That is not how Gotham works. The data you're talking about is most definitely not "just there" for anyone to have. The data is provided by the military and IC, Gotham is the data viz layer to make sense of it all. It does nothing on its own.
Why so quick to moralize? What makes you think your perspective on world population is justified and his isn't?
This could have been an opportunity for both of you to understand each other's perspective. That's why you asked their thoughts on the matter right? It's a shame you let that pass you by.
I asked his thoughts on the matter because I assumed he didn't want to see Japan end since he had a connection to it. But, he didn't give a fuck if they ended, nor Korea.
And if you think they'y aren't ending, you need to go look at the numbers and then look at the double speak on solutions. There are no known solutions. Every solution requires a miracle that has never happened.
Thank you for explaining. Could be he's a misanthrope, through life experiences or such.
I share the same sentiments as you, it'd be a tragic loss. But saying they'd "end" is well, unlikely. The countries will shrink. Japan population could reach 60M by 2100 if nothing is done. That's still a lot of people and by then other factors will dominate and fertility may rise again.
Humans are adaptive and a lot can change in half a century, so I would not overly index on what projections say. Everything would need to stay static for the projections to matter, which given the rate of technological changes and geopolitical tension, sounds likely.
What if I say I AM a Chinese netizen, right here in China Mainland talking to you?
What if I say no application on my phone ever turn my camera on without my prior approval? What if I confidently say the data privacy situation in China is not in any way worse than USA?
You say I'm censored by gov. Yeah, and so do YOU. We are quite the same, so don't laugh at each other.
If you ever allowed the app access to your camera then next time it will be able to access your camera.
No one is suggesting the app need have circumvented standard android permissions. I'm saying it is not surprising the app would try to open the camera on violation of rules.
You might be surprised to know that I do not disagree with what you said. When it comes to data privacy your information is safe from other private companies but not the government.
> You say I'm censored by gov.
When it comes to political inquiry? Without question this is more sensitive in China. My point is that in China apps are coerced to reveal information about their users to a degree where actively trying to take a picture would not be surprising, or much of an escalation. Not that it would be needed anyways since Internet usage is tied to ID.
The thing being automated in this case is human intelligence. If you've been paying attention more and more of economical knowledge work is threatened by advancement of AI capabilities. This is a credible threat. Deny this and you are the one in denial with reality.
Fundamentally unhinged? How presumptive of you to declare with confidence AI will never become more capable than humans.
But I suppose it's fitting. If after all that has happened your priors still have not budged then I'm sorry to say you will probably never understand this.
> I should be extremely skeptical about excitable tech guys predicting big things in short time frames.
Edit: I read your other comment. I don't disagree with you here.
In the same way operating systems are used on occasion to kill people. My point stands, you don't understand what palantir does. Palantir (Gotham) is a glorified data analytics platform. Gotham does nothing without the privileged data feeds that the IC provides. All Gotham does is process the collected data provided by the military and IC. Palantir is only a data vis platform. What part about this don't you get?
You are tilting at windmills and directing your criticisms at the wrong level. If you want change, change the laws and institutions that allow for this sort of data collection in the first place (of which palantir and orgs like it are not involved with).
Those intermediate layers are usually part of the artifact. Try exporting an image with docker save and investigate what’s inside. This is all documented in a mostly comprehensible manner in the OCI specs.
I’m afraid you’re missing my point, though. A high quality build system takes fixed inputs and produces outputs that are, to the extent possible, only a function of the inputs. If there’s a separate process that downloads the inputs (and preferably makes sure they are bitwise identical to what is expected), fine, but that step should be strictly outside the inputs to the actual thing that produces the release artifact. Think of it as:
(And now, unless you accidentally hash your credentials into the expected hash, you can’t leak credentials into the output!)
Once you have commingled it so that it looks like:
final output, intermediate layers = monolithic_mess(credentials, cache, etc)
Then you completely lose track of which parts are deterministic, what lives in the intermediate layers, where the credentials go, etc.
Docker build is not a good build system, and it strongly encourages users to do this the wrong way, and there are many, many things wrong with it, and only one of those things is that the intermediate layers that you might think of as a cache are also exposed as part of the output.
It was confusing of you to say build artifact to refer to the container itself in this context. Sure you're not wrong because the container is also a build artifact, but in context of CI, build artifacts is the output of running the build using the container.
Hence my confusion of what you meant -- no one's saying ssh keys are in the CI build artifacts. But obviously they can be in the container as layers if people do it wrong, which is bad.
We're talking about the same thing basically. Yes fully defining your inputs to the container by passing in the keys is a good solution.
I think there's a lot of confusing terminology in your comment.
> the container is also a build artifact
By "build artifact" I mean the data that is the output of the build and get distributed to other machines (or run locally perhaps). So a build artifact can be a tarball, an OCI image [0], etc. But calling a container a build artifact is really quite strange. A "container" is generally taken to mean the thing you might see in the output of 'docker container ls' or similar -- they're a whole pile of state including a filesystem, a bunch of volume mounts, and some running processes if they're not stopped. You don't distribute containers to other machines [1].
> in context of CI, the output of running the build using the container
I have no idea what you mean. What container? CI doesn't necessarily involve containers at all.
> no one's saying ssh keys are in the CI build artifacts. But obviously they can be in the container as layers if people do it wrong, which is bad.
If the build artifact is an image, and the keys are in the image, then the keys are in the build artifact.
> Yes fully defining your inputs to the container by passing in the keys is a good solution.
Are you suggesting doing a build by an incantation like:
$ docker run --rm -v /input:[sources] -v "/keys:($HOME)/.ssh" my_builder:latest /input/build_my_thing
This is IMO a terrible idea. A good build system DOES NOT PROVIDE KEYS TO THE BUILD PROCESS.
Yes, I realize that almost everyone fudges this because we have lots of tools that make it easy. Even really modern stuff like uv does this.
$ uv build
whoops, that uses optional credentials, fetches (hopefully locked-by-hash) dependencies, and builds. It's convenient for development. But for a production build, this would be much better if it was cleanly split into a fetch-the-dependencies step and a build step and the build step ran without network access or any sort of credentials.
Container is standard terminology to refer to a running instance of an image. Yes I was being imprecise, substitute container for oci image. But you seem hung up on frivolity and not getting what I'm saying. We are agreeing with each other and just talking in circles. I can see that you don't see that but that's ok. All of this was because I misunderstood what you said initially when you referred to build artifact as the oci image when I thought you were talking about other sorts of build artifacts.
I mean using the CI system to pass in keys or creds. Yes, it's better to build the image with dependencies, but sometimes you can't do that.
People get into accidents not because they don't know with great accuracy how far away an object is.
They get into accidents because they make bad decisions and get distracted.
If AI makes better decisions and don't get distracted, the amount of accidents will already be greatly reduced compared to humans.
Having lidar in addition to cameras will be of marginal benefit (but a benefit to be sure) when you realize what is actually important: proper modeling of the environment. And for this, cameras are better at providing than lidar, so you still will want cameras anyways.
The focus on lidar is really a red herring. You merely push the computational budget you have to understanding a point cloud instead of vision. You're back to square 1 of "how can I properly model the environment given this sensory modality". This is the part that essentially needs human level understanding of the world that you're missing.
As the other commenter says, you deeply misunderstand the problem.
I would bet a large portion of fatalities is from distracted/bad driving, not that human sight was insufficient.
Phrased a different way, I would expect lidar to help marginally, but it is safer driving in general that will bring down fatalities. This could be done with cameras.
Again, palantir isn't what you think it is.
reply