You act like getting the extra money was some kind of unexpected surprise. In reality RSI has been shamelessly and aggressively soliciting extra funds since the early days - most famously by selling concept art for ships (not even fully designed yet in a game that doesn't exist yet!) at thousands of dollars a pop to their rich cultists. If a big studio / publisher had pulled this kind of stunt and then failed to deliver, the gaming media would have ripped them apart.
Come watch some DS3 speedruns and travel even further down the rabbit hole of people who know everything about the game to an absolutely obsessive degree and are insanely good at playing it. It's not for everyone mind you, but I find it hugely entertaining if you take the time to appreciate it.
Obviously Germany should sue Obama and a group of his accomplices.
[added] I see double, down-voting standards. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
We all agree that criminals should be charged, and that someone who organizes and benefits from criminal activity is criminal too.
As America charges GRU agents, and thus targets their boss Putin, the same should be done for known actions by NSA agents, and their boss Obama at the time.
I am assuming the downvotes are for you lack of distinction between two.
Eavesdropping and spying, even amongst allies, is basically an open secret or just an activity everyone assumes the other is doing.
Actively influencing an election is much more serious and not something you would expect your allies to be doing in your country. If Obama was doing that to Germany then I expect there would have been a real shit show.
It's worth pointing out that the original ProPublica investigation was conducted by journalists unskilled in statistics and machine learning. There was a convincing rebuttal posted by the actual scientists involved, which is of course ignored since "racist AI" is the kind of headline that's just too golden to abandon.
ProPublica's work on algorithmic bias has all seemed well below their usual standards. I haven't followed this rebuttal, but their work showing racism in car insurance pricing was heavily criticized, and while the authors defended the work it looked to me like they picked only the weakest criticisms to respond to.
(In the insurance case, ProPublica attempted to compare areas with comparable crash frequencies and show that rates were higher in poor and minority areas. But the data they had was moving accidents, especially with injuries, and the data they didn't have was stuff like "rate of car break-ins" and "odds of being hit by an uninsured driver". Which you would obviously expect to vary by region even when serious-injury accidents don't.)
I agree. It's a well known problem where the training set isn't representative of the underlying population. While it can certainly be argued that the engineers should have recognized this deficiency and taken corrective action, I really don't understand why all the respondents to your post are so quick to assert racist intent based on clickbait headlines from Forbes.
It's not an active racism on the part of the engineers. It's way more subtle than that.
There could be a hidden assumption on the part of the engineering team that light-skin is "normal" and anything else is a special case. Nobody is saying "I hate black people" or anything of the kind.
Or, as happened with a voice recognition system a former employer used, it was tested on the engineering staff, who happened to be all male. As a result it didn't work well for most women who tried to use it. There was no intentional exclusion of women from the test data, and I'd argue, no intentional exclusion of women from the engineering teams. But it is reasonable to say that systemic sexism that excludes women from engineering careers helped this system fail.
These kinds of problems are difficult to solve, because they aren't active decisions on anyone's part. They evolve out of pervasive conditions, and unconscious biases. At root, the source is still racism, or sexism (or another form of discrimination).
Because it is racism. It is ignoring a large swath of humanity based on the color of their skin. You may not want to think of it as racism because it's not the burn a cross on their lawn type of racism, but it's still systemic racism.
> It is ignoring a large swath of humanity based on the color of their skin.
No, it's an insufficiently sensitive contrast filter combine with too narrow a training set. Screaming racism at everything that is even marginally approaching the topic of race detracts from real racism and ignores the actual issue here - shitty software.
Can also recommend lichess. Been playing there for a couple years now. They're a registered non-profit, and none of the features are hidden if you choose not to donate.
For people with a signal processing background, this is actually a very trivial thing. The basic technique has been in use for probably a hundred years - radar being a classical example - nothing at all to do with Google. Basically, you can get a signal-to-noise ratio improvement proportional to the duration of the signal you're attempting to detect (in this case, audio), thus allowing you to detect very weak signals in the presence of strong noise or other unwanted signals. Look up "pulse compression" or "correlation detection" if you're interested.
This is very true. In UC Berkeley, the very first linear algebra course all EE/CS freshman take (EE 16A) has a lab that does EXACTLY this. You match part of a song with some very noisy sound. If freshmen are taught to do this, it's easily something Google can do.
If it's background noise, is it still a violation? Not suggestion an answer, just asking. Like, how (not in all countries) it's okay to get passers-by in your video shot and broadcast them uncensored?
Summary: grouchy suburban dad who realizes he isn't cool anymore shakes fist at rebellious neighborhood kids, shouting that they need to grow up.
Why is it that whenever a mainstream site like Wired pumps out an article looking down their noses at some "problematic" online community, it's immediately obvious that the author has never been part of said community and instead bases their overly simplistic views on an hour of research.
Purely optimized for clicks and shares. Also, any amount of perceived approval of something controversial will get a nuclear reaction from Twitter demanding the author's job or going to the advertisers saying "look at this stuff that they are okay with!"
Ironic isn't it? Author can't express a particular view about a website that became popular because it protects people from the consequences of expressing unpopular views.
Even more unnerving than the fake smile and general aggressiveness of retail workers / waiters to chat you up is when the pizza delivery guy tries to get personal by using your real name, as if we were at the pub sharing some jokes over a pint.
Well, they're certainly not doing anything differently than traditional producers when it comes to taking the axe to shows after just 1 or 2 seasons. Whenever I see a new Netflix show released, which seems to be just about every week now, the first thing that comes to mind is "even if I like this, will there actually be a second season?". This degrades the time investment of immersing yourself in a show's characters and storytelling.
