They don't need to understand the tech to recognize that there's an issue, but they do need to understand the the tech if they want to have any hope of regulating social media and fixing the issue that they have identified.
They mostly seem to give the impression that Dorsey/Zuckerberg, etc, could just tell their companies to do a thing and then it magically happens.
They at least need to understand the tech well enough to recognize that fair, effective content moderation for billions of people is a more difficult and more complicated problem than any of them have attempted to solve.
I think social media companies could do a better job of being transparent and working to reduce political bias, but I do appreciate the challenge that they are facing.
Perhaps instead of Tim meaning that its impossible for Apple to have a service outage, he was instead talking about the incredibly unrealistic things that were happening in the video. 1 guy accidentally unplugs 1 cable and brings all of Apple down, which results in applications closing out on everyone's devices and the apps just start magically uninstalling themselves.
I agree. I am still a IDA user myself but dabble with other tools in the field to see what competitive edge they may have to offer. What ever gets the job done :)
Coding and math books frequently list prerequisites by saying something like "only really trivial mathematics knowledge that any adult should be familiar with" and then you start working through the book and realize they meant any adult that took multiple years of calculus in high school and graduated with a BS in Comp Sci or mathematics.
As a high school drop out that only later on developed an interest in learning its pretty frustrating. My BS is in Information Systems so I've missed out on a lot of math that seems to make learning computer science and programming easier. I'll have to give this resource a try. I'm a big fan of his reverse engineering material already.
I identify so hard with your comment! I’m proficient with a handful of programming languages, very comfortable with most Sys admin tasks on Unix-like OSes, and I’m almost always able to reverse engineer someone else’s similar solution to meet my needs. However, I’ve had any formal computer science education. Now, in my early 30s, I’ve found a successful career in a non-tech field but find it unfulfilling. I still love to program and I’d love to make a change, but my lack of a math and comp sci foundation gnaws at me.
I’ve tried to relearn Calc a handful times, but find myself frustrated when I have to go look up basic trig identities, and order of operations stuff just to get through practice problems. I’d love to relearn math from scratch if anyone has any recommendations.
Its just too much of a coincidence to me that at the same time they got acquired by a Bobby Kotick run company they started churning out games that, while not completely terrible, when compared to their older efforts were uninspired, generic trash made by money hungry assholes.
It never felt like something Blizzard would do, it felt like exactly what Activision would do. Maybe too many of the key people had left at that point. It happens to a lot of companies when they get big.
>People Don’t realize, but industry workers get injured/die every year on movie sets (though it is better than it used to be).
Is this largely due to construction projects like sets and the use of heavy equipment, or is it more from stunts or something else I haven't considered?
Also, since you're an insider, when they build sets and props and stuff, do they still have to follow OSHA requirements and get safety inspections and stuff?
Fatigue, carrying heavy equipment (film lights, rain equipment, set construction all involve you know, huge amounts of physical stuff being moved), equipment failure during a FX such as an explosion or a car crash.
Deaths and permanent injury were actually horrifyingly common from what I know of very early film industry. Unionisation, at least of stuntmen, has probably saved a couple of hundred lives, both literally and in avoiding permanent injury.
Simple exhaustion can do it. There was a famous case about a woman who got hit by some kind of railcar being used in production a few years ago. She died. There was a documentary made about it called “who needs sleep”. Conditions can be really really difficult sometimes, because a stars time Immensely valuable, while crew time is cheaper. So a star is ie 10k p hour While keeping crew around awake for 12/16 hours a day to shoot when they’re finished makeup / shooting another scene somewhere else is often more economical to keep the crew awake for too long. You have to finish “the day” since the star is payed per diem, afaik. I don’t work in Hollywood but film and commercials.
Q1: all of the above. Moving vehicles and equipment. Stunts/practical effects/etc. High power lighting and electrical cords strung everywhere. Tripping hazards. Falling hazards. Oh, and as a rule, never get in the helicopter.
Q2: I don’t know. I imagine it depends on how much is being built and how controlled the environment would be.
Edit: I should also stress the impact of sleep deprivation on accidents and mistakes. Filmmaking hours are often pegged at 12+ as a standard day, and a well financed production won’t bat an eye at paying the penalties to push a crew.
I was talking with some one in Prospect/BECTU (IATSE) and she mentioned her first job was on Coronation Street helping the older actors onto set and making sure they didn't trip over any thing.
I don't know about movies, but I worked on construction sites for 5 years. OSHA never showed up. Our understanding was they don't show up unless there is a fatality.
I've done the OSHA 40 hour training and even had a reportable OSHA incident (minor cut finger on a soil density gauge that got infected and required antibotics), I never heard from the agency.
>Valve has been resting on their laurels for years.
They aren't just a game development company anymore. Their primary product is Steam. If Half-Life Alyx was playable on any PC or console it would have been one of the best selling games of the year. Its only a niche product because, instead of resting on their laurels, they are trying to drive the industry forward.
Not only did they make the Index, which is by far the best VR Headset yet, they also supposedly helped HP develop the Reverb G2 that's coming out soon.
GabeN likes playing Dota but the idea that he sits around all day playing videogames when he's been building, improving, and expanding a billion dollar gaming empire is ridiculous.
There's also the massive progress towards making Linux a viable gaming platform. Really the only thing keeping me on Windows on my gaming system is the fact that most competitive multiplayer games' anti-cheat software can't run on Linux yet. If I played mostly single player games or casual multiplayer I could play almost everything I want to on Linux.
IMO they are plenty innovative. I wish they released more games, but aside from gaming they are doing a lot of great things for the gaming community.
There is latency and in VR latency is more noticeable to begin with than it is with normal gaming.
Also, there is a good amount of compression involved so the graphical fidelity takes a massive hit.
