gloob

15 ms·

91.
by gloob 16y ago
From the descriptions I've read, Watson only buzzed in after it believed it had a solid answer. If it was significantly less accurate than its competitors, it wouldn't have spent the entire match buzzing in before them. I'm afraid I don't
92.
by gloob 16y ago
So the game turns from "the absurdly smart computer stomps everyone" to "the absurdly smart (but deliberately crippled) computer may or may not stomp everyone, depending mostly on random chance." That doesn't sound like a great improvement,
93.
by gloob 16y ago
Not certain what's unfair about it - if we accept that the human contestants would have scored comparably to Watson (if they had the opportunity), then the competition really does boil down to who has the fastest thumb. I can't imagine it
94.
by gloob 16y ago
I have a soft spot for YYYY-MM-DD, mostly because performing an alphabetic sort on a bunch of files/directories named that way will sort them by date.
95.
by gloob 16y ago
I admit to basing this on nothing more than a gut feeling, but a "sufficiently smart decompiler" seems even less plausible than a "sufficiently smart compiler".
96.
by gloob 16y ago
There exists a non-negligible rift between "supposed to" and "actually does".
97.
by gloob 16y ago
DDG does its own crawling in addition to using the Bing API. I'm unclear on how the meme that they don't do any crawling has gotten widespread enough to be brought up every time the site is mentioned.
98.
by gloob 16y ago
How "white man's burden"-esque.
99.
by gloob 16y ago
In fairness, that also describes FTP, POP3, and DNS. Edit: and LDAP, and Redis, and medical PACS datastores, and RDBMS in all their multifaceted splendour... a freakish amount of programming boils down to CRUD. Edit 2: and Gopher. I feel a
100.
by gloob 16y ago
The average Win32 program or Java web app has a dizzying list of dependencies and it would be impossible for the programmer sitting on top of that software stack to make any guarantees about the stuff underneath. That, divorced from furth
101.
by gloob 16y ago
All that really means is that most people don't really care that much about the number buried way deep in their phone's Settings menus.
102.
by gloob 16y ago
A possible reason: nobody buys it when Russia says they support democracy. Another point worth bearing in mind: three days of supporting protestors probably will not compensate (from a "hearts-and-minds" perspective) for three decades of su
103.
by gloob 16y ago
s/human/American/
104.
by gloob 16y ago
Does anyone? Countries outside America do have law enforcement agencies for the most part, so yes.
105.
by gloob 16y ago
In fairness, I know scads of people with fingers, but only one with an iPad.
106.
by gloob 16y ago
Do you have a rigorous definition of innovation? Or, at least, rigorous enough that you can measure it and stick a number on it? Because, without the ability to stick a number on it, how do you propose to know which sorts of actions are op
107.
by gloob 16y ago
I am not convinced that Dawkins would agree with you.
108.
by gloob 16y ago
I have all my data under my control, where I can easily back it up, am not subject to any whimsical "terms and conditions", and pay ~$0/year in hosting fees. How 90s.
109.
by gloob 16y ago
In fairness, sending them has always been easy. The DMCA just means that people have to listen to them.
110.
by gloob 16y ago
"Not assuming a literal interpretation of 100%" seems about as sensible as not assuming a literal interpretation of "the coin flip came up heads". Presumably if the poster had meant 80% (or whatever number) they would have said that instea
111.
by gloob 16y ago
Or to domains that might log your requests and later be bought out by a company that mines your data. Or to domains that might log your requests and turn around and sell the info to others. Or to domains that might log your requests and the
112.
by gloob 16y ago
Taking his suggestions would no more "break the web" than Craigslist broke paper. It would harm a common business model, sure, but I have yet to see a good reason for me to care about the business models of web companies any more than I ca
113.
by gloob 16y ago
A euphemism for "web page".
114.
by gloob 16y ago
Forgive me if I'm being dense, but in what way is "I can be snarky!" a response to "Apple weren't exactly the first people to pursue this basic idea"?
115.
by gloob 16y ago
If I don't buy the "Feel sorry for me! Prop up my business!" argument when the newspapers make it, and I don't buy it when the record companies make it, why should I buy it when people running websites make it?
116.
by gloob 16y ago
Are there any resources you could recommend for learning about signal processing?
117.
by gloob 16y ago
Only if you believe there is enough demand for software to double the number of people producing it.
118.
by gloob 16y ago
It is a peculiar property of the software industry that "advance" means "able to do the same things as before, but more slowly".
119.
by gloob 16y ago
Multiple companies, including Apple (and Nokia, which ain't exactly a minor player in the mobile market) objected to HTML5 mandating support for a particular codec, largely on the grounds that we don't really know the patent situations of
120.
by gloob 16y ago
In fairness, bro, I never mentioned WebM in the post you are replying to, nor did I suggest that "de facto standards" are irrelevant. I merely disagreed with your use of the phrase "de facto standard" in and of itself.

More ›