On another failed warship note, the Vasa, built in Sweden in the 1620's barely made it off the dock before sinking but was amazingly well preserved. Worth seeing if you are in Stockholm.
The story of the Vasa is a great lesson on the dangers of changing specifications while a project is underway. Not exactly the lesson of the apparent debacle of the Ford, which is more a lesson on the dangers of using a lot of new unproven technology in a major project.
That wasn't what I was expecting. Google, Facebook, etc are already walking a very fine line with what happens with their users' data, I imagine they don't want to press the issue too much but I wouldn't be surprised for this to be a reality in coming years.
I saw the movie "Her" and loved it. I want an AI assistant like that in my life. The movie did a fantastic job of showcasing how a near-future reality might be with that assistant.
What the movie did NOT do a great job of was highlighting the role of the company who produced and offers the assistant. What is data privacy like in that universe? Is the company an advertising company? What level of access does the government in that universe have to assistant-collected data? These are all important questions that need to be addressed before there is true acceptance.
So I want an assistant like in the movie--but I don't know how I'd feel if that was offered by Google or Facebook. I'm an Android user using the latest Assistant on my Pixel today, and it is pretty nice. But right now it isn't inserting itself into my life like the movie Assistant was. I'm not sure how I'd feel about Google doing that, or what additional data they might need to do so.
I remember that movie. Her name is Samantha instead of Alexa and his name is Ted and they have long and elaborate human like conversations and fall in love and have phone sex.
I wonder how medical records would be handled. Surely Samantha has some opinion on Theodore's mental state. In the movie he was pretty normal. Which is boring, because so many people are not normal.
I'm old enough to have survived the GTA3 media firestorm. I'm pretty sure digital assistants will have their GTA3 media firestorm soon enough.
Samantha in the movie more or less did whatever Theodore wanted to befriend him. And luckily the weirdest thing Theodore wanted was phone sex, more or less. But hows this going to work with truly insane people? Should Samantha the digital assistant befriend and encourage and motivate a school shooter, for example? And what happens to PR when its found out she encouraged him? At what point is Samantha the digital personality or her programmer or employer liable for entrapment or encouraging some anti-social behavior? Who has the liability to maintain an API over the internet to the FBI to report enormous amounts of telescreen observed misbehavior? If the user is in fact insane and the digital assistant is unable to work with a crazy person does the owner get a refund or does the crazy person get shamed in public for not having an assistant or ...
I'm curious if there's already been court cases. As the assistants gain in ability and processing power there will be cases.
Medical records are interesting. Likewise, I think the other can of worms you open is to what extent is this data available to law enforcement when an assistant is passively observing and logging EVERYTHING through the magnitude of sensors they have. I'd hope to god it requires a warrant.
A bit ironic that the director of "Her" gave an invited talk at Google that I attended, but your interesting point was not addressed at all: what company would control "Her" data. The director gave a great narrative of how he films scenes (e.g., few crew on set during filming for a more intimate feeling).
Would have loved to see that talk--sounds interesting. Despite the fault of not hitting on that particular point, he nailed so much with the movie in terms of how things might work in the near future.
I think this question needs to be expanded upon before an adequate answer can really be given.
Are you looking to learn code via JS?
Are you proficient in another language that has similar constructs to JS and just need to understand the nuances?
Are you somebody who has understood JQuery on a low level but never understood what the code was actually doing?
I am sure there are a few more questions along similar veins and I think each one of these questions could be interpreted from the OP and I think all of these have potentially different answers.
What about someone who is proficient in python, can piece together awful Javascript, has no fundamental understanding of the language structure, and is overwhelmed by all the competing frameworks and build tools.
Lately I just turn to intercooler, but that's not a solution for everything.
I honestly don't know. Maybe read one of the books mentioned here, eloquent or the good parts, and enroll in a course specific to a framework (i got a free subscription to front-end masters, that has a few good courses) and go from there.
I had the same experience, it gives a false sense of security. I can pass the courses without having even a remedial understanding of the underlying concepts.
Yes, true. It's basically good for someone who's never programmed before and thinks "there's no way I could do this"...it gets someone going that way I feel...
I've taken a few of his online courses and he does an excellent job telling someone they don't know js, without coming off arrogant. I think it's mostly because he can explain most issues in depth but as a previous comment pointed out, it isn't really a beginner series. Although, I am not sure "[learning] javascript" necessarily means that the learner is completely inexperienced.
What's unbelievable? I was in the market for a Mini Countryman and the Mini rep was pushing me away from it and warning me that it was underpowered. I could see people having a certain expectation of Minis being zippy cars. It's not ideal, but better than selling someone a car they don't want.
Or is it unbelievable that salespeople tell the truth when they aren't on commission? :)
what is the correct answer? I think it's self-evident that Facebook has become a kind of mass propaganda tool the likes of which the world has never seen before. Do you think a constitutional republic can survive as a republic if we allow the owners of a media platform that powerful to enter politics?
