> In general, connections are not used with the same intensity... so assigning equal value to them is not justified. This is the basic objection to Metcalfe’s Law...
In my architectonic opinion, the perfect network comprises all nodes operating equally. Ergo the ideal is indeed Metcalfe's law, but architecture and design can be costly, which is simple the inefficient use of resources. These being very precise machines, anything less than 99.999% is amateur, ergo the law obtains.
We are talking about computer systems that connect a network of humans. Humans are notoriously imprecise and unreliable machines. Anything more than 0.00001% is therefore a miracle.
Lol, networking people has produced little of real value except the paradigm itself, and social networking is little more than making humans more efficient at marketing to each other. Networking is for DATA. When people behave like networked machines... well that's global capital communism tbqh.
The root cause is their need to reach for conclusions, probably from the outset of the study in order to justify their so-designed "experiment". Statistical studies should come without any pretense of a conclusion from the researchers. There are always multiple conclusions to be had, and students are naive. If you have to start with a statistical conclusion, you are already lost.
Not sure I’m understanding this. The post mentions that pre-registering was very helpful for the precise reason that it prevents researchers from altering their statistical criteria in order to suit their desired conclusions.
The article is about measurement, which the author doesn't define one bit. Measurement reform is too late in the process to mitigate conclusion chasing. This is a problem of academics and politics, not scientific methods.
Yandex. There is nothing that comes close for reverse image searching by a mile. It even has the same feature as bing where you can just copy paste the picture itself, no need to mess with urls. Bing is decent but reverse image is failing the same way Google's is. And Bing recently introduced the obnoxious full screen UI where it gives you products it found in the picture instead of doing a real reverse image search.
> Bing is significantly better than Google at image [...] search
I'd say it depends. It certainly has its strengths, and I have definitively encountered (image) searches where Bing's results where noticeably superior to Google's, but one area where for me Google shines and Bing fails is the ability to search for "site:example.com keyword" and as long as the search keyword in question is recognised by Google's image recognition pipeline, it'll return search results not just based on the classic "index nearby text and hope it's somehow related to the pictures" method, but also based on the actual image contents themselves.
With Bing either they don't do that kind of image recognition at all, or maybe it just doesn't work as well in conjunction with the site:-operator, or maybe its image recognition simply has a much more limited vocabulary as compared to Google (at least for the things I'm interested in) – in any case that kind of search for me simply works much better with Google.
This was never the open internet. You can't send a direct packet to another person without intermediaries and cloud systems. You can barely host a website from your personal computer, most cannot. This internet is as they say sold out.
We are the ones that are sold out, by regulatory capture, monopolies, wireless spectra, etc. Section 230 does nothing for people, it created the platforms that censor, and gave the government a hook into the industry.
Look, even EFF supports section 230 [0]; btw, EFF is a total sell out operating as a feel good, ideological protector. All they do is swindle the "engineering culture" into pushing these things onto the world.
Hopefully people treat AIs like they treat other people on the internet, with disrespect and zero sympathy. We have been trained for this. Don't go soft on polite robots, that will be your undoing.
Everybody has smart phones, wealthy and poor alike. Many poor people have the same exact best available model as the wealthy. That is enrichment. Communism would never have created that. Capitalism might not have gotten them manufactured as cheaply though. Thanks communism!
A smartphone is pretty similar in wealth terms to owning sofa/couch. They're about the same price new, they each make your life a bit better but encourage some bad habits and they each rapidly devalue second hand. I wouldn't say owning a sofa makes you rich, even owning a nice one. It might mean you're a bit sloppy with personal finance but what's a grand between billionaires? And smartphones even have much more favourable financing options.
I think the thing is with smartphones that they're clever but they're not that expensive. A lot of what makes them special is just derived from sand one way or the other. Compared to renting an apartment, your phone barely registers on your finances, it's usually at least an order of magnitude out even if you're in a cheap place and have an expensive phone.
Yet housing is the real necessity, why hasn't capitalism made that cheap yet? It feels like a case of bad incentives. Which is not to say that communism would do any better, I'm well aware of its pitfalls. But I think the idea that capitalism makes everyone rich is also a bit absurd.
True, but you focus on price alone. I explicitly referred to enrichment, which is more than money. Life is enriched by access to info, services, etc, which the phone offers more or less equally. Life without these now is truly 3rd world.
So capitalists technology enriched poor people in ways the communism never would, via technology advancement. The smartphone comprises extreme technology infrastructure, from chips, to wireless, to software... immense industrial coordination.
Right now communists want to build multi-family homes like we all live in NYC, and claim we should do this on ideological grounds (environment, etc). Housing needs notwithstanding (and exaggerated imho), communist housing would not enrich even a middle class family who has a house in the burbs. The ideology of communist housing actually plays right into capitalist factoria.
What communists don't understand is that communism IS capitalism. I think this is what Marxism was trying to elucidate about capital, but then folks of a certain persuasion asked Marx to write a manifesto for communism which they spread the world over for ideological purposes.
Communism and capitalism are the same coin. So communist fight the wrong fight. They fight to create conditions favorable to capitalism in the name of taking the factory they never seem to get. Crowded housing and population equals commodity labor (cheap, fungible). You can't run a giant factory without nearby workers, and they can't afford houses, so you pack them in "multi family housing". Now you need to convince them this is actually the morally right thing, so communism says its better for the environment (which is not even a core concern of communism, so that proves the ideologues are just shifty, shifty to the left as needed).
It's more complicated than that. They have regulations but they work differently. The Basic Law for Land regulates against speculation and profiteering off of rises in land values (which are arguably the most capitalist bits of western housing markets!) and specifically privileges public use over private interests as well as other "keeping with the surroundings" style provisions which are familiar in the UK/Europe as well.
So I'd argue it's more of a social market than a free market as such. Although I can see how you'd consider it more of a free market than in the US with its zealous zoning rules.
> And I found... that [the book] is a powerful caution against the corrosive effect of centralized authority.
This conclusion boggles me lmao. I guess you have to read it like a communist in order to conclude that everything this Valtin guy perpetrated, endured, and witnessed, was all for the cause.
> In general, connections are not used with the same intensity... so assigning equal value to them is not justified. This is the basic objection to Metcalfe’s Law...
In my architectonic opinion, the perfect network comprises all nodes operating equally. Ergo the ideal is indeed Metcalfe's law, but architecture and design can be costly, which is simple the inefficient use of resources. These being very precise machines, anything less than 99.999% is amateur, ergo the law obtains.