have reliability rating in context of any other source.
> Basically, I've come to the conclusion that college is not for all.
Of course college is not for all. It is not something everyone just "does" because of "jobs". High schoolers and college students feel entitled. The vast majority should not be in college nor do they need a college education. If you are an 18-20 year old and cannot see this, then you sure as hell should not be in college.
Intellectual exploration? Community college is good enough. Parents taking $40K/year loans for tuition/rent for your private or flagship state university? Majoring in humanities? Ha. Go ask those graduates if college was worth it.
Well sure, it's easy to say that in hindsight, but that's not what these students were told growing up.
A generation was told that if they got into university and did well, they'd get much better jobs and be set for life. And it's easy to understand why, because this was true for their parents' generation. Educated employees were in much shorter supply, and thus in a much better position to capture the increased wealth of a booming economy.
Is it any wonder people feel entitled when they were told constantly that they would be rewarded for what they were doing?
One problem, though, is that many students whose loans are becoming problematic were in school during the financial trouble leading up to 2008 and 2009. During that recession, people without degrees had negative growth in jobs (job loss), while college degree-holders dropped nearly to zero, but did not actually go negative. Associate degree-holders were almost half-way between other the two. Of course, it's great to tell students that they should strongly consider the trades or other paths, but the reality is that those careers are less safe in economic downturns.
> Basic income. Free tuition. An outright grant, no repayments. Literally zero barriers except ability for anyone, for any level of academic achievement in anything. Result: a culture with a lot more understanding of the real world, and the preservation of human and humane values, rather than a laser focus on the hand-to-mouth of Jobs Right Now.
Incorrect. This will foster a culture of inferiority because not everyone is equal. No matter what you do, the lower class will be jealous of the upper class and will always demand for more.
Money and education is solved? What about universal access to entertainment? Universal food? Universal housing?
By this line of argument, its not "incorrect" its just a wall to keep to separate ones of the others. Just because theres always a demand doesnt mean satisfying demands wouldnt make peope happier or better.
It depends on the quality of the water. Where I live there's too much chlorine in it (nothing harmful but I brew beer so I need good water) and a 30$ brita filter seals the deal. In places with really shitty water distillation is a good place to start.
> try to do something non-trivial and 8gb vanishes and you start swapping like crazy.
Perhaps you should stop trying to do all your intensive college assignments on a machine optimized for portability and use a proper workstation or desktop. You know, the "old" computers?
Let me go have a look at powerful up to date Mac desktops that I can purchase.
Oh.
----
Apologies for the snark. I think a lot of the backlash towards the new MBP is being caused by the uncertainty Apple has injected into its desktop line. Even if Apple wants to update their desktops, but for various reasons (e.g. Intel) cannot do so until next year, a simple statement saying that Apple will be updating the desktops soon would have quelled a lot of the concerns.
The "surprise" factor worked for Pros when Apple was updating its devices in a consistent and regular manner. Since they haven't been doing the same with their Pro Macs, they are being highly irresponsible by not giving their Pro users more insight into their future roadmaps.
> I think a lot of the backlash towards the new MBP is being caused by the uncertainty Apple has injected into its desktop line.
Agreed. The mediocre laptop offerings (nothing exists that surpasses my 2014 rMBP) and the complete jokestore that are the less-than-multiple-thousands desktop lines--which isn't to say that the Mac Pro isn't silly too, it's just so silly I can't imagine ever even considering it--mean that I'm probably moving off of OS X over the next two years.
It would be more cost-effective, at my full billable rate, to get back into the Hackintosh game and spend God-knows-how-long on that than to buy any Mac on the market right now. That's insane.
I mean as a graphics programmer I enjoy an i7, multiple graphics cards and 32 gb of ram and i still max out everything doing various tests while having an IDE open (chrome alone right now is consuming multiple gigabytes).
I'm not speaking for me, but general consumers who expect to be able to do photo editing, while browsing the web, while listening to music, and in lieu of photo editing, perhaps playing the occasional game. Not being able to service this easily with a top of the line model is frankly an embarrassment.
I finished college a long time ago and I worked for quite a few companies - not many of them with budget problems - and most of them gave employees laptops. Also I know of only a handful of people having desktops at home and the vast majority have them for gaming cause desktops can fit & power "real" graphics cards.
Laptops outsell desktops by roughly 1.5 to 1. Although sales are still in decline, around 113 million desktop PCs were sold in 2015. Most of those probably went into businesses.
Roughly 700 million desktop PCs have been sold over the past 5 years, and probably a large proportion of those are still in use.
They work faster, they are easier to repair and upgrade, they are cheaper to run, and they are far better ergonomically (1).
Companies like laptops if they can avoid giving users fixed desks. (Hotdesking more staff across fewer desks reduces costs.) If they're using laptops on fixed, personal desks then they are not very smart.
(1) Ergonomic problems with laptops can be reduced by providing risers and external keyboards, and sometimes by adding external monitors. These are extra costs.
So you would rather us directly fund oppressionist governments around the world, just so you can feel better for the 50 people living in the town next door to the oil fields? Ok.
Our government already does support oppressive oil regimes (the saudis). You see those other governments as substantially worse because the only thing you read is american propaganda.
Not bad, considering they're having to pump seawater down their wells just to get any oil back up. They're running out and they'll be broke within a decade.
Oh sure, yes AI will also be baked into products sold to poor, no it won't be for their benefit but rather to control, manipulate and rip them off. Kind of like advertising and surveillance now.
I'd assume that you can count them on your fingers if the bill is only $1000/month. That's a "reasonably" small scale migration, if not locked in on AWS services.
Agreed, we have 10 instances on AWS, but it's hard to judge the complexity of the migration just based on that because these servers vary in size, requirements, and purpose.
But all in all, yes, it is a fairly small scale migration.
Generally speaking, the number of servers has very little to do with complexity of migration or existential threat from downtime, relative to company size.
I'm not sure where I'm being inconsistent. Both AWS and Google have broad spectrum of fully managed services. There are places where Google lacks and AWS doesn't, and there are places where Google is superior, or where AWS lacks.
In both cases, there are partners that enrich these ecosystems.
You asked for a gap and when one was clearly identified, you went into a weird defensive sales mode. "partner" solutions are often garbage compared to a real native solution, so AWS is much better in this regard.
There's no need to talk technical about graph nodes and machine learning. It's very simple - the fake news labels are, and will always be biased in favor of the liberal/progressive/Democrat agenda. Objective news is a lie. No one wants to hear it. We want echo chambers that make us feel good. The labels will shift to accommodate this desire.