vadimberman

Thank you!

I will need the entire client code though. Let's switch to email - the one you logged on with is OK, right?

EDIT: sent.

Thanks, Web64.

What was the issue? Any error messages or you just didn't get the output you wanted?

I imagine you're interested in Norwegian?

EDIT: I forgot to mention that you don't need to code to test-drive. You can simply dump your JSON in the console (the "Try it" button: https://dev.tisane.ai/docs/services/5a3b6668a3511b11cc292655...).

However, you've concluded that because the author described a problem with capitalism but not the equivalent problem with communism, the author must be a marxist.

How? Why? Where?

I am merely saying that since the opposing ideology makes the same statement, the claim that it's a "myth of capitalism" makes no sense.

The moon landing can actually provide a great example. Take the "moon landing hoax" conspiracies. One of the first counter-claims is, if it were really a hoax, wouldn't the Soviets shout about it from the rooftops?

In our example, claiming that the American workers work more than Medieval serfs would be an excellent point for the Soviet propaganda. But since they didn't, and since in my school, the capitalism (otherwise hated) was taught as a step forward, the reduction of working hours clearly isn't a "capitalism's enduring myth".

My main issue, like I said many times by now, is why bring -isms to the study in the first place? Publish the figures, bring more sources from all over the world, make conclusions, THEN try to explain why it emerged. But no, that's not what the article says.

Seriously, does the word "Communism" work like a magic incantation that makes people ignore everything else?

> we are asked to imagine

not by a cabal, but by "The implicit -- but rarely articulated -- assumption".

Just read the article.

It could be possible theoretically if not the context of the article. "We are asked to imagine" and so on.

But even if it were the case, the fact that the same idea was commonplace in the USSR means that it's not inherently connected to capitalism.

And, obviously, I am still wondering why people decided it was about capitalism vs. Communism.

I absolutely agree.

Plus, the meaningfulness of the task sometimes is beyond economic; many people code in crazy hours because they love the job. I doubt it was the same with miners 500 years ago.

But all these nuances aren't even looked at in the paper.

your apparent argument that anyone criticising capitalism can only be a Soviet-era state-supporting "communist"

That would be a highly creative way of summarising my post.

My problem with the paper was that it started what was supposed to be a historical research with a slogan-like claim that a particular ideology propagated it (literally the first sentence).

As in, there was no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation, or lack of evidence, but evil dudes came and lied to us all.

I countered that I witnessed firsthand how the competing ideology was "propagating" the same "myth", which, simply put, makes the author's assertion a sheer nonsense.

It's wonderful that there is someone with mind as unclouded by propaganda to enlighten me and improve my limited world view.

Did you find any figures or arguments in the original paper that I overlooked? Like, Chinese peasants, German peasants, etc.

Ugh. The paper reeks of political agenda. The very first sentence is:

One of capitalism's most durable myths is that it has reduced human toil.

What about the Communism? Why would they spread this durable myth? Because I remember hearing the same story in the Soviet school.

The paper does not make a real effort trying to consider different evidence and honestly investigate the subject. Most of the sources are related to the UK (specifically, England) with a couple referring to the US in XIX century. How do we know how much the Dutch, German, French, Russian peasants worked, let alone those in the rice-growing Asia? Finally, how about trying to research 1600s and 1700s in North America to compare apples with apples?

Even in her own paper, the results appear a bit, ahem, uneven:

1988 - Manufacturing workers, U.K.: 1856 hours

1400-1600 - Farmer-miner, adult male, U.K.: 1980 hours Calculated from Ian Blanchard's estimate of 180 days per year. Assumes 11-hour day

Yes, it's 180 days, but 11 hours each. Did she actually try working 11 hours on a backbreaking menial job? Does she actually believe that 11 hours being a miner in 1500s is the same as 11 hours in the office or even a modern assembly line?

There's RNA and possibly others even on this planet: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3331698/

It depends on the kind of panspermia.

If it's about generic organic molecules then the DNA is a local construct. If it's about microorganisms, then it's different.

Ata’s bones contain DNA that not only shows she was human

The fact that there's a DNA already means it's not an alien, doesn't it? Having a life form with the same uber-complex chain of nucleotides as the life on earth developed is as improbable as a server on an alien mothership being compatible with a Macbook. (Quick primer on the subject: https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/cracking-aliens-gen...)

Having said that, the NYT article reads like the researchers are still unable to explain the discrepancies between the age and the well-formed skeleton as well as the number of mutations. Were there any secret nuclear tests conducted half a century ago in Chile? But that would also probably be insufficient to cause all that. I would bet on experiments trying to cause deliberate mutations.

Sounds like a part publicity (NYT was invited), part employment fair for the Bezos' ventures. He can talk to the candidates, observe how they behave, and at the same time intrigue them with the prospects of working for him.

Amazingly, the article does not mention what the presentations were about.

In addition to that, even if we were limited to the "last moment", there was about half a second or a second time to react. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that should be enough for the car to at least try something.

Isn't the car supposed to brake to minimise the collision, if the swerving is too dangerous (and it wasn't in this case, as the road wasn't too busy)?

And today they circulate articles bragging with the number of supercomputers. It's the same as publicly listed companies increase headcount to look like they are thriving ("X is profitable and hiring"). Microsoft, for example, created a specialised AI department. Does it mean we'll have AGI in a couple of years?

In the age of cloud computing, does the number of supercomputers even indicate anything except the ability to run simulations on climate and nuclear fallout?

Personally, I wish someone created a more intelligent, less cronyist, less wasteful, but as willing to experiment alternative to the US tech industry. But it's definitely not China today that is even more reliant on meaningless KPIs than the corporate America. Of course, when the dear leader has an ambition to make the country a superpower, it makes sense to order more supercomputers.

Having complicated science underlying a product certainly doesn't excuse a company from producing products that people want.

That's not the biggest obstacle, actually. The biggest obstacle that the sales strategy has no case studies to work with.

What market does the new tech appeal to? Should it be B2C or B2B? (In their case, they tried both IIRC.)

You may hold the collective entity responsible, if you wish, but in this case, they required both sharp and inventive techies (which they had), and a business leader with a vision (which they didn't have). It's not easy to put together, especially if the investors make the call for the CEO's replacement.

An analogy from a different area, Siri could be another dead curio if Steve Jobs didn't decide to make it a centerpiece of their new iPhone.

Agree, and given the standard "liquidity preference", the founders are likely to net $0, except for the Google bonuses for the engineering (Jack Barker-like Rosenthal is not likely to stick there).

It's sad, really. It's one of the really innovative companies, but it's not easy to sell tech ahead of its time. Yet another incident that will encourage to pick copycats over real innovation.

I guess Google is no longer as generous with the acquisitions.

Unfortunately, very plausible. It's ridiculous how much neat stuff is buried by corporate lawyers "mitigating" a danger as probable as a meteorite strike.

That sounds plausible but they do collaborate with the .NET open-sourcing efforts, that could be an opportunity for them to test new waters.

I remember early reports about self-driving experiments saying that some of the issues where because the cars were driving at the speed limit, which is usually not the case in the US with the human drivers.

Maybe they decided to change it.

Concerning another dead mobile OS, I never understood why Microsoft did not try to spin off or open-source their mobile effort.

In fact, the rationale for killing it seems an example of corporate waste: it had user base in double-digits in mid-size markets like the UK and a growing base in major non-North America markets. Why not let it grow outside of America?

It was also an OS ahead of its time, at least in terms of the UI. Where else can I pin a huge preconfigured icon to the main screen to quickly activate it when I'm in a rush? Where else I don't have to scroll through the endless list of tiny icons to find what I want?

By 2020, China’s AI industry will be “in line” with the most advanced countries, with a core AI industry gross output exceeding RMB 150 billion (USD 22.5 billion) and AI-related industry gross output exceeding RMB 1 trillion (USD 150.8 billion)

And I'm confident the goal will be reached. Incidentally, much of the software that today is classified as "just software" will be called "AI".

Not that it's different from elsewhere, of course (I saw screenscraping being called "AI"), it's just there are government incentives to do so.

I wonder how many people can pinpoint where the boundary between the two communities lies.

What does this division help to achieve? The two communities are in exactly the same format.

And .. I downvoted you. I hope it will sting.

I can't see whether I was downvoted but I see that the net result is very positive. But I'll take your word on that.

Perhaps your view is not shared as widely?

People giving up free time to add value to your thing and you blame them for the site problems?

Do read my original post. My problem is people who don't actually contribute but nitpick on how the questions are worded. How does kicking me out or ignoring my question at best help me resolve my issue?

I would prefer them to keep the free time they dedicated to harassing me to themselves.

I do find your suggestions on design sensible though.

It’s like the high karma answerers are exactly the subset of the site that you want seeing and answering your question because the site supports the idea that they are good at doing that, but they’re always reflected as some kind of tyrants appointed by an evil overlord.

Are you 100% sure?

Because from my experience, the most useful subset is between 100 and 2,000, those with experience but not arrogance. The top karma hoarders more often than not provide citations from official documentation and sabotage questions.

I wish they were appointed by an evil overlord because the overlord is better than a swarm of annoying mosquitoes.

It's nice that in a discussion that is in part about being nice you call someone that downvoted you an idiot.

I call them an idiot because they were nitpicking on a question that was asking for help well within the already Procrustean bed of regulations. I stand by my assessment: it's hardly a reason to refuse help citing bureaucratic regulations if you're a public servant, but that's somewhat expected. If, however, it's a fellow forum contributor, this is both unexpected and serves no purpose.

Not sure who's right, of course, but as you see, the number of people complaining is greater by day. Note that many of them are familiar with the Internet since 1990s and are netizens of good standing; still, they manage to somehow "violate" these rules.

As soon as there is a real competition to the "soup Nazi's shop", many people will jump ship without hesitation.

It's also interesting that other Stack Exchange communities are not that strict.

OK, thank you.

For these guys the blogging seems nearly a full-time job though. I wonder if it's realistic to get there with a small slice of time.

A blog that makes you a thought leader

I keep hearing that, but... Has anyone here actually seen it working?

Not nitpicking, just looking for actual examples to learn from.

I do hope that Stack Overflow will become usable again. In my opinion, the problem is mostly the answerers.

I went all the way from a simple coder to management, and now I'm doing both, running my second startup. I talk to people of different walks of life, and I always do my homework.

But on Stack Overflow, it's like I'm back to the early years of my career, a stupid newbie whose questions get randomly downvoted. I delete it, tweak the wording a little bit, and now it's suddenly accepted. I say something like, "a solution or a 3rd party library", an idiot downvotes me saying that "requests to recommend 3rd party libraries are offtopic". I change it to "a solution (3rd party library is OK)", and now it's suddenly fine.

It's like the mafia of high-karma answerers decided to adopt Les Grossman as their role model.

As a side effect, the good answerers are gone, and the really tricky questions are left unanswered, so I often answer them myself. Although, the way Stack Overflow is, my desire to contribute to the community is diminishing.

I feel like these days, IBM is closer to Oracle than AWS

That's a compliment. IBM is by far more dysfunctional.

It changed in early 2000s, I believe.

Nobody needs a conventional war anymore, unless the takeover of the enemy territory and resources is an objective. Blockades and sanctions are far less efficient than in the past when it was possible to completely cut off a vital supply of resources for an entire nation.

It is much cost-effective and efficient to engage in low-intensity sabotage while making an innocent face, scaring the population, and balancing in the gray zone.