It's surprising to me that you would describe the field of statistics as a separate 'sociological artifact', but then refer to the actual definition of the term when using the abbreviated word 'stats', as in your sentence ' I have no stats to back up this claim'.
Statistics are tallied numbers and represent actual measured values. The field of statistics is concerned with tallied numbers collected, probability is concerned with the likelihood of those numbers being produced under specific assumptions, and machine learning is a process that uses statistics to verify and adjust the probability model being used for study.
Those are all definitions used by mathematicians and statisticians (who are a subset of mathematicians), not 'sociological artifacts'. Things don't sound like heresy to a statistician unless he is arguing implicit versus explicit logic. That is regardless of how it feels when he walk into his department.
There is no need to prescribe artifacts' if we can just keep the correct definitions clear and not conflate them.
The code is for anyone who can understand the business requirements it solves to make a similar product by using the same techniques. Basically at this point it's like a bunch of notes on how to solve a particular problem.
Any business will require substantial investment of a resource to read that code and remake the solution. At that point most of the scaffolding and UX code is redesigned and you have another clone with a different IP. This is different from the old brand but solves the technical problems in many similar ways.
In business it turns out that the UX is the requirement most of the time and the business IP will follow who ever has the same UX. No one really gives a shit about the nuts and bolts of the code unless it's open sourced.
It's not that they're porting over games individually, it's that they have to get express permission from the publisher of each individual game. Something about the terms of the contract between the publishers and Microsoft being such that a user is only able to play the game on that specific platform (Xbox 360) unless the publisher says otherwise. One could somewhat cynically look at this and say that this is because publishers love to rerelease games for the new platforms; already we've seen a bunch of rereleases and "HD Editions" (even though last generation was also HD) for the PS4 and Xbox One.
Hmm sorry but they are porting games, once you insert the disk your Xbox One will download a huge chunk of data of the internet were talking 5GB+ for each game.
Microsoft also isn't hiding it:
"The digital titles that you own and are part of the Back Compat game catalog will automatically show up in the “Ready to Install” section on your Xbox One. For disc-based games that are a part of the Back Compat game catalog, simply insert the disc and the console will begin downloading the game to your hard drive. After the game has finished downloading, you will still need to keep the game disc in the drive to play."
Sure they might be downloading the 360 version and then doing the emulation but it's much much more likely that they've actually simply ported the game.
They are not porting, they have built an emulator that runs the 360 OS and then they boot the games inside of that.
>Delving deeper, Spencer explained exactly how the emulator packages the Xbox 360 games, and how it compares to Xbox 360's emulation of original Xbox games.
>"You download a kind of manifest of wrapper for the 360 game, so we can say 'hey, this is actually Banjo, or this is Mass Effect. The emulator runs exactly the same for all the games.
">I was around when we did the original Xbox [backwards compatibility] for Xbox 360 where we had a shim for every game and it just didn't scale very well. This is actually the same emulator running for all of the games. Different games do different things, as we're rolling them out we'll say 'oh maybe we have to tweak the emulator.' But in the end, the emulator is emulating the 360, so it's for everybody."
>Asked about whether Microsoft would require permission from game publishers to adjust game code, Spencer clarified it would not be interfering with code.
>"The bits are not touched," he said. "There's some caveats, and as always I like to be as transparent as I can be on this: Kinect games won't work from the 360, because translating between the Kinect sensors is almost impossible."
I also remember watching a video where they talked about it, it had some more details. I can't remember what it's called though and I couldn't find it with a cursory search.
they are not porting. microsoft has explicitly said they are emulating.
"We have to do packaging and validation work on each title to make it available through Xbox One backward compatibility," explains a Microsoft spokesperson.
Xbox One Backward Compatibility is an Xbox 360 emulator that runs on Xbox One and is used to play Xbox 360 games," says a Microsoft spokesperson in a statement to The Verge.
If they have ported the game they've also ported a large part of the 360 dashboard - chat and the guide button look pretty much identical. The early info coming out around E3 seemed to suggest full system emulation.
That's weird because the 360 emulation played it from the disk just fine ;)
It downloads the entire game for each disk game you put in, seems to me that the could've found a more efficient way to actually do that since you know both the 360 and the XboxOne support installing games from disk so they got the ability to create a disk image.
If all they needed to download is an emulator and a compatibility config file that would've been a much smaller download package..
This is incorrect. Although, they do need to get permission from the original publisher, they are porting the games. How can you tell? Just have a look at the filename of the file downloaded. It has x64 attached to it.
this is incorrect. according to microsoft they are running emulation.
Behind the scenes, Microsoft has built a full Xbox 360 emulator for its Xbox One console. "Xbox One Backward Compatibility is an Xbox 360 emulator that runs on Xbox One and is used to play Xbox 360 games," says a Microsoft spokesperson in a statement to The Verge.
the package they are sending when you insert the disc is a container that contains the xbox emulator, any media assets, the game and compatibility stuff that is needed.
You keep quoting that same Verge quote of a spokesman. Do you have a more technical or independent source? Spokespeople are rarely accurate on a technical level.
Do you have any source that they're actually recompiling everything?
For example running original Xbox games on Xbox 360 also required a download of a binary which was an emulation / compatibility wrapper around the binary on the DVD that shimmed out and hotpatched code so the games worked properly.