They claim that they are going to be improving both of these issues, but given that they still exist in largely the same state as they did with the Oculus Link Beta with the V1 Quest, people should be skeptical about how much improvement they are going to be able to accomplish. Carmack talked about some ideas on how it can be made better, but I don't know if he's still assisting them with anything at all.
I'm very happy with my v1 Quest, but its PC support has some significant drawbacks.
Replying to my comment because its too old to edit. Apparently Carmack is still somewhat involved and spoke at a recent Facebook event. He talked a bit about working on this problem. I'm hoping we see the results of Oculus' effort soon. I already like using it tethered to my PC, but if it can get significantly better that would be awesome.
He also mentioned he hopes they can eventually get an official wireless solution out to the public.
Not sure if it was the case for Chuck, but a small percentage Christians strongly believe that charity should be anonymous because it actually says as much in the bible.
I'm not a Christian myself and definitely not rich at all, but I do prefer anonymous donations.
1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
And Islam has similar, one of people that will be given shade on the day of judgement.
“…A man who gives in charity and hides it, such that his left hand does not know what his right hand gives in charity; and a man who remembered Allah in private and so his eyes shed tears.” (Abu Hurairah & collected in Saheeh al-Bukhari (English trans.) vol.1, p.356, no.629 & Saheeh Muslim (English trans.) vol.2, p.493, no.2248)
A Christian theologian would explain it this way: the point is what rewards the giver is seeking, because that is what reveals what’s in their heart as they do the outward action of giving. As one author observes, “The worth and excellency of a soul is determined by the object of its love.”
A gift given in secret is seeking the rewards truly worth having: the praise that comes from God. Those who seek that find it, because they loved what was truly worthy of love. But gifts given for others to see are seeking a reward on earth, not heaven—and that’s what they get. Either way, they’re not penalized if, say, the word gets out against their wishes. That’s not the point: God knows and judges the heart and rewards them based on what they were actually seeking.
So seeking rewards is not only categorically OK, it’s actually encouraged, but with the caveat that the seeker set their heart on what is eternally worthy of their love and desire.
That explanation doesn't require theology. I've seen Peter Singer make the case that it's only "true altruism" if you're just as happy when someone else does something good as when you do so yourself.
Sort of, but the difference is that Christian altruism results in an increasing expectation of being praised and rewarded by God on the other side for being his agent of love to others in this life.
The result is a lot of joy, knowing one has brought blessing and joy both to God and to other people.
Why? It sounds like you're misunderstanding something, perhaps what "reward" means in a biblical context.
This passage teaches people not to do things for show which is what many of us do in order to gain esteem and puff up our egos, often with still further gains in mind. This leads to enslavement to our egos, the approval of others, to things, and generally our constant grasping and our desires. Such false charity is pointless; it only leads to spiritual death. Allow your good deeds to remain a secret between you and the omniscient God. Charity is not loss. True charity produces spiritual "reward" by starving the monstrous, tyrannical ego that enslaves us to death. I would go so far as to say that it is even better for the giver than the receiver. The ego is Man's idolatry, and we cannot serve two masters. Thus killing the ego frees us to worship God and to live. The ego blinds us. It is like sitting in a bus at night with the lights on. All you see in the windows is yourself. Shatter the mirror and you will be freed.
That’s not sad at all. There are plenty of secular reasons for doing a good deed for the sake of the deed itself — not the reward or recognition. I mean, this is basically the entire underpinning of Kantian ethics.
That's exactly my point though. I'm an atheist, and I don't do good things out of a desire for "rewards in heaven", or rewards of any kind. I don't refrain from stealing because I'm afraid of hell or punishment. As you point out, they're done for the act itself.
This passage presents altruism as a tit-for-tat deal with God. Do good, and you'll get some of that back...later. I promise! It's almost tacky.
It is not about tit-for-tat, it is about trust.
A good parent often wants to give a child something they know will please the child more than what he/she is currently experiencing. Often the child will be angry and scream and hold onto the old, but the parent knows that as soon as the child let go and embrace what the parent has prepared the child will be happy and joyful.
God is more loving that any good parent: God IS Love, 1 John 4:8. I trust God's goodness and follow Him, I therefore don't have any reason to go into a tit-for-tat deal with God.
> This passage presents altruism as a tit-for-tat deal with God. Do good, and you'll get some of that back...later. I promise! It's almost tacky.
Correction: the passage makes no mention of "heaven."
I don't think you mean to say "tit-for-tat" as that means something else, but I do get the gist: it seems that there's some kind of contractual obligation on the part of God. The logical argument being: if you do [GIVE], then He does [REWARD]. This is a subtle argument, but flawed for a number of reasons (and why texts should never be taken out of context).
First, God isn't beholden to anyone. He does as He pleases, and the only "laws" He is bound by is His own nature (good, omniscient, eternal, etc.). There's many examples where Pharisees try to play these logical gotcha games with Christ, and they're always repudiated.
Secondly, the point of the passage itself is twofold: (1) avoid religious hypocrisy, and (2) avoid materialistic vainglory. Reading into the text deeper than that, brings us to my last point...
Finally, given that Christianity is a theist moral system, it makes sense that the ultimate arbiter of "goodness" is God -- in my opinion, that's why Chist brings up the "reward" -- which, for all intents and purposes, might just be God's approval (who knows what that entails).
Its important to prevent individual companies from doing it but its also important to prevent groups of companies and even entire industries from doing it.
They mostly seem to give the impression that Dorsey/Zuckerberg, etc, could just tell their companies to do a thing and then it magically happens.
They at least need to understand the tech well enough to recognize that fair, effective content moderation for billions of people is a more difficult and more complicated problem than any of them have attempted to solve.
I think social media companies could do a better job of being transparent and working to reduce political bias, but I do appreciate the challenge that they are facing.