He's got a point though. The 70 cents on the dollar thing has been debunked pretty thoroughly by now, and yet people just keep mindlessly parroting it. Maybe arguing about it is not, in fact, a sensible thing to do.
No, you're not going to be a "dinosaur". 99% of extremely well compensated software engineering jobs do not involve ML. Using top large companies as a proxy of what things are going to be like in the world at large 3 years from now, maybe one in 200-300 engineers does anything in any way related to ML there. And that's a generous estimate. You do need to know what it is, roughly, but there's no need to drop everything you're doing and switch careers.
TF is in a fortunate position of having several UIs at this point. It's a lower level framework with a lot of power. If you don't need all that power, Keras or TFLearn or Slim are pretty great. If you do, it's there for you. I see no evidence that Google's goal with TF is to lock you into anything, and especially GCE. I'm a former Google employee, and I can tell you unequivocally — that's not how Google actually works.
It's just that we haven't seen people protesting in the streets for some reason. Hmmm, I wonder why that is. Dropping 100k bombs, killing 2200 people with drones, and toppling several governments sure seems like a bigger deal to me than a 3 month visa ban.
The way I see it, TF is about to pull _way_ ahead thanks to XLA JIT/AOT. All of a sudden you get the ability to fuse things at a much more granular level, which could reduce memory bandwidth requirements by a lot. Frameworks like Torch can't do any fusing at all, since their computation is fully imperative. Tactical win for imperative frameworks, I suppose, but strategically functional graph is the way to go. DB people realized this in the 70s, ML people are realizing this now.
It just blows my mind that Soviet Venera landers were sending digital (!) images back from the surface of Venus in early 80s. This would be a heck of an achievement even today some 35 years later.
You only need basic knowledge of physics to see why a high performance car without large radiators would overheat when expending a ton of energy per unit of time. Sadly a lot of people here lack it.
Because if you drive a Tesla hard, battery overheats and it shuts down. Plus once you run out of battery (even if it doesn't overheat) you need several hours to recharge it. Plus Tesla is only "high performance" in a straight line. I believe they had an episode with a Tesla. It ended up on a tow truck.
They don't use Docker outside Cloud, true, but their container technology is the same as what Docker uses: cgroups. Brought to you by a couple of Google dudes a decade ago.
You're thinking about it incorrectly. Docker is not a VM. Docker is more like a chroot and a set of additional capability restrictions on top. Basically there are several things that are namespaced in Linux. Processes, network, users, IPC, mount, etc. Docker simply manages these namespaces. At a high level, when you fire up a container, a namespace gets created for it. So unless you explicitly tell Docker to expose things from the host, there's only a very limited set of things your container will see. Crucially, everything uses the same kernel, same drivers, etc, and there's zero overhead.
Think of your Linux host as simply a default namespace.
The real news here is that HuffPo agrees with Trump. I thought their editorial policy was to interpret everything Trump says in the most low-IQ and paranoid way possible. Someone needs to call them and ask if everything is OK.
There's security and there's safety. Linux desktop may well be less secure, meaning that it could be successfully attacked by an experienced attacker. At the same time it's far less likely to be attacked, so it's safer, for the same reason as macOS: less marketshare, few people are motivated to learn/research attack vectors.
As a person who's looking to hire people, I'm signaling them the opposite. We use C++ with only a few maximally boring dependencies. And even in C++ we stick to C plus smart pointers, and a very occasional class where it makes sense.
But that's just Windows. What you can get a Google is a full test run over _everything_ that your change affects. This lets you ensure that an obscure change in behavior will not break others, including products built using your library as a remote, transitive dependency. You also get to fix bugs globally. Say you had a really shitty internal API that was causing problems or slowing things down. You get to actually go in there and change that API, and update callsites in one atomic commit. You can also make sure that you're not breaking anyone's build or tests by introducing your change. There are teams at Google whose purpose in life is repo-wide "code cultivation". Finding issues and fixing them globally basically. This just doesn't happen at MS.