|
hard counter posted:maybe with so many robutts running around we'll actually need those callcentres and people working there will have a useful purpose (sorta like now) and be helpful to maintaining the system even if it's not the most enjoyable or stimulating way of spending your time Callcentres will be automated via Siri out whatever google comes up with next.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
With lower and lower ratings for the Oscars every year they should just stop having them. I think most of America is tired of watching rich famous people congratulate each other on their latest film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:Is it supposed to be Iowa? Is your state being victim to humongous tornadoes supposed to be a point in your favor? The scenes with the biggest tornadoes were shot in Iowa 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:With lower and lower ratings for the Oscars every year they should just stop having them. I think most of America is tired of watching rich famous people congratulate each other on their latest film. Pretty much spent a whole page in another thread arguing this. The whole thing's grossly hypocritical and disassociated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Not to mention how contrived they are. Awards shows are dumb in general but the fact that The Oscars and stuff like the grammys only acknowledge things that have hit a certain level of mainstream which just makes them extra laughable. I guess the Oscars always have their pet indie movies that fit into a certain mold of what they are looking for, but it's still a load of poo poo because there are plenty of overlooked movies every year that are much better than most of the hollywood bullshit that gets nominated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
I honestly don't know anyone over the age of 50 who gives a poo poo about award shows but maybe that's the demographic. No one cares about the Hollywood circle jerk, just make cool movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
i think people still care but not enough to actually watch the entire, bloated program; they'll check who won in an article and let that be that knowing if anything really exciting happens there'll be clips online anyway imuo it's mostly nice that positions with very low visibility, like those on the more technical side, get a chance for brief attention on the kinds of neat things they do as well vvv e: even so, it is nice they acknowledge the works of dudes like sound mixing engineers and visual effects artists alongside the stars instead of just exclusively having a-listers congratulating a-listers hard counter has a new favorite as of 02:38 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
hard counter posted:i think people still care but not enough to actually watch the entire, bloated program; they'll check who won in an article and let that be that knowing if anything really exciting happens there'll be clips online anyway A lot of it is just plain marketing. How often do you hear things like "starring Academy Award winner..." and whatever. That or you'll have people buying copies of movies that won because "well hey it has all these awards, it can't be that bad." I guess that's kind of sort of true but it seems like the really enduring, amazing movies that people watch over and over tend to not be the ones that won awards. The ones that win biggest are pretty much always glamorous but forgettable oscar bait. The rest of it is literally rich Hollywood stars congratulating each other for being rich Hollywood stars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Selfdriving cars are a bunch of hype that are decades away, at best. We're nowhere close to the technology. Its just a bunch of Silicon Valley bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Actors should hold no higher standing in a film than a writer or a musician. They are not magical or amazing, they are simply people that have a certain skill which can fill a single need in the production. Their salaries compared to the rest of the crew are abhorrent
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
I'll watch Amy Adams or Gary Oldman in nearly anything if they are in it. I don't care who wrote it or directed it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Selfdriving cars are a bunch of hype that are decades away, at best. We're nowhere close to the technology. Its just a bunch of Silicon Valley bullshit. 100% correct. I'll go a step further and say Elon Musk is a hack fraud wasting resources and talent on the biggest silicon valley circle jerk bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
"Decades" isn't that far away considering the amount of technological advancements it requires. One of the biggest problems they have to overcome is how the AI reacts to lovely human drivers.....also I guess whether the AI should protect the occupants lives over others, but I mean thats a super small concern that no one should really think about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:"Decades" isn't that far away considering the amount of technological advancements it requires. One of the biggest problems they have to overcome is how the AI reacts to lovely human drivers.....also I guess whether the AI should protect the occupants lives over others, but I mean thats a super small concern that no one should really think about. Uber is driving them around Pittsburgh right now and they're doing so well I don't even really notice them anymore. They're still not perfect but the main time the human driver has to intervene is when it gets paralyzed with indecision because driving