Thats different qualitatively and quantitatively than buying patent rights for cheap (since the even the original patent holders didn't think it was worth much) and suing random people who happen to use a product that may infringe on the patent.
You answered that yourself, didn't you? You first said that Transmeta became a patent troll. But the one doing the trolling (a word related to "trawling") is Intellectual Ventures. Not Transmeta, the latter did actual work and did create products.
So intellectual ventures - notably a different company than transmeta - is being a patent troll. That means transmeta became a patent troll too?
Why should I believe what you say anyway? Wendy Verlander - notably a different person than you - is a well known patent troll. That means you are just another patent troll not worth my attention. (At least according to your reasoning).
Not the person you asked, but I think it comes down to past experiences/family environment/etc. Theres poking fun at someone to signal "i like you anyway"... that is real. There's also people who cross the line with their words, and use "i was just joking" as an excuse to be cruel.
If someone has experienced a lot of the later, it makes sense that they don't really trust the former.
Sure, and then the spammers figure out how to fool the checks. And sendgrid has to figure out how to detect the new and improved spammers. Then the spammers figure out how to fool the new and improved checks... and so on.
The part where sendgrid has to keep figuring out how to make new and improved validation is expensive.
Constraint solvers are a cool bit of magic. The article underplays how hard it is to model problems for them, but when you do have a problem that you can shape into a sat problem... it feels like cheating.
I took a course on SMT solvers in uni. It's so cool! They're densely packed with all these diverse and clever algorithms. And there is still this classic engineering aspect: how to wire everything up, make it modular...
If you're good at doing this, you should check out the D-Wave constrained quadratic model solvers - very exciting stuff in terms of the quality of solution it can get in a very short runtime on big problems.
Yes, explaining the "why / how did the SAT solver produce this answer?" can be more challenging than explaining some machine learning model outputs.
You can literally watch as the excitement and faith of the execs happens when the issue of explainability arises, as blaming the solver is not sufficient to save their own hides. I've seen it hit a dead end at multiple $bigcos this way.
When I'm talking to my doctor, or lawyer, or bank. When there's a signed NDA. And so on. There are circumstances where the other person can be (and is) obliged to maintain privacy.
One of those is interacting with an AI system where the terms of service guarantee privacy.
Yes, but there are also times when other factors are more important than privacy. If you tell your doctor you're going to go home and kill your wife, they are ethically bound to report you to the police, despite your right of doctor patient confidentiality. Which is similar to what openai says here about "imminent harm"
I went into a lot more of the Navajo history in my previous article [1] so I didn't repeat it in the new article. The quick summary is that the Navajo suffered a century of oppression, were forced off their land in the Long Walk, and had their sheep slaughtered in the 1930s in the Navajo Livestock Reduction. In the 1960s, the Navajo had 65% unemployment, $300 per capita income, and lacked basic infrastructure. Various groups looked to industrialization as a solution, so Fairchild opened an IC manufacturing facility on Navajo land in 1965, employing 1200 Navajo workers and becoming the nation's largest non-government employer of American Indians. The plant was generally considered a success, but in 1975, Fairchild had business problems and laid off 140 Navajo employees. Things went downhill and a radical group, AIM (American Indian Movement), took over the plant with rifles. The armed occupation ended peacefully after a week, but Fairchild closed the plant and moved production to Asia.
Just to be clear since "oppression" is a very broad term: the Navajo (and most other Native American tribes) are victims of genocide. It was a far, far, far more systematic destruction effort than mere marginalization.
Children were stolen, forbidden from learning their native language, killed en masse, food supplies were destroyed, land was continuously taken from them the second anything valuable was discovered on it, etc. etc.
It's really horrific stuff and the effects are still extremely clear on the reservations today.
Im not arguing people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder shouldnt get benefits.
Its that the spectrum isnt as related enough that insividual disorders would make more sense. But that would require getting the health insurance industry to do more adjustments.
Some yes. But there's a flaw in your reasoning: It ignores the concept called "rate of change". Because of this concept there will be more energy put into the pile than escapes, leaving some to be extracted and not just "escaping".
Thats different qualitatively and quantitatively than buying patent rights for cheap (since the even the original patent holders didn't think it was worth much) and suing random people who happen to use a product that may infringe on the patent.
reply