I largely agree with you, but answer the reducibility problem. At what point does a network become complex enough to form consciousness? I think the writer of this article likely believes that there is no such point, that all information processing is consciously experienced phenomenon on a sliding scale of complexity
So in theory they should have no control on the apps you install on the personal side. Is this just moral obligation, or are they requiring full control of the phone even outside the work profile?
I manage phones for a big corp. Just want to clarify what's possible. Google highly limits what you can do in Work Profile mode, you can't control much outside the work profile.
We can't see the app list on the personal side in work profile mode, BUT we can specify some that are a no-go. I'll show up as a compliance violation. But we can't view the list anymore like we could do with the pre-work profile Android Device Admin management (and still can with Apple).
We're not blocking any apps ourselves right now but it is possible. We do grant all BYOD phones access to our network, so for that reason we would want the capability to block any known threats if they are around.
We can also control some minor things on the personal side, like a pincode requirement and forbidding of sideloading and rooting. But in general we have very little visibility and control, which is the way I (as an admin) like it too. I only want to know what I really need to know especially on the personal side. We can (and do) also block copy/paste from work profile to personal, as data loss prevention, but we allow it the other way around.
In general users complain a lot about the work profile being separate, and not being able to integrate their personal and work calendars.. But for personal privacy it's a big win IMO. Apple has something similar since iOS 13 (called User Enrolment) but it's still a bit too limited to be sufficient for us. And it requires Apple federated accounts which have some requirements that are impossible for us to meet :(
Oh, that's very interesting! I knew about the PIN requirement as an example of control outside the work profile, but I didn't know this was possible. It makes sense though.
But roots can be defected and labeled as a compliance violation. They could then revoke your accsess to emails or other network services, or issue you a warning or more
Well, there is long and detailed thread at the start of this page that begins with a comment from someone who started a different Democratic political software company and who turned down working on this app.
If you want a tl;dr, though, you might consider that (a) there's a paper trail, (b) the app was always intended to be optional and some precincts weren't using it in the first place, and especially (c) caucuses are not secret votes. That last one is how different campaigns had their own estimates before the official counts started coming out in haphazard fashion. Whatever bad things one can say about the idea of caucusing in general -- and we're hearing an awful lot of bad things -- they're actually pretty damn difficult to rig.
Buttigieg overperformed polling because polling only captures people's first choices. A lot of voters whose first choice candidates didn't meet the 15% qualifying point in the first round switched allegiance to him in the second, and the net effect was that a lot of moderates ended up in his camp rather than Biden's. This end result is probably an "only in a caucus" thing, but it doesn't require nefarious intent.
If you're to sabotage the caucuses and you're writing the software that tracks it, there's a thousand far more effective ways to do so and many of them wouldn't immediately shine a spotlight on you directly.
For malfeasance to remain undiscovered you need to be smart and clever.
For the kind of malfeasance that concatenates an SQL query with user input and then shows the whole thing to the user in an error message, you don't need that.
Drones are programmed by numbers and take action in the real world. Some ML-based AI analyze sets of data and perform actions in the real world.
Brains do what? Read signals in different strengths and patterns to take actions in the world.
I'm confused by you thinking there's some great impossibility of code achieving general intelligence. Maybe you're thinking of sentience, or consciousness and view that as an impossibility for AI. I say - an AI can perform actions in the real world as if it were generally intelligent, and whether there's sentience behind really doesn't matter so much from the point of view of humans.
They claim that East Asians develop cognitive capacity at an earlier age than other races and that gives East Asians a compounding practice advantage that gives them the edge in academic scores. The article claims, based on this premise, that universities like Harvard should actually discriminate even more against East Asians.
The article is full of obvious leaps designed to sound smart but are actually logically vacuous.
Much of the article essentially boils down to this:
Young East Asians test highly > The quantity of older East Asian who are successful don't reflect the quantity of young East Asians who achieve academically > Therefore, East Asians start smart and then other races catch up cognitively in adulthood
A) Racism is likely factor here. East Asians are less represented in leadership because leadership perceives East Asians are being less leaderly. Now we're using the symptoms of racism in order to justify the racism itself.