in Pittsburgh is awful. The things don't understand the Pittsburgh left and often get stuck at a four way intersection with stop signs because nobody ever stops as long as they're "supposed" to. Seriously, if they can drive here at all it won't be that long before nobody has to drive anymore. It might take decades for them to completely displace human drivers but trust me; they're already here. Once they become common enough there will be more autonomous cars than human-driven ones which will make it far, far easier for autonomous cars to drive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Uber is driving them around Pittsburgh right now and they're doing so well I don't even really notice them anymore. They're still not perfect but the main time the human driver has to intervene is when it gets paralyzed with indecision because driving in Pittsburgh is awful. The things don't understand the Pittsburgh left and often get stuck at a four way intersection with stop signs because nobody ever stops as long as they're "supposed" to. That's the thing, more cars needs to have the features built in, even if they aren't fully used, and then as the older cars die off the transition to fully automated will be obvious. The tech is still pricey, so the economic cars can't afford to put it in yet. Once the costs drop to a certain point it will happen. Also the earlier comment from the person saying Elon Musk is a hack fraud... maybe, but the Tesla is an incredible car and the model 3 has the chance of being a real game changer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Baptism sucks, especially if you are in a country with atheists/secularists. Because if you are Christian, then fine I guess. You want your child to be accepted by God/Christ/Holy Spirit or whatever. So even if the child cannot choose I understand its purpose, it's in the Bible and everything. However, I despise that people do it even when the parents don't really believe in it. There is no point in going through the motions or seeing it as a delightful tradition as the child is not in the process at all and most of the time they just cry. It is pretty lame even by church standards. Confirmations, weddings, and funerals have a function. While baptism is just another excuse to drag your family along somewhere despite there already being enough mandatory holidays to celebrate together. Midig has a new favorite as of 04:48 on Feb 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
It's not for the baby to have fun it's for the adults to have a ceremony that makes them feel good. Also it helps make sure the baby doesn't end up in hell or whatever if it dies early.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
bean_shadow posted:My Unpopular Opinion, especially since yesterday: Twister is a total turd of a movie that has the benefit of being seen through Nostalgia Themed Glasses, especially since Paxton died. I do admit Bill Paxton wasn't terrible but he has tons of other better roles and movies to gush over. Just because something came out during your childhood and you happened to like it as a child doesn't automatically make a good movie. Wheat Loaf posted:I think the Rolling Stone's list of the 100 greatest singers is generally fine except for John Lennon and maybe Bob Dylan being in the top 10. WampaLord posted:Yea. With film it's obvious to say The Godfather is better than Jack and Jill. I think 99% of people would agree. Good luck getting 99% of people to agree on which music is "better." Sentient Data posted:Actors should hold no higher standing in a film than a writer or a musician. They are not magical or amazing, they are simply people that have a certain skill which can fill a single need in the production.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:Actors should hold no higher standing in a film than a writer or a musician. They are not magical or amazing, they are simply people that have a certain skill which can fill a single need in the production. Their salaries compared to the rest of the crew are abhorrent Actors who are "stars" are that because their presence in a film, and face on a poster, translates directly to better ticket sales. That's what they are getting payed for, and very few of the rest of the crew do the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Same with directors. Managers in general shouldn't be seen as so far above the other workers, it's just a different set of skills (and most aren't good at it)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Thinking self driving cars aren't going to be a major thing in the near future seems like a pretty bad bet since they already exist and tend to work really well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Thinking self driving cars aren't going to be a major thing in the near future seems like a pretty bad bet since they already exist and tend to work really well. There are cars that can drive themselves in optimal conditions such as daylight, nice weather, etc. But once it becomes night, or theres rain, or snow, or random poo poo, they suck. And then there's the edge cases that will take decades to fix.