I'm not sure I'd call it "failed commercially at solving booking". Google stopped their work on creating a booking system after the acquisition since they were never interested in getting into booking.
They had one small airline (Cape Air) using it for a long time, so I don't quite get your point. It was built, but almost nobody bought it. Google did squash it roughly 2 years after buying ITA, but it was pretty much dead anyway.
I have to admit I don't know this stuff first hand, but based on what I heard, it took quite a while for ITA to be fully "absorbed" into Google, during which time they didn't change much. I also heard that their first customer was more of a pilot or development partner. Also, from what I know about the airline industry, they change very very slowly and it'd take a long time from the time airlines are approached to the time things are actually in production, especially for something this critical.
That's fair. I'm not trying to portray ITA as a failure. Quite the opposite. Trying to say even an elite group of genius talent can't turn the ship quickly. That it's more about legacy thinking than it is about legacy tech.
Airlines and OTA companies could be 10x more innovative with the tech they have now. TPF and other old tech is NOT the barrier.
Often times, if the work is critical enough, you could argue paying the 3rd party with a track record, insurance or a strict contract for delivery, support is the logical choice. Sure someone in-house could do it, but if they screw up or create something that bites you down the line, is it going to end up costing more.
The cynical way to interpret this behavior though is the old "No one got fired for buying IBM". Paying a big name outside company is the safe choice because you can always blame them, but if you decided to go with the in house guy, there's no one else to blame.
I think you are underestimating the amount of video that gets uploaded to Youtube. Smaller sites may be better at stuff like this but that's solely because they don't have quite the amount of content. Hundreds of hours of videos are uploaded per minute. They may eventually have AI good enough to do a better job, but this is an unprecedented amount of content to review.
If youtube can't handle the load, then they shouldn't claim that they can. At the absolute lest, they need a usable appeals process. If they can't do that, then they need to own up to it, and stop allowing anyone to upload anything.
Sorry, but why? Google owns nobody anything. If you have war crime evidence or other important content to publish, upload it to YouTube and all other video sites, letting archive.org and other human rights organizations in the loop. You can put the press in the mix as well.
Because it's a shitty thing to do, and we shouldn't encourage shitty behavior? Just because they want to take the cheap and lazy route doesn't mean that we can't criticize them for it.
YouTube is a company that is beholden to advertisers. YouTube wants/pays for videos that they can put ads in front of. If your content is not the type of content YouTube can wrap in ads, and you need longevity for your videos, YouTube is not the platform for you. YouTube never claimed to be an everlasting video storage space for all your video needs, so I'm not sure why you're expecting that of them.
It's in part because that is what Google has done in the past. They give you unlimited space to store your photos, your email, and your data, why wouldn't you expect to be able to store video.
Video has become politicised because it is a popular medium for political topics and one which can be rapidly produced and consumed. Advertisers are perhaps influencing Google's decisions on this, but they are equally political. The debacle with the diversity memo is one example of biases inside of the company. There have been many more examples over the last years, one such example is censorship across the board of conservative commentators.
It goes on in Facebook, Twitter and so on. So we have to wait for competitors to turn up, how many years will that take? Is that a responsible route considering the foothold these companies have?
Yes, absolutely, you have to wait for a competitor to turn up. Or you can build a platform yourself, it's not difficult to do, especially in 2017. Hosting is cheap, video codecs are open source, there are a lot of companies that are willing to negotiate advertising partnerships. YouTube is a private businesses, fuck your privilege.
ALSO: I don't know about you, but this so-called "censoring" of conservative commentators doesn't seem to have worked. I see more young people skewing right/centre than I did 10 years ago. You can call it censorship if you want (because sure, that's probably the best term), but implying that a company selectively hosting content is the same thing as limiting the free exercise of speech is absurd.
The CR reliability score I saw recently lumped together the power train reliability with the entertainment system jankiness. I think this makes it not as useful
The JD powers rating still rates Honda highly.
Can someone explain the computation the article talks about further? All it says is that the array will go into a chaotic state and produce seemingly random output.
I believe they talk about the computational task described in [1] (published in 2016). Note that this is somewhat contrived: it's a task defined specifically so that it is very difficult for classical computers and relatively easy for quantum computers. It is also defined in a way that ensures that a quantum computer necessary to demonstrate quantum supremacy is relatively small in terms of the number of qubits.
The task is that of generating output samples from pseudo-random quantum circuits. The paper shows that the task has exponential computational complexity on classical computers and that it can be used to demonstrate quantum supremacy using a quantum computer with approximately 50 qubits.
Now, the IEEE Spectrum article indicates that the team has now built a 49-qubit quantum computer and plan to use it to demonstrate quantum supremacy.
EDIT: Replaced direct pdf link with the article page link.
Am I right to read this as "the classical computer and quantum computer compete at the task of being that particular quantum computer?" Scott Aaronson is probably preparing to denounce this experiment already.
