igk

https://www.amazon.com/KELLY-CAPITAL-GROWTH-INVESTMENT-CRITE...

this book?

http://www.clifford.at/icestorm/

open source FPGA workflow. ASICs is more tough

cough hello rust evangelism strike force cough

we also never sleep ;-)

thanks for the explanation...it will be interesting how netflix will handle it. The "reasonable thing" to do would be to either a) plonk all of those "superfluous" engineers into creative fun mode ala xerox park or b) set them onto formally verifying the stack and then sack them slowly/stop hiring, at least as far as can guess from the outside of the entertainment industry? Though handling 3D/VR+developing teldedildonics (does netflix do adult content?) might give the techies continued legitimacy

..., rust never sleeps,...

I am not familiar with this phrase, what does it refer to? Or are you referring to my current favorite programming language and the need for it to go mainstream? ;-)

You can also have another perspective on this: with the lack of investments in moonshots and every less actual work to do, we are now entering the "entertainment industry" phase of our society.

You could argue that Netflix creates the on-demand-video equivalent of long form writing, youtube spans from that to shlock novels and comic books...so with vine gone (it's still gone right?), maybe snapchat or instagram will fill the video equivalent of tabloids spanning to facebook posts.

Intersting. Do you know what is required to take on apprentices? If I moved to switzerland and started a company there, could I just start training people?

Whenever I see c-web devs I get reminded of https://blog.fefe.de/, a blog i used to read. Scroll down to the end/check the faq

The 25 % is the minimum required per semester, but you have double as long to finish. I.e., if during one semester you need to wind it down from the normal 50% due to life, it's still ok, and you can make it up next semester

How do you measure those results? Especially in fuzzy fields where they very much influenced by "political affection"

Seconding the other guy, what are you talking about? The only part I'd agree with is the "laxness" that is seeping in, but that is more because we are following our US brethren in dumbing things down so "no child will be left behind", while still sticking to a 9-13 year schedule in education - even though knowledge and complexity has increased A LOT since those times were set. Heck, we even tried shortening it to 12 years for gymnasium because the industry chamber wanted "more workers" and then noticed the kids are completely overloaded

Yes its flawed but not to the extreme like you suggest. One of the biggest problems we have, and this I think is common to almost all countries, is that there is very little emphasis on applied knowledge and much more on theoretical knowledge. The duale Studium is a better way to attack the problem than anything else currently out there IMHO.

As I've argued in a differnet post, the problem isn't too little theoretical knowledge, it's that uni is just seen as "the highest" and people who just want practical knowledge go to a place which is supposed to give you deep insight into the theories and research in your field because it gives the status qualification.

Another problem we have is that motivations are flawed for our Professors. Many Professors want to conduct research and don't care about teaching the material, on the other hand you have some Professors that don't want to research and would just enjoy teaching the material, yet everyone is incentivized to conduct research because its the only way to progress. I think this is fundamentally wrong. Its bad for the students and bad for the professors. If a professor just wants to teach he/she should be allowed to focus on that area and be judged by how well his students can actually apply the learning they acquired in the course. If a professor wants to research he should be judged by his research.

This follows from my point above. We mix "I just want a job students" with "give me moar theory" students and the profs who (anecdotally) love dealing with the second type (explaining things to interested newbs is stimulating for insight) have to dumb down things enough so the job hunters can get their employer mandated checkmark

There are so many other problem areas as well, for instance, I think we should allow much more mobility between disciplines than is currently the case. I've studied computer science and although I'm quite familiar with computational finance I would probably not be allowed to get a Phd in Finance since I've never taken business/economics courses. Although if you tested me on any number of financial subjects I wouldn't have a problem describing how to model/analyze/forecast the data. So there are a lot of arbitrary hoops that keep people down and force you to not to change you field of study.

That I actually have to disagree with...I know loads of CS and EE majors in economics, the reverse less but also. Especially at the PhD level, as long as you did something relevant, you can get in.

Its also very difficult for older people mid career to get a degree and increase their personal capital that way. These again are just some problems that we need to address but "flawed in the extreme" - I tend to disagree on that one.

This is indeed a problem, but for example my alma mater has started offering part time degrees, with 25% of the workload required per semester and twice the allowed maxmimum study time. So there is change

Fachhochschule gets a bad rep from snobs, but having worked with graduates, they often beat university grads in application fields. It's just a different focus

Yes and no. Best example I know:you can teach engineering as a very applied trade (basically, here's how to select a technique known to work and here is how to tune it), which is how they tend to do it at the Fachhochschulen, or you can teach it as "here's how previously we stole all the cool ideas from physics and maths and what new techniques we built, you'll hopefully be able to find out how to build on it", which is more common on universities.