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:There are cars that can drive themselves in optimal conditions such as daylight, nice weather, etc. But once it becomes night, or theres rain, or snow, or random poo poo, they suck. And then there's the edge cases that will take decades to fix. Not to mention the fact that these cars will be vulnerable to hacking and tampering in ways that we may not be able to anticipate. It's not the technology that bothers me so much, but the puffy, sycophantic press that autonomous cars have been receiving. Most people seem to think that self-driving cars is going to lead us to a perfect future, and that worries me because it doesn't seem like there are many serious conversations about the consequences of the technology that is being developed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Not to mention the fact that these cars will be vulnerable to hacking and tampering in ways that we may not be able to anticipate. It'll take time to solve those problems but the simple fact is that they aren't going to go away. They're going to only increase. Maybe it'll be slow, maybe it'll be fast. Either way they're here and won't leave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It'll take time to solve those problems but the simple fact is that they aren't going to go away. They're going to only increase. Maybe it'll be slow, maybe it'll be fast. Either way they're here and won't leave. I don't want them to disappear. I mostly just want us to be more aware of the possible downsides of technology like autonomous cars. I'm convinced that if the ultimate goal is to make roadways safer, there are steps that can be taken to do that without the need for self-driving cars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
The reason self driving cars are needed is for freight. Saving money on drivers will increase profits immensely and not needing to give them breaks will speed up delivery times. Thats the end goal here, the fact that it may save a bunch of lives or make things "safer" is just a plus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
As long är we have humans in control it will never be 100% safe to drive because most people are idiots behind the wheel. And even if you're the most cautious driver in the world, you only have one set of eyes with a limited field of view, a poor ability to multitask and slow reaction time. If you put in enough failsafes that prevent the driver from doing stupid poo poo you end up with a self driving car anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
Self-driving cars has never been an interesting topic to me. If they ever do become feasible, they are probably going to have only very limited uses either as freight transport and limited human transport in the biggest/most modern cities. I can't see it ever being deployed nationwide, and even if it does it won't usher in some glorious future utopia like the most ardent proponents of it seem to think. My unpopular opinion is that we will never reach some "post-scarcity" society where nobody has to work and the only people who think we will have been watching too much star trek. The only way I could see it happening is if there was a one-world dictatorial government forcing it on everyone, unless it is gradually introduced over centuries. I think if you took a poll now, a large percentage of people wouldn't even want it even if it would make their own lives objectively better. The general public doesn't know what's best for themselves in a lot of areas, so the only way for rapid change is leaving it out of their hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:My unpopular opinion is that we will never reach some "post-scarcity" society where nobody has to work and the only people who think we will have been watching too much star trek. The only way I could see it happening is if there was a one-world dictatorial government forcing it on everyone, unless it is gradually introduced over centuries. I think if you took a poll now, a large percentage of people wouldn't even want it even if it would make their own lives objectively better. The general public doesn't know what's best for themselves in a lot of areas, so the only way for rapid change is leaving it out of their hands. We're not heading towards a post-scarcity utopia where no one works and everyone can order their earl grey to perfect vague temperature every time. But we are quickly heading towards a society in which additional human labour provides negative value (being pointless wasteful busywork invented to "earn" a living), and it will be more cost-effective for business/government etc. to cut out the middle men and keep their consumer base alive and consuming in ways other than employment. Once the generations for whom jobs were plentiful and whose houses quadrupled in value over 20 years are all dead we'll see pretty rapid change in how society as a whole view work and a culture of employment. My kids will not have the same romantic impression of being a working adult that I got from my parents. There will always be people who want to work and achieve and have more stuff, even at the expense of others, but for the unwashed masses participation in that system isn't as rewarding as it used to be, if they are able to participate at all. It may take a few tens of millions starving to death in the first-world first though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Maybe Bob Dylan? Anyone who says Bob Dylan is a good singer is either lying or deaf. I suppose so but there's a lot more to singing than technical perfection. There's a reason why Céline Dion and Mariah Carey more seldomly appear on such lists while Whitney Houston does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
