|
I don't think we'll render ourselves obsolete, but rather stand on the shoulders of our robots and free us up to build more.
Expanding the "leisure class" (in this context I mean those that do not physically toil so I'm including scientists, academics, coders, even managers, etc) is a net win for humanity because that's where our innovation comes from. I should caution you that I'm not saying those who physically toil cannot innovate - more that they are otherwise occupied feeding themselves + feeding me and you.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
modified 25-Oct-23 9:07am.
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't understand it, I'm not quite sure who would.
|
|
|
|
|
In the same way that "AI boosts robot teaching" (work task analysis), AI should also be able to tell how humans can "labor" more efficiently. Fine tune quotas and such.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Keeping in mind of course that that almost all articles like this are marketing and/or promotional.
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, maybe it's me but wtf?
Boss asked me to send him the release notes. I'd already done so, but hey ok. I send him the release notes (it's a word doc) via teams. We are now live editing the document with comments and what not. It's so f'ing confusing, I'm authorizing a tactical nuclear strike on MS headquarters.
This is progress? This is why you canned the default messaging app to come up with this monstrosity?
My boss made changes. I said, where's the doc? He says, "You own it, it's in your messenger." At this point I have no elephanting idea where the #$%%$^%^%^% document is.
This is utter bs.
<edit> The best part is that all of the content in messenger expires in one week. Joy. I will not miss this crap.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
modified 24-Oct-23 16:19pm.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: We are now live editing the document
Myself that doesn't sound like an efficient use of time?
Last time I tried it MS Word has a very useable editing tool that allows for adding review comments, making changes, etc. And then the original author can review those easily.
Why not just send it to him. Then he makes edits on his own time and schedule and then sends it back?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the corporation has drunk the kool-aid and gone full in MS. Which is fine, but I should have just emailed it. Instead, I dragged the file to Teams and off it went. So the boss made his edits, and was waiting on me to complete the doc. I had no idea I SHARED the file. I have three computers and a dozen VMs. I actually do not know where the file is....
The last time I sent a file through messenger, it was just a copy, not a live doc. I guess it makes sense sort of... but it would have been nice to know
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
The code below successfully draws a rounded pushbutton (without text since my SVG engine doesn't support text directly and i haven't added the text drawing code yet)
I just fired it up this morning and wrote it and it worked. Last time it didn't. I have no idea why. I've changed some things but nothing that should have destroyed it to where it silently failed.
I'm not sure whether I'm happy about this or not.
dumb button (without text) in svg - YouTube[^]
if(m_doc_dirty) {
gfx_result res;
svg_doc_builder builder(ssizef(destination.dimensions().width,destination.dimensions().width));
svg_shape_info si;
si.stroke.color = color<rgba_pixel<32>>::white;
si.stroke.type = svg_paint_type::color;
si.fill.type = svg_paint_type::color;
si.fill.color = m_pressed ? color<rgba_pixel<32>>::red : color<rgba_pixel<32>>::purple;
srect16 b = this->bounds().dimensions().bounds(); res = builder.add_rounded_rectangle(rectf(b.x1,b.y1,b.x2,b.y2),{10,10}, si);
if (res != gfx_result::success) {
Serial.printf("Error: %d\r\n", (int)res);
return;
}
builder.to_doc(&m_doc);
m_doc_dirty = false;
}
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
you know what happens when you even think "I don't know why" right? Same as "the bug went away..."
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Normally, these mysteries boil down to…
I turned off the autobuild setting!
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 26-Oct-23 12:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Politics not popular here Steve
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand. How does this qualify as being political?
|
|
|
|
|
Have a look here: Attempted murder - Wikipedia[^]
Quote: First, acting deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, the person attempted to kill someone; and the person did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime.
Was it a deliberate act? Yes.
Was it intentional or reckless with extreme disregard for human life? Yes.
Did he take an action that was a step towards killing the passengers? Yes. If he thought at all, he relied on the other pilots realising what he did in time, and being able to undo what he did in time, assuming the attempts to undo it didn't have complications resulting in a crash (the system could have failed, the off switch could have broken, hydraulic problems, etc.)
I suspect his defence will try to wriggle it down, but I'd say that you fly for the big one and let a jury decide.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Was it a deliberate act? Yes.
He did commit a deliberate act. That's a yes.
OriginalGriff wrote: Was it intentional or reckless with extreme disregard for human life? Yes.
His deliberate act was both intentional and reckless with extreme disregard for human life. That's a yes.
What we haven't established yet, are his intentions for committing an intentional act. We know it was intentional and reckless with an extreme disregard for human life, but we don't know what his intentions were in committing this act. I don't know what his intentions were, but I agree with you on the points you made.
OriginalGriff wrote: If he thought at all, he relied on the other pilots realising what he did in time, and being able to undo what he did in time, assuming the attempts to undo it didn't have complications resulting in a crash (the system could have failed, the off switch could have broken, hydraulic problems, etc.)
That's thought-provoking. You make an interesting point.
OriginalGriff wrote: I suspect his defence will try to wriggle it down, but I'd say that you fly for the big one and let a jury decide.
Ultimately, a jury's decision is what matters. We can discuss our opinions as long as we do so in a reasonable manner. Everyone has an absolute right to hold their opinions and express them as they choose to do so. I respect that. Everyone has the right to challenge the opinions of others. I respect that. It's important that we remind ourselves of these rights. To infringe upon these rights is a violation of the most fundamental principles we live by. I want to reiterate that this thread is entirely about opinion. We don't know what the facts are. If we don't have knowledge of the facts, we can't establish a valid argument to support an opinion. Opinions are entirely subjective, and that's something we need to keep in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how much intent even matters here from a legal perspective.