Having worked with both, the difference is noticeable. The FH guys are actually usually much better engineers in "standard" problems, cleaner code etc, but if you have to drop down abstraction levels and make your own techniques, the university guys tend to fare better(already filtering out incompetent people). It's a different education, with different goals. One is more general and aims to deepen your general understanding, Hoping you'll be able to derive the techniques. The other focuses more on practical application that will get you a job now and hope you'll learn the deep understanding with time. But there is not as much connection between what is taught as one might think. Likewise, ask any professional trader what they think of academic finance.

My tl,dr is that I think university or something should have the explicit goal of teaching "useless" knowledge with the aim of giving deep understanding. Then everyone who just wants a job can avoid that, and we don't have to water down the curriculum

I 'm not sure if they are talking about "dualstudium", but I think this is a thing which needs to be advanced. There should be a separation between "skill education"(learning things for a job) and "human education" (learning things to become a better human/just for understanding). The latter we already enforce with 9 year Schulpflicht (which one could debate about prolonging) and then leave to the individual.

University education should not be or promise jobs, it should be about understanding certain fields on the deep level and being confronted with the bleeding edge of knowledge. Right now we are conflating the two, meaning we have a large number of students wasting their time in classrooms when for their goal they should either be getting deeper, tougher confrontation with the subject (if they want to do research/understand deeply) or practical "on the job" education (if they want to get a job). BWL is the worst culprit of this as far as my friends who studied it describe it.

I'm talking about the possibility of going to a party, somebody taking a picture (as is their right) and then uploading it and tagging me. That I would like to have the filter for. If they really care that much about connecting me to the party, sure, but as a "casual privacy protection" it's about the same level as keeping your facebook wall private

Interesting, must admit I am skeptical of the earnesty here (PR...). I am at work so I couldn't flesh it out properly, but I sent a cobbled up list of topics that I would love an official consideration on (hell, if they want I would love to work with them on some of this)

1. Digital selfdetermination. Having the right to not have pictures of you made public (where is a setting that automatically UN-tags me and blurs my face in pictures I don't approve?) as a private person vs. having a right to talk about public individuals, companies, filtering etc. without impedance

2. Following on that, collaboration with law enforcement instead of deleting/censoring.

3. Retroactive denial of usage. This applies more in the EU, but how does facebook plan to address the idea/need to revoke usage of my personal data after it has been used/possibly sold (IIRC you don't sell data directly, but that might have changed since then)?

4. Data takeout: what about making it easy to download and archive all posted content, but also uploaded content related to the individual (tagged pictures, mentions)

5. The status of facebook as a transnational, as "infrastucture" and it's relationship to the democratic and social systems in different countries

6. The ethics of curating and counter curating topics in the feed/related content for powerusers

7. The role of the defacto largest dataset on human communications and the use of that for AI research as well as the impact of AI and automation on society. Combined with that the position facebook would take on possible solutions like UBI

8. The impact of the "highlight reel" on depression and mental health. Studies have shown that heavy facebook use correlates with depression

Honestly, this seems like a reasonably sane bill. IANAL but it does not seem to make cryptocurrencies illegal, more the opposite: it recognizes them as cash and places the same requirements that other financial instruments have on them...with a review period of 18 months. That seems good for crypto more than anything else.

If anyone knows more about this and wants to explain why I'm misunderstanding this I'd be thankful :-)

Basically, in the science world, there is a lot of debate going on about exact definitions (memristive device vs. memristor). I can see if I can find the relevant papers if there is interest. Prof. Chua has updated and loosened his criteria a bit in response to the criticisms.

In the engineering world, if it talks like a memristor, and walks like a memristor if you squint a bit, we are damn well going to use it like a memristor. Hence we are happily building and testing nonvolatile storage (MRAM, ReRAM, PCRAM) and other applications - I'm gonna start research on applications as ML accelerators in May :-)

Well, none of the important ones, otherwise you wouldn't be here :-D

What does Internet do to curiosity? Or what happens when curiosity is quenched withing seconds of being aroused?

For a substantial part of the population, this happens:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wiki-hole

If you have ready access to information, you hunger for more, because after you understand one concept or fact, you NOTICE all the other things that depend on that, be they new things building on top or inconsistencies in other fields conflicting with your new knowledge

I just commented with the concept of "bargaining inequality" which is more commonly used with employment, but it also works with Windows...this is one thing the popular america-libertarian intellectuals (the OP is funded by a libertarian think tank with the Koch brothers and their ilk as funding source) tend to dismiss/obfuscate in my opinion: they focus on the ideal "voluntary transaction" and generally don't address real-life,studied power dynamics in human groups

Reading this I tought "Huh, simplified economic concepts, ending on overpushing the idea of voluntary transactions a bit...smells a bit american-libertarian".