The thing about self driving cars is that if any accident happens for any reason the company who manufactures the cars will probably get sued. They will probably not be able to adapt to specific situations so it will take a long time before they will be open to the public.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:My unpopular opinion is that we will never reach some "post-scarcity" society where nobody has to work and the only people who think we will have been watching too much star trek. The only way I could see it happening is if there was a one-world dictatorial government forcing it on everyone, unless it is gradually introduced over centuries. I think if you took a poll now, a large percentage of people wouldn't even want it even if it would make their own lives objectively better. The general public doesn't know what's best for themselves in a lot of areas, so the only way for rapid change is leaving it out of their hands. Post-scarcity doesn't just happen because technology renders most human workers useless, or resources plentiful. First you get artificial scarcity and horrible inequality, and then WW3, and then much later alien intervention. That's how it happened in Star Trek anyways. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Uber is probably going to get crushed with all their lawsuits and being assholes with the law but I hope the next company picks up the slack with auto driving. The NYT is reporting that Uber hid 6 times that the auto cars drove past red lights in California.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
the last sixty years of horizontal suburban sprawl is the "greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:the last sixty years of horizontal suburban sprawl is the "greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world" Agreed, and we're going to build a bunch more based on catering to self-driving vehicles in the future. But it's ok because that's not horrible environment and culture crushing sprawl, it's a disruptive new tech that "solves" all the previous sprawl related problems, which was apparently just traffic flow and commute times. In fact we might as well stop investing in transit or worrying about our car-based society because Musk is going to solve it all with magic AI cars and networks of tunnels and mars tourism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
What's the cause of sprawl anyway? It's like 50/50 "there's scary minorities here" and "living in a dense city is an expensive hellhole" right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
People want to own yards in deserts and be pissed about their maintenance requirements/costs
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Aramek posted:What's the cause of sprawl anyway? It's like 50/50 "there's scary minorities here" and "living in a dense city is an expensive hellhole" right? It's a government subsidized scheme to do all those things plus local authorities get one-time upfront development fees from huge subdivisions. So the developer will say "Hey, local authority, if you spend 30 million expanding these major roads and the state puts in money to expand this highway we'll create this huge subdivision which will create tons of construction jobs and growth and generate at least 20 million in development fees plus we're going to go halfers on a new school and a new park and there's going to be a new POWER CENTRE that is shiny and new unlike that nasty 10 year old strip mall on the other side of town. So that 30 million investment in roads and water lines and poo poo is seen as a good investment. The sprawl is built, construction jobs are plenty, taxes and fees are raked in, and the area gets some shiny new chain stores in the new strip mall. Except part of the deal and part of what keeps the price of those houses nice and affordable is that they're paying incredibly low property taxes, and the strip mall pays incredibly low commercial property taxes. If they didn't, some other district would have "won" the development. Now 20 years later the local authority is realizing all the roads and infrastructure needed to maintain this big chunk of sprawl doesn't really generate enough income to pay for the long term upkeep let alone replacement costs. Also that shiny new strip mall is now half abandoned because a new strip mall built just over the border of another authority now attracts all the tenants and customers. You try to raise property taxes and the residents flip out. You try to raise commercial taxes and all the local businesses threaten to leave after being "taxed to death". The region only has money to barely maintain what they have and there's 2 expensive bridges at the end of their lives coming up needing replacement. Wait, what's this?? A developer says if we allow all this fertile farmland to be re-zoned, he'll build a huge sprawling new community and even contribute 20 million to the city's infrastructure fund. Yes! This is the solution! Let's just keep doing this over and over, it's nothing like a ponzi scheme and is totally sustainable. Any changes to taxes or infrastructure spending would be a war on the middle class dream and a war on cars, agenda 21 READ ABOUT IT.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's a government subsidized scheme to do all those things plus local authorities get one-time upfront development fees from huge subdivisions. So the developer will say "Hey, local authority, if you spend 30 million expanding these major roads and the state puts in money to expand this highway we'll create this huge subdivision which will create tons of construction jobs and growth and generate at least 20 million in development fees plus we're going to go halfers on a new school and a new park and there's going to be a new POWER CENTRE that is shiny and new unlike that nasty 10 year old strip mall on the other side of town. This is something that has contributed to my depression for some time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
Good, that means you're still sane for the time being
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:14
|
|