Intent is the difference between 2nd degree and 1st degree murder.
Attempted murder would seem to cover even the cases where intent wasn't there, as long as say, the reckless disregard was.
In general prosecution overcharges if anything, and defense over defends. It's an adversarial system by design where in the end, hopefully the two opposing sides air every possible avenue and something resembling "fair" emerges from the smoke.
For my part, everything that happened from a legal perspective seems par for the course.
I won't weigh in on how I feel about the legal system because it would get political.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Raw wrote: this thread is entirely about opinion. We don't know what the facts are. If we don't have knowledge of the facts, we can't establish a valid argument to support an opinion.
Exactly, so not sure of the point of this thread. I have an interest in crash investigations (mainly rail but also air) from a technical perspective. In due course I'll be interested to read the details of this incident and the way that the judge/jury came to a conclusion, based on the facts that will be presented to them. We don't have those facts. Until then we, like the jury for now, shouldn't be reaching conclusions and judging whether a murder charge is appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Right, we can't reach any reasonable conclusion here. What we can do is we can explore possibilities of what may have happened. We can discuss scenarios based on how we view the incident from our point of view. The point of this thread is to understand how others interpret the situation. That way it leads us to consider ideas that we haven't thought of.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Raw wrote: I don't know of any FAA laws that prohibit an idiot from doing something stupid
Most of the FAA laws are there because an idiot did something stupid and they want to prevent the next one doing it!
Think about it: turning up to work drunk is bad in any profession, but as a pilot? But they still do, the FAA law is there to make sure they can't do it again by permanently removing their right to fly.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Most of the FAA laws are there because an idiot did something stupid
You nailed it. That's exactly how it works. It's often referred to as "graveyard legislation".
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that his wish was to crash the airplane, which would (probably) have caused the death of 83 people. Even though his "primary" intent probably was to commit suicide, he most certainly knew that everybody on board would die with him. Maybe he can convince the court and the judge that he did not intend to crash the plane; that would change matters - but I'd be surprised. So to me, it sounds very much as if he attempted to murder them.
I also think that if you murder 83 civilians because you think that there is a certain chance that there possibly is an enemy soldier among them, you are still murdering 83 civilians.
Here in Norway, a young man who "technically" was a virgin, he had never been in bed with a girl, was convicted of raping 120 girls. He hadn't ever met any of these 120 girls in person. But he had seen pictures of their bodies on his PC screen. According to Norwegian law, that is more than attempted rape, it is equivalent to actually performing the rape. As far as I understand it, it applies only if you see a digital image on a PC screen. If you see the girl's body in real life, with nothing more happening beyond you seeing her body, as far as I know, you cannot be convicted of rape. The difference comes when we can put the label 'internet' on it.) Noone claims that this guy had any real intent of physically raping the girls, and it didn't happen. Yet he was convicted as if it had happened.
I find this a lot harder to accept than a man deliberately and knowingly trying to crash an airplane being convicted of attempted murder of the passengers and crew on board the plane.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Here in Norway
I like that we have a community that spans the world. The more diverse input that is provided to think about makes this question all the more interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Here in Norway, a young man who "technically" was a virgin, he had never been in bed with a girl, was convicted of raping 120 girls. He hadn't ever met any of these 120 girls in person. But he had seen pictures of their bodies on his PC screen. According to Norwegian law, that is more than attempted rape, it is equivalent to actually performing the rape. As far as I understand it, it applies only if you see a digital image on a PC screen. If you see the girl's body in real life, with nothing more happening beyond you seeing her body, as far as I know, you cannot be convicted of rape. The difference comes when we can put the label 'internet' on it.) Noone claims that this guy had any real intent of physically raping the girls, and it didn't happen. Yet he was convicted as if it had happened.
  Wow...
Local laws are local laws, but WOW...
Missing more information about the case:
if he stalked the girls to take the pictures when undressing or in what could be called "safe space" (home, college dorms, gym...) I would kind of understand it.
Just possesing some pictures that might have been hot selfies, that got synchronized to the cloud and then somehow leaked... then I would think it is a bit too harsh to make it as raping.
Kind of frightening without more information about the concrete law.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: was a virgin, he had never been in bed with a girl, was convicted of raping 120 girls. He hadn't ever met any of these 120 girls in person. But he had seen pictures of their bodies on his PC screen.
Googling I could not find any references to that.
|
|
|
|
|
Here's something to consider.
What if he experienced a psychotic break? What happens during a psychotic break is that a person loses touch with reality. Losing touch with reality could easily have been what caused such bizarre behavior. It can happen to anyone, even if there is no evidence that could indicate the presence of mental illness. It's possible that mental illness may not even be present. A psychotic break can happen to someone as a result of a medical condition. Oftentimes, a psychotic break will occur as a result of significant stress or trauma. If you're a pilot over the age of 40, you require a health checkup every six months. It's required by law. It's well within reason to consider that he has passed his health checkups without any problems in the past. It's well within reason to understand that without any history of mental illness, this can happen to someone without forewarning. Given that these psychotic episodes occur in a state of psychological stress, he may have acted out of panic, with a delusion that caused him to believe there was in fact an engine fire. If this were to be the case, how would it change your opinion? By no means would I consider ruling this possibility out. If this were in fact the case, would it affect your opinion? How so?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
