|
The impending doom of nest, combined with google buying and bricking revolv makes me super excited for the specific dystopian future where your whole home is Connected, but the rapid obsolescence, industry cannibalism, and every other thing means you've got 14 legacy smartphones lying around, each running a different custom firmware to make it cooperate with your IntelliWash SmartShower System, which is itself being spoofed by an Arch box in your closet running a homebrew server since the IntelliWash servers went dark three years ago. It's even better than the future where your IntelliWash SmartShower System is hacked, and blasts you with freezing cold water before taking a picture and putting it on your facebook.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
fart blood posted:So, a question about Dropbox, since thats one of the companies people are worried about : Dropbox is not in imminent danger or anything like that. It just won't be IPOing for anywhere near its last private valuation any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Wired Magazine is This is a book one of its co-founders wrote, which I stumbled upon at the local laundromat:  I guess this book did not want to stay in somebody's bookshelf. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This is a book one of its co-founders wrote, which I stumbled upon at the local laundromat: The purest Commodity Fetishism
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
fart blood posted:So, a question about Dropbox, since thats one of the companies people are worried about : Copy went under recently and they're giving everyone a few months to remove content, but remember that megaupload got shuttered and anyone's data on their servers was gone forever. So yeah, don't trust cloud sites for permanent backup. They're convenient, so feel free to use them, but also try to have things stored locally somewhere. Just buy a cheap usb hd or a backup tape system or something and put all your pictures on it. HDs are not permanent either but the likelihood of both vanishing without warning is slim
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
e_angst posted:This got went over in detail in the Silicon Valley thread, but the people dying in accidents each year occurs because there is an insane amount of driving that is going on. Human failure rate (number of accidents per mile driven) is actually really low, something like 1.3 fatal accidents per 100 million miles. All accidents of any type are 185 per 100 million miles driven (1.85 per million). Google's self-driving cars have barely driven over a million miles are have been in several accidents. You can't compare "fatalities" on one side and "all collisions" on the other. Not all human failure leads to a fatality (or even a reported crash). "Fault" doesn't factor into the human statistics because for purposes of what they're measuring it doesn't matter. If they we're trying to compare to non-human drivers, they'd need to track that. corn in the bible posted:Copy went under recently and they're giving everyone a few months to remove content, but remember that megaupload got shuttered and anyone's data on their servers was gone forever. So yeah, don't trust cloud sites for permanent backup. They're convenient, so feel free to use them, but also try to have things stored locally somewhere. With Dropbox you have to have everything stored locally in at least one place. If you delete it, it gets deleted from Dropbox as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Buffer posted:People vote. Robots don't. This is the acceptance / political part of the problem stack and the thing engineers are poo poo at. It's very easy to imagine a world where there are zero consequences for loving up a robot courier and if it drives into traffic and hurts someone *REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCE* it's the company and the engineers who are on the hook. It's a lot harder to imagine a world where having displaced the #1 job in the country, those displaced workers just go, yea, ok, I'll vote for the guy who not only let that happen, he indemnified the people that did it AND tacked on extra penalties not under current law. Counterpoint: China style command and control economy. Absurd Alhazred posted:This is a book one of its co-founders wrote, which I stumbled upon at the local laundromat: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 20:56
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
The Larch posted:If it's delivering things then wouldn't that be interference with the mail? Not unless it belongs to the USPS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This is a book one of its co-founders wrote, which I stumbled upon at the local laundromat: http://www.theonion.com/article/executive-quits-fast-track-to-spend-more-time-with-394
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This is a book one of its co-founders wrote, which I stumbled upon at the local laundromat: What does that even mean, 'listen to what it wants'? Is it more singularity-type, "we must obey our coming robot overlords" kinda nonsense?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Not unless it belongs to the USPS. I thought breaking into private mailboxes was mail interference, even though they aren't owned by the USPS. Maybe not? E: yeah, 18 USC 1701 and 1702 seem to agree. (Other sections call out postal employees specifically.) Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:What does that even mean, 'listen to what it wants'? Is it more singularity-type, "we must obey our coming robot overlords" kinda nonsense? Well I mean, robots would probably be better leaders than the ones we currently have but I'm not sure that's what that book is going for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