Click around...project of IHS...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Humane_Studies#O...

None of the concepts are wrong, but things are more complicated. For a short summary on the idea of Inequality of Bargaining and consequential hollowing of the "voluntary" transaction you can check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power

Interestingly, one area where this is taken into account, is study design (i.e. thinking about when a reward will skew the results/be unethical towards participants)

For some discussion see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3646546/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600442/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600442/#S2titl...

Was the effect comparable using our current values though (assuming somewhat equal access to healthcare is a value we share). Is there data how the era you claim to be working well dealt with chronic diseases, Terminal diseases or how lower and middle class faired healthwise compared to upper class?

True, I was imprecise Though I feel like the laws and incentives our Germany closer to the single payer end of the spectrum, contrasting with Switzerland which also has universal healthcare but different incentive structures, which lead to them being #2 in health care costs

I think this is missing the point.There was a time where health care costs for German, British or any other citizen of countries with single payer healthcare were reasonable, without any of your 3 points (ok,maybe number 3).

This time was just about a millisecond ago.

Ah, I misunderstood you then. I got the impression you mean that the mindset had changed. What you describe seems to indicate that the mindset is still the same, but the reality is changing. And in my opinion, this is exactly due to the mindset. Especially the thing about fees to sidestep the aversion to taxes. The police and eminent domain thing sounds like corruption, and maybe also correlates with your idea of freedom: if freedom is something which is enabled by society and the restrictions and opportunities that come with it, you risk some of your freedom if you act in a corrupt manner. If freedom is something that property gives you, and society is only there to protect your property because warlording is stressful, then trying to get away with small corruption becomes desirable.

Your last sentence confirms me in this. "The government" is made up of people who got into power for idealistic or selfish reasons, yet you refer to it as its own entity and concept. This gels well with the "lay of mine" concept of freedom, less well with the "we as a whole enable us all" flavour.

Obviously, I am biased, and I might be interpreting things. If so, please corrent my misunderstandings if you have the time.

Do you know when and how that changed? I'd like to change my view, but just from the discussions I've had with US citizens and what is see happening in your politics, it seems like it is very much still alive. Sure, Sanders and his crowd think less like this, but he lost to Hillary, and not only because of rigging

Right to be forgotten is iffy, because we should have the right to hold public figures accountable, and that is where it would be mostly used. If you get arrested for drunk driving, lose all respectability in your community, and then remove it form the net, your life is still fucked. But if you are Donald Trump, having the right to immediately depublish things until it is proven that you are person if interest is usefull.

A right to privacy and a data letter (every outlet and company must inform you via mail about any data, articles etc on their servers/in their publication in which personal information about you is involved, if they are either supplying a service or writing the story) would fill most of that niche in my opinion

Right to autonomy I agree, that is basically stallmann. First sale doctrine, freedom to tinker, software freedom...things like this

Right to anonymity goes into dangerous territory again...you should have a right to not be surveilled(privacy), which makes it harder to connect you to your speech (good). But if somebody figures it out,having the right to stop that is ...dangerous again.Especially with the bullshit idea that corporate money is speech, that right would make it illegal to unmask bribery

It's a difference in conception...in Europe, the idea of "positive freedom" is more prevalent...we care about being able to actually do things in all cases, even if we are in a bad situation. You have a right to education, health care, political participation etc., and part of that right is to be able to actually do it (i.e., "I could if I chose not to work today, but then I can't eat"). Property is a means to freedom, not an end, and can be touched more easily. Hence, taxes are (more) ok.

In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis for freedom. "Negative freedom" - don't force me to do things, don't touch my house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have the means - is more dominant. Hence, people don't seem to like the idea of having to pay for "other peoples freedom". It's more palatable to think of taking care of just your kids/relatives - there is a limited number of them, and you can probably do that without actually giving up a lot of property. Buy a big house, move your parents in there, you still have a big house afterwards.

Of course, this also leads to (or is equivalent) to a "fuck the poor" mindset

I kind of doubt that a lack of nationalism brought by "left" rhetoric is the problem if "small government" is a rallying cry of those that have "not left"as part of their identity. To pay for large projects, you need taxes.

the buzzword you want is Mathiness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathiness