Wouldn't the dethroner of Google be some new technology which is not a search engine like Google but better at solving the original task of finding information on how to solve problems?
Just like how iPad dethroned Windows PCs for average home user but not Mac because Windows had the monopoly and then an innovation destroyed MS in this space and not a competitor.
I don't think Google dethrones Yahoo and AltaVista scenario will occur again.
If one is at rock bottom then working hard and being productive can get them to middle class lifestyle. It works. Helped billions of people in the past few decades.
But starting from middle class and working hard won't make riches. Think of it physically. A hardworking person can build a house compared to a drunkard who will be homeless. Yet the same hard working person can't build million houses and get insanely wealthy.
To get truly materially rich (millions+ usd, servants, yachts, etc) one usually needs to be evil and screw over other people. Productivity, in the sense of a machine making houses in the millions, would make the inventor fairly rich. But this is the exception rather than the rule. Most riches are arrived at immorally as parent comment mentions.
Oh very much it is. Come to the lovely Eastern Europe and see for yourself how good national owned companies are. Full of useless bureaucrats put there to ensure voters so the ruling party can continue ruling. Also in huge debts which are paid by more taxes so the working people pay for the lazy.
Unless the human race somehow chains itself to selflessness, nationalization + democracy is a sure way to destroy any organization. Now privately owned is not much better but in theory can be replaced with a competitor. Not so much for a national organization.
Source: Living and suffering daily in Eastern Europe.
That won't stop organizations with lots of money unless the cost for more credits raises exponentially. Everyone will have to stop when millions and billions get into play.
Inconvenience. With the second account one has to re-friend all the users from the first account. Also it would lead to bad social standing as by re-friending it will be obvious they are breaking the 100 posts per person per life rule. This could even lead to automatic bans by studying the connection structure.
It could be the case that they 'hire' someone internally from role A to the advertised role B. But due to some legal requirements they have to run an Ad so they appear open to all candidates.
I had pretty good experience with recruiting agents. Sadly didn't get the job as I flunked the leetcoding part but I got an interview compared to rejection when I applied via forms and CV.
Ford was paying more money to employees who were more conformist to his standard of ideal living.
To the hyper individualistic culture like USA today this can only seem bad but this is Japan with factory towns [1] and generally more collectivist culture.
This also need not be bad. Clean and simple lifestyles could make many more people healthier and happier compared to constant analysis-paralysis state of choice. One could even say that this company is morally better than other companies due to promoting a lifestyle which makes people happier in the long term.
> Finally, is the challenge of having a society built around strong ethic ties. Even if Helsinki were to switch to English, there will be always be outsiders i.e. those who are not ethnic Finns. Again, this is not something that policy can solve and is one of the reasons that silicon valley and North America in general do very well at.
Recently I read a book called Persian Fire by Tom Holland. One detail which struck me as very interesting was how the first democratic ruler of Athens, Cleisthenes, solved the tribalism problem. Here tribalism is the perfect word as the average Athentian citizen of that time associated with one of the 10 tribes based on surnames. His solution was to invent 150 demesnes and have people arbitrarily assigned to them. He also invented new surnames.
Something similar is happening in contemporary Singapore. Every neighbourhood must not have more than X% of any ethnic group.
My point is that policy can solve this. Might make many people unhappy, like Finns who are forbidden to live in some zip codes because there are too many Finns, but policy is definitely a way to approach this problem (if it is a problem, nothing wrong with mono-cultural societies who do not want foreigners).
Can speak and will speak are two different things.
Many people can speak English but would like not to. This is especially the case in groups where foreigners are much less in number than natives. They can all speak English but feel unhappy about having to do that to accommodate the foreigners.
Unless Helsinki citizens reach a state in which English is a native language for them and feel other English speakers as co-natives, this whole declaration will be essentially useless at the level of the people foreigners interact with every day. And these matter most. Shopkeeps, colleagues, etc.
In essence being able to speak English does not make one less tribal. Cultural integration of foreigners is very hard to do without learning and living with the native language. Due to this 'expats' flock to places where they pay least taxes and have largest amount of other foreigners to socialize with, e.g. Amsterdam.
It's not that simple because that way you lose too much information. Actually it is more likely the whole system would fail if weights at any layer are reset.
The idea was developed mostly for transfer learning as in learn new stuff on a new domain but do not forget the old stuff as well. For forgetting it could be trained on some old images + all zeros target mask and the MAS to preserve everything else.
Bingo. All of Apple's share price and consequently of Tim Cook's income here comes from people paying money to Apple and boosting the earnings. Don't like Tim Cook earning a lot of money => Don't buy any Apple products or services. Simple as that.
If I had $750m (or any more sizable wealth really, even 10m would be enough for where I live), would be to improve wealth inequality from the roots via the boring and slow route. Better education for children (equipment, teachers, etc), regular food on the table (big problem for many people), counselings and medicine for abusive parents.
Second best thing IMO would be to start some business which is sustainable and doing some social good. For example making e-readers and cheap e-books for the aforementioned children such that their parents can actually buy them. Side note: e-readers are discounted even today (selling at loss) and most money comes from e-Book sales.
Speaking of Tesla's share price. It has Price/Earnings (PE) ratio of 1095 while a normal ratio is around 5 to 10, perhaps around 20 for tech companies. Apple's PE is 29.
Share prices have definitely lost all sense in March 2020. One should keep that in mind when analysing the current economy.
We live in a global free trade era. Every entity buys cheapest and sells dearest as they can to the best of the information they have.
Labour is just one more thing available for buying.
Not saying this is the best possible humans can do but in the current world economic system it makes no sense for anyone to dis incentivise employing cheaper foreign labour.
That's the biggest problem with the current monopoly capitalism. Centralization of power into single people making decisions with momentous impacts (be they 140+ IQ or total idiots as some other CEOs are). A good economy is made from small and medium enterprises in which some of them failing do not make much of a difference. That is also the basis of a good investment strategy, diversification.
If the single person in power does good then everything is good (more for the top people but good for everyone nonetheless). But if they do bad then thousands to hundreds of thousands of people suffer. (Reminds you of monarchy?) And the current way of looking at this is just to hope that the person in power will be happy to do good due to more shares. What would be, in my opinion, better would be to split FAANGS and encourage SMEs (small and medium enterprises)
The Elm Architecture is not that super novel. Actually it came from game development from the Components way of thinking. Take a look at this book. It's a classic for gamedev:
- https://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/
The Artificial Neural Network is essentially just a huge set of formulas involving millions and sometimes even billions of values. Debugging in conventional software engineering sense of having a breakpoint and looking at values does not work.
ShAP is primarily an instance based explainer (one image = one explanation) but if you run it over multiple instances it is possible to gather global model insights on the data. The internals of the model are still quite unexplainable compared to decision trees or anything a human can code (horrible code aside).
While not directly related to explainability their work is on providing bounds on how much can corruption of the input still provide valid output. Very interesting and practically relevant as well.
Finally there is also common sense. If race was a large factor in prediction then the model will implicitly learn to predict races. I am not in medicine and do not know how much it is but if it is then the only way to not learn race prediction is to make race not correlated to the targets.
Example: `rust slow compilation site:stackoverflow.com`