Not really "that particular", but more like performing a trick explicitly designed to be feasible even for low-qubit quantum computers but unfeasible even for very powerful conventional computers attempting to emulate quantum computing.
Performing such a trick demonstrates that you have a working device that can perform arbitrary quantum computations - unlike, say, the much hyped D-wave quantum annealing device.
If you'd checked the article, you would see that actually he's solidly in favor.
But yes, it's basically "represent a quantum computer of this size", which we legitimately can't do classically beyond a certain size. It's not hugely useful but it's legitimate quantum supremacy, if it works.
I don't know a good link to a discussion of this system, but the idea of establishing quantum supremacy has been much discussed in optical systems under the title of boson sampling.
It wasn't clear to me either. Demonstrated "supremacy" over conventional general-purpose CPUs, as described in the article, does certainly read like hyperbole.
You mentioned a link to another educational video, however; you provided no links in your comment. Would you mind editing your content to include the link? I'm quite interested.
Also, I'm glad you became a fan! Some people mock anything that is government funded and reflexively assume private enterprise always makes a superior product.
One exception of many to this I recently found is when the gf and I were watching tv and she changed the station to the Science Channel. My excitement was destroyed by my exponentially higher dissapointment: The tv show she wanted to watch was Ghost Hunters...on the frickin science channel!!!!
Specifically, it's the Infinite series. Math is so much easier to understand with animations. Something that would take me hours of dense reading of some dusty tome can to grok requires only 20 minutes with modern video production
I find your position disingenuous. When people bring up H1B = slaves they don't care about the poor immigrant's low wage, they care about the indirect impact they would have on their salaries.
I, for one, would(or would have before Trump) gladly worked even for 66000 $/year in the US, considering I'm currently making 1/5th of that in my home country. And it would be advantageous for me and would not see myself as a slave - people go there using H1B because it makes sense financially. And there you go, saying you're against H1B because you want to protect those people from what they want to do? The argument doesn't make sense! Just say already you want to protect your wages and don't hide behind "good will".
I'm in your position but even worse off, so I'm not a US citizen and am not just being exclusionary.
Of course it's rational for people to go to the US on H1b visas. I would be of the exact same opinion as you in this sense.
This isn't the issue though. One of the issue is the abuses that are occurring due to companies ability to hire many H1B workers at the expense of their own. Another issue is that large corporations are practically dictating government policy on visas. None of these are right imo.
> This isn't the issue though. One of the issue is the abuses that are occurring due to companies ability to hire many H1B workers at the expense of their own. Another issue is that large corporations are practically dictating government policy on visas. None of these are right imo.
And these are not the issues I'm attacking. I'm arguing against the self-richeous statements of some people that are against H1B visas because of the poor poor immigrants that come here[there] to earn such low salaries. They care about their own salaries, and that's fine, but just say so. In my post, I didn't take an issue with protectionism (although I don't agree with it either, even if I were either side of the border) but name that as your reason, don't hide behind a false one.
Of course it does. The H1B scheme isn't a Google scheme. They might campaign for certain parameters within the scheme, e.g. required skillset, minimum pay, but ultimately they're campaigning to extend the scheme. Which leaves it open to abuses by other companies, and continued worker displacement, and continued suppression of wages.
The H1B visa program already has different pipelines for different countries and education levels. Even if it didn't, that it does, there's no reason they couldn't be implemented.
The bucket companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon or Microsoft are trying to hire from is the highest skillset. The supply is so short that starting salaries out of college are 6 figures; the situation is gentrifying the whole Bay Area. There's no way random shady company X can abuse any of these candidates, nor treat them like slaves, rather the opposite.
The other end of the H1B spectrum, these companies aren't interested in hiring. Their shareholders wouldn't want to spend a dime lobbying to extend those buckets.
I know all this from my own experience going through the process.
After 80 years of ignoring the data, I do not know how else one would effect change other than employing the same tactics. Empirical data is available, anecdotal data is available, historical harm has accrued for non-violent "offenders". The rarely spoken facets of the hemp plant's superiority to pulp derived paper and cotton fabrics have been ignored for almost a century. Before "reefer madness" was invented, the aforementioned products couldn't compete, hemp was common and priduced superior products. The reasons for demonizing hemp, not marijuana, were economic forces and lobbyists pushing their agendas at any cost.
But the app is required for configuration, not for actually using your wifi, right? Perhaps I'm wrong.. The overlap for needing to configure your network and the internet connection being down is probably very small, although not non-existant.
Doesn't Google already have a web based, but internal only, IDE? I don't know if that'd be easy to make external, but my understanding is that they've got a lot of internal users on it.
Yeah, and Cider was getting surprisingly good at the point I left Google (I was initially a skeptic). But so much of what made it good came from its tight integration with other internal tooling. I'd be surprised if it's ever externalized in a form that captures most of that value.