B) Nurture versus nature is a complicated and unsettled debate yet the author tries to claim that because China has a creativity problem, it's proof that East Asians as a race has a creativity problem. Never mind that Japan is a world leader in innovation.
C) Article repeatedly use test scores to say something qualitatively about the characteristics of a race. For example, East Asians test high on math therefore East Asians have more quantitative reasoning capabilities. You could just as easily attribute this to cultural differences in study priorities.
2) "If these children are scoring as high as 120 on average at the age of four (despite being hospitalized for malnourishment) and 110 to 112 at the age of ten, it is implausible that their IQ goes up as they grow older"
Come on. Why? You can't just assume that hitting a high IQ at an early age means that it cannot continue growing. Especially when these IQ scores are being compared against age groups.
There are no logical errors, and the article is not logically vacuous.
>East Asians are less represented in leadership because leadership perceives East Asians are being less leaderly.
Can you provide evidence that this is what's going on instead of something else? Plenty of leaders in the US are East Asian.
>using the symptoms of racism in order to justify the racism itself
You didn't present your own evidence that the 'symptoms' are actually due to racism. The author presents a compelling explanation backed up with data that explains what we see.
>Never mind that Japan is a world leader in innovation
The article quotes the Japanese government stating it believes it has an innovation challenge as well.
>You can't just assume that hitting a high IQ at an early age means that it cannot continue growing
IQ is relative to others the same age. This is evidence that East Asians develop cognitive ability more quickly than other populations. All healthy children continue getting smarter as they develop. This is all discussed in the article.
Except that China is rapidly catching up to the US in terms of innovation. Take a look at the number of patents filed by China and US in recent years. People look at China 30 years ago and use that as evidence of China today, ignoring the fact the the country has changed so much over these years.
There are more Asian leaders in the world's top tech companies than there are Europeans. Why do you think that so many Asian people in Asia are able to assume leadership roles and grow their companies at breakneck pace and yet Asian Americans are somehow unfit to do the job in America?
As mentioned in the article, the Chinese government itself admits the quality of its patents are suspect and not indicative of true innovation.
It's wonderful how much economic progress China has made, and serious academic progress as well. But that's not relevant here.
China discourages non-ethnic Chinese from having control over Chinese companies, and has extremely few foreigners to begin with so that's not a valid comparison.
What would a $1 a year model do in terms of opening the market up to competition? That seems like the worst of both worlds, no additional competition, and we make these difficult for those without much money.
Are you going to legislate away all contractor work? Because every medium to large company and even government agencies utilize contractors.
You can't build and develop subject matter expertise on everything. And besides that, contractors are often used to scale when you have demand that you can't necessarily meet with your current capabilities.
I guess I don't understand how your "solution" to this problem scales to the regulatory world outside of Amazon.
That's not even nearly what I said. I said that if someone is consistently told how, when, where, and what to do, or what to wear, then they're an employee.
If, on the other hand, they're asked to do something and have the freedom to set the price for the task, to accept or reject the task as they see fit, and perform it at a time, place, and manner of their choosing, and they perform this task for several different clients, then it's perfectly reasonable to consider them a contractor. Which pretty much is what the IRS says, as well, as linked by jcranmer above.
> I said that if someone is consistently told how, when, where, and what to do, or what to wear, then they're an employee.
I'm sorry this is simply not true. I work for one of the largest Health and Hospital Corporations in the States (They own 25 hospitals and have 60,000 employees) and sub-contractors Are Always told "how, when, where, and what to do, or what to wear,". Always and Without Execption.
I contracted for 8 years in the energy industry. How, when, where, and what were standard requirements defined by the company I worked at. The main difference day to day was I didn’t attend some company town halls or have access to the wellness facilities.
Are you proposing a massive overhaul to the legal framework around contractors or just wanting to target Amazon?
It's definitely better. Amazon's business model is inherently more sustainable than traditional brick mortar, they essentially remove a step in the value stream.
For a brick a mortar store (and this is a little oversimplified), it goes manufacturer>warehouse/distribution center>store>customer drives to store. Note too, that the last step is usually store(s) plural unless you're doing all your shopping at a place like Walmart.
For Amazon, they cut out that entire last step and replace it with a model where a multitude of people can have their needs fulfilled with efficient routes.