fart blood posted:So, a question about Dropbox, since thats one of the companies people are worried about : It's pretty unlikely Dropbox ends up shutting down so fast that everything gets lost and all the hardware gets auctioned off at a fire sale. What's more likely is that it fails to deliver on its expectations and its valuation tanks enough that some PE firm like Silver Lake buys it in a leveraged buy out, fires most everyone, runs it for a few years while doctoring the books to make it look worth saving, and then sells it off to Microsoft or Google or someone with a competing service and the network effects to actually make money off of it. Or one of Microsoft and Google et al steps in and buys it right from the start in an all-stock deal if the market hasn't tanked enough to make it that unfeasible. In either of those scenarios, you're likely to have continued service albeit without any real innovation or product updates through the death of the company. Which, for document storage, is probably okay because you don't really need most of the innovation people build on top of it. Slightly worse case is that they force you to move over to some other service and offer you the chance to download all your poo poo if you don't want to. That being said, it could happen. It's not wise to do away with hard backups entirely. In dropbox's specific case, the thing actually works better if you treat it more as a way to sync between several machines rather than real cloud storage anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:It's pretty unlikely Dropbox ends up shutting down so fast that everything gets lost and all the hardware gets auctioned off at a fire sale. What's more likely is that it fails to deliver on its expectations and its valuation tanks enough that some PE firm like Silver Lake buys it in a leveraged buy out, fires most everyone, runs it for a few years while doctoring the books to make it look worth saving, and then sells it off to Microsoft or Google or someone with a competing service and the network effects to actually make money off of it. Or one of Microsoft and Google et al steps in and buys it right from the start in an all-stock deal if the market hasn't tanked enough to make it that unfeasible. Yeh, dropbox is all about syncing devices, not backing things up. My wife and I use it to share the database for our baby logging app (when he ate, how much medicine, etc) between our phones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Buffer posted:People vote. Robots don't. This is the acceptance / political part of the problem stack and the thing engineers are poo poo at. It's very easy to imagine a world where there are zero consequences for loving up a robot courier and if it drives into traffic and hurts someone *REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCE* it's the company and the engineers who are on the hook. It's a lot harder to imagine a world where having displaced the #1 job in the country, those displaced workers just go, yea, ok, I'll vote for the guy who not only let that happen, he indemnified the people that did it AND tacked on extra penalties not under current law. Yep when the manufacturing jobs moved overseas people instantly stopped voting for the party that wrote the laws to lower the trade barriers. It'll be just like that this time!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Wired Magazine is A bunch of nobodies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
lol if you don't realize wired is firmly stuck in 1997 dotcom rooted optimism
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Wired is to tech what Rolling Stone is to music. A dinosaur coasting along on name recognition and goodwill from a time when it represented the avant-garde, but which has completely lost perspective and relevance as reality has moved in directions its narrow worldview doesn't equip it to speak intelligently about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
karthun posted:Computers are already better at driving on snow and ice than humans. If you doubt that turn off your antilock breaks and traction control and drive around during a Minnesota winter. More people I know have accidents sure to the antilock freeze then anything else. Given that automakers can't make a tire sensor that works in a Canadian winter then they sure as poo poo can't make a computer that does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
axeil posted:Well I mean, robots would probably be better leaders than the ones we currently have but I'm not sure that's what that book is going for. We already had a referendum on that in 2012, Obama won
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Rolling Stone is a pamphlet these days. I couldn't believe how short it was. When I was in high school it was as thick as a decent sized newspaper. Back when newspapers were a lot thicker. You know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:What does that even mean, 'listen to what it wants'? Is it more singularity-type, "we must obey our coming robot overlords" kinda nonsense? In the documentary "Transcendent Man" about Ray Kurzweil, the founder of Wired said that Kurzweil is crazy when it comes to the singularity, and that it's not about to happen in our lifetimes or anytime soon. So it's probably not robot overlords-type.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:We already had a referendum on that in 2012, Obama won   A Good Joke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
e_angst posted:This got went over in detail in the Silicon Valley thread, but the people dying in accidents each year occurs because there is an insane amount of driving that is going on. Human failure rate (number of accidents per mile driven) is actually really low, something like 1.3 fatal accidents per 100 million miles. All accidents of any type are 185 per 100 million miles driven (1.85 per million). Google's self-driving cars have barely driven over a million miles are have been in several accidents. Sure, they've only been responsible for one of them so far, but fault isn't accounted for in the human-driven accident rate. Also, Google is tipping the scales a bit by keeping the cars at low speeds and not driving in bad weather. So it's entirely likely that if we flipped to all-robot cars tomorrow (or even a couple of years from now) we'd see that ~100 deaths per day turn into ~120. You need to take into account the fact the many accidents involve multiple vehicles. 185 accidents per 100 million miles could easily mean 300 vehicles involved in an accident per 100 million miles. So, it could easily be a similar rate. (although that could be the actual statistic and you misstated it/I misinterpreted it). Also with such a low probability event that difference is nowhere near statistically significant even taking those stats at face value. If the true accident rate is 1.85 per million then there's still a 40% chance of getting 3 or more accidents in a sample of 1 million.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
feels like robot car accident liability would be on the robot car company and not on the driver
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Startup snark aside, autonomous vehicles are going to be huge in the next decade. That sounds like a decent investment in a sort of first-pass robocar company. Nah. There's a visceral hatred for this kind of poo poo amongst people who (justifiably or not) feel like automation cost them their jobs, and that's only going to increase. You can block these things without breaking any laws (trap it with rocks or just surround it) and people will because it's the only way they have to strike back at the techlords who've hidden away in their cyberhouses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
The techlords are going to get their deliveries via drone to designated pads in their South Bay arcologies. Gym lockers creeping down sidewalks are for peasant mail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:feels like robot car accident liability would be on the robot car company and not on the driver The thing that is really going to push the adoption of automated cars is when the tech gets mature enough to where the insurance companies are convinced that automation gives a statistically significant reduction in accidents. At that point everyone will be pushed towards automated cars because they will offer a steep financial incentive to do so. You still want a manually operated car? That's triple the normal months payment. Or if you were in manual mode and caused the accident your deductible is 5 times higher than if you were in automated mode. It will still be a long and drawn out rollout before we are anywhere near having a majority of cars on the road being automated, but at some point every new car for sale will feature it and there will be significant financial and cultural pushes to use it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:lol if you don't realize wired is firmly stuck in 1997 dotcom rooted optimism Every time Wired comes up in conversation I have to link this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaDdLhnIoA4
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:Every time Wired comes up in conversation I have to link this: Wired has been terrible since the beginning, when it was the corporate-friendly rip-off of Mondo 2000. Goddamn I miss Mondo 2000.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
i can't wait for unannounced roadwork to kill people in their robot cars
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
it'll be like dolan's cadillac
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/04/in-recent-test-blockchain-brings-transparency-to-notorious-credit-default-swaps/quote:On Thursday, Wall Street’s bookkeeper announced that it had successfully tested blockchain technology to manage single-name credit default swaps (CDS) among four big banks: Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citi, Credit Suisse, and JP Morgan. Bitcoin and Credit Default Swaps, two great financial innovations brought together at last!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/04/in-recent-test-blockchain-brings-transparency-to-notorious-credit-default-swaps/ It's not Bitcoin. Blockchain is just a distributed ledger, it doesn't have to be connected to any of the mining/exchanges/wallet hijinks of Bitcoin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It's not Bitcoin. Blockchain is just a distributed ledger, it doesn't have to be connected to any of the mining/exchanges/wallet hijinks of Bitcoin. I know, but given the financial industry's love of screwing things up, they'll have their own hijinks in no time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/04/in-recent-test-blockchain-brings-transparency-to-notorious-credit-default-swaps/ "We've invented a new way to help identify potential systemic problems in the economy!" *fires 2,000,000 people*
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:i can't wait for unannounced roadwork to kill people in their robot cars Cars, or rather teh massive amount of car traffick, already poses a significiant danger* for the health and wellbeing of drivers and bystanders. The benefits of mass car traffic are considered to outweight those benefits and car manufactures by and large are not held liable for every incident involving the dangerous objects the produce. I'd assume that the same will eventually hold true for self-driving cars. * Danger not as in "It's coming right at us and has a gun!" but as in "Very likely to be instrumentally involved in incidents damaging life and limb"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Nah. There's a visceral hatred for this kind of poo poo amongst people who (justifiably or not) feel like automation cost them their jobs, and that's only going to increase. You can block these things without breaking any laws (trap it with rocks or just surround it) and people will because it's the only way they have to strike back at the techlords who've hidden away in their cyberhouses. Automated cars are a joke, and will be no closer to public adoption 10 years ago than they are now because they flatly aren't capable of fulfilling many of the jobs vehicles are used for, and are another high maintenance component with a strong liklihood of a malfunction killing drive/passenger/bystanders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Automated cars are a joke, and will be no closer to public adoption 10 years ago than they are now because they flatly aren't capable of fulfilling many of the jobs vehicles are used for, and are another high maintenance component with a strong liklihood of a malfunction killing drive/passenger/bystanders.  there'll be a publicly available self-driving car that can handle a majority of car trips for your average person in the states with no human intervention* within 10 years.* beyond obvious setup type things like telling it where to go, maybe some state info relevant to where it's legal to park (e.g. whether you have a handicapped placard), etc. edit: now to add this to my calendar. Hope google calendar and gmail both still exist 10 years from now. Cicero fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Apr 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
I agree, simply because there is too much money to be made. Forget personal cars, the real money is in driverless semi trucks, taxis, shuttles, buses, delivery trucks, and other fleet vehicles. Getting humans out of the driver's seat would massively reduce transportation and shipping costs, and the big companies that stand to gain from it can push the relevant laws through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 02:17
|
|