It's clear humans have several networks working together. Some Mathematicians report they 'see' the solution, these rely on a visual network *. Others report they prefer to do math symbolically (relying on the language network?).
Perhaps there are also multiple human paths to higher-level thought, with Keller (who lost her sight) using the language facility while others don't have to.
* Given Box 1 contents, the article authors seem unaware of the research on this? e.g.
These are email marketing platforms, not bulk transaction email platforms, and I don't see why they can't do with the latter. At a bulk transaction platform, such a tiny amount would cost at most $20-$50/mo. If you're willing to do a bit of work to use AWS SES, that would be $2-$5 a month. Azure ACS would be even cheaper.
OpenBSD FFS is robust in the sense of 'it is unlikely an FFS bug will lose your data'. But it is ancient, and, well, there are reasons for filesystem developments in the last half century, like 'not losing your data thanks to blackouts or hw bug'.
The lack of at least a journaling FS is inexcusable in a modern OS. Linux and Windows have had it for 25 years by now, and we could argue softupdates are roughly equivalent (FreeBSD has had SU+J for years now too).
Careful on what you wish for. The same regulatory action can be (is) being used for Chat Control (that dropped off the main page for some reason). Ultimately neither power center acts for the general interest.
This assumes the direct mode of exploitation. The indirect mode (where an attacker inserts a vulnerability) does not necessarily have the 'short time span' issue. So not a complete solution by any means.
Also, there should a way to distinguish between security updates and normal updates for this. If there is, a cooldown is a useful idea in general for normal updates, since (presumably) the current version works and the new version may introduce bugs.
> This assumes the direct mode of exploitation. The indirect mode (where an attacker inserts a vulnerability) does not necessarily have the 'short time span' issue. So not a complete solution by any means.
The short time span isn’t just because exploits get attention: it’s to allow the groups which do automated analysis time to respond. Significantly increasing the challenge level for an attacker to introduce a vulnerability is a meaningful improvement even if it doesn’t prevent that class of attack entirely.
You can indeed and should assume there is a heavy JIT component to it.
At the same time, it is important to note that this is geared for already highly parallel code.
In other words, while the JIT can be applied to all code in principle, the nature of accelerated HW is that it makes sense where embarrassingly parallel workloads are around.
Having said that, NextSilicon != GPU, so different approach to acceleration of said parallel code.
By that logic, wouldn't the electric kettle heating water for the coffee be intelligent? Had it not measured heat when activated, it wouldn't know how to stop and the man would have thrown it away or at least stopped paying for the kettle's electricity.
I think we need a meta layer - ability to reason over one's own goals (this does not contradict the environment creating hard constraints). The man has it. The machine may have it (notably a paperclip maximizer will not count under this criteria). The crow does not.
Yes, if only a tiny amount. The example I use is a toilet cistern, when explaining this to children. It’s probably the closed loop control system with which they have the most firsthand experience, so they understand it best. Also toilet funny haha.
You could say that that, yes, that kettle is intelligent, or smart, as in smart watch. But the intelligence in question clearly derives from the human who designed that kettle. Which is why we describe it as artificial.
Similarly, a machine could emulate meta-cognition, but it would in effect only be an reflection and embodiment of certain meta-cognitive processes originally instantiated in the mind which created that machine.
I can understand why JMAP instead of IMAP given the latter's antiquated design. I don't see the advantage to clients in replacing WebDAV though, and the others are a bit iffy too. They'll need to make a way better sales pitch than 'JSON vs XML' (serialization ain't tough, XML is supported everywhere).
I guess contacts/calendar follows JMAP naturally when the clients already implement it, but that only applies in the 'already wrote a JMAP email client' case. Virtually any other case would rather stay with widely supported protocols?
If "newer = better" was my thinking, I'd be all for these new protocols on top of JMAP. But I actually think they're useful only in a limited context.
JMAP is better than IMAP because IMAP is a too stateful design, the IMAP/SMTP distinction allows for misconfigurations where sending doesn't work, has dozens of extensions where key extensions are inconsistently supported, doesn't have as many batched operations, etc. One could make an effort to improve IMAP - but the effort to do this consistently in server software would likely be comparable to adding JMAP and the result worse...
OTOH, the new protocols intrude on areas that go far beyond email software (you're very unlikely to get support for these in older Androids/iOS/Windows even if the modern OSs ever consider them), and don't offer as much as JMAP offers over IMAP. The cost/benefit is worse. They may make sense for a JMAP email client but IMHO not elsewhere.
Perhaps there are also multiple human paths to higher-level thought, with Keller (who lost her sight) using the language facility while others don't have to.
* Given Box 1 contents, the article authors seem unaware of the research on this? e.g.
https://www.youcubed.org/resource/visual-mathematics/
https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/seeing-as-under...