The download sizes do suggest you're downloading a whole game, or at least most of one. This does not, however, imply that the game is ported -- just that they pull the game from the server rather than the disc. This makes sense even if they're emulating, because most Xbox 360 games will have received a lot of updates compared to what's on the disc, and Microsoft have probably only tested the emulation against one specific version.
its also certainly possible that part of the emulation requirements include xbox 360 patch levels, an emulated file system for updates and everything else to be together in a single container.
It's interesting that you view taxation as a violent fundamental wealth redistribution. Taxes do suck and I'm not going to argue that point, but it's interesting because without taxes we would be living in a fundamentally violent society (since there is no government support a monopoly on violence - e.g. Somalia - everyone then may be violent to achieve personal goals).
How about we all try getting rich (or just keep our wealth out of violent neighboring hands) without violence or a government. Try to even significantly increase any meager income in that situation.
My point is that without taxes and the government they support, there is nothing but violence to support any type of venture. This has historical bearing with places that were lawless yet aplenty with resource for ventures (e.g. North American colonies, Wild West, etc...).
If in particular you meant a progressive tax policy that increases the percentage of taxation with your income level is what you're describing as violent then I can see your point a bit more clearly. Why punish the people who are being more productive, right?
Well the thing is that the owners of capital get the most extreme benefit from government. Never the other way around. It makes sense to me that the biggest recipients become the biggest supporters.
For a brief anecdote, poor people who earn wages get social programs to help sometimes, which are then largely obfuscated from public comprehension so you'll need a social worker just to get started. Rich people who own capital get business subsidies in the form of cash on the books. They are both paid from taxes and supported by the government. Who do you think benefits most from the government here? The business owner or the wage earner? Who is being stopped more readily from using violence with this support from government?
So taxes support all of this precarious balance in a capitalist society because the government is the only thing we have found to solve this problem of violence.
How about we all try getting rich (or just keep our wealth out of violent neighboring hands) without violence or a government.
There's a pretty broad range of what you could call "government" in that discussion. The question of how to reign in would be aggressors isn't fully settled, but it certainly hasn't been proven that it takes the kind of government we have today. Especially given that the system we have today doesn't stop aggression, it just shuffles it around and renames it. See, for example, "civil forfeiture".
On violent taxation: when you don't pay your taxes, eventually someone with a gun comes to take your freedom (prison for tax evasion). So the threat of violence is always held over the head of the taxpayer. Taken a step further, the primary relationship of a government to its people is the threat of violence for not following the laws.
Please don't let your observation of present society confuse your ideas about a free society: The poor use the violence of the government to take money from others and give it to them via social programs. The business subsidies are a form of government privilege that is a corruption of free markets in which the rich use the violence of government against competitors.
Free market thinkers challenge the assumption that government should be granted a monopoly on force but rather there should be competition in all areas of society. As it stands, we see abuse of power in the courts, police, legislatures, and bureaucracy, all for the enrichment of those who have a legal monopoly on force.
> Taken a step further, the primary relationship of a government to its people is the threat of violence for not following the laws.
This is true in pretty much the same sense that it is true that the primary relationship of a people to its government is the threat of violence by the former against the latter for failure to deliver on demands. (The extent to which either is actually truly the primary relationship in practice is pretty much precisely the extent to which the government has lost legitimacy.)
> Free market thinkers challenge the assumption that government should be granted a monopoly on force but rather there should be competition in all areas of society.
The government is simply whatever entity (including a collection of entities) in practice holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. You can question what the nature, scope, composition, and role of government should be, but questioning whether it should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is exactly like questioning the assumption that a triangle should be a three-sided polygon.
Here's a Radiolab podcast about the tech they can use to capture people off the grid. They'd have to fly a drone for the day when the message is delivered and know who received the message.
Eisenhower was a republican before the conservative military hawks entered the republican demographic (resulting after Nixon's Southern Strategy[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy]) so they were the progressive and liberal republican party. More closely linked to a libertarian ideology of the time and would be likened by most modern liberal democrats.
It's not that simple. E.g. how would you score Teddy Roosevelt, who was both a progressive and a "conservative military hawk". Vs. William Howard Taft, who per Wikipedia had a "domestic agenda [that] emphasized trust-busting, civil service reform, strengthening the Interstate Commerce Commission, improving the performance of the postal service, and passage of the Sixteenth Amendment" (income tax) but had a less bellicose foreign policy?
I actually don't know much about that period of US history, but certainly Goldwater counts for both a "conservative" military hawk and a libertarian. And domestically Nixon was quite liberal.
Basically, there's been "liberal" and "conservative" strands in Republican party history for more than a century, continuing to this day. Things don't map out in simple ways, e.g. the first post-Snowden House vote on those issues didn't split along any recognizable patterns I could discern, party, region of the country, etc.
Statistics are tallied numbers and represent actual measured values. The field of statistics is concerned with tallied numbers collected, probability is concerned with the likelihood of those numbers being produced under specific assumptions, and machine learning is a process that uses statistics to verify and adjust the probability model being used for study.
Those are all definitions used by mathematicians and statisticians (who are a subset of mathematicians), not 'sociological artifacts'. Things don't sound like heresy to a statistician unless he is arguing implicit versus explicit logic. That is regardless of how it feels when he walk into his department.
There is no need to prescribe artifacts' if we can just keep the correct definitions clear and not conflate them.