No, the customers for commercial certs are mid-level managers, who believe paying thousands of dollars for something you can also get for free means you are getting a higher quality - or in this case even believe it is "more secure". Rebranding will absolutely work for that, especially when you market your untrusted root as "ISO-certified private dedicated cloud-based PKI-as-a-Service".
The technical people will just install a certbot and use the default Let's Encrypt config.
And it will be even easier for them provided they praise right leaders.
But more importantly they don't need to any such name change. For people who matter in India it is just some random incident which Anti-Indian entities are whining about.
> For people who matter in India it is just some random incident which Anti-Indian entities are whining about.
Does this mean "trust no indian CAs"? those "Anti-Indian" entities hold a lot of power, and the indian IT industry needs to maintain the trust it has with the rest of the world.
Well you are not thinking in wrong direction. In their world view India is IT superpower and the whole world already depends on them.
To think of reasoning may help them course correct is wishful thinking. Read about Indian pharma sector and what kind crappy, dangerous drugs they are peddling to world.
This is confident, resurgent India . Reason, competency are racist words if used agaist them.
We keep struggling with disk capacity on servers being filled, which will then need cleaning. Currently, we got an alert when it's reaching 80%. It's reactive, we need to work on an unplanned task, and it disrupt our sprint and delivery commitments.
Instead, we could pipe the disk capacity data points to Timestral, and we could approximate the date when we will need to work on it, way earlier, so that we can plan our work accordingly.
I guess it might be integrated later directly in tools like Datadog, or Cloudflare straight away, rather than being used by corporates as it is.
The advantage of capitalism is that more capital generate more capital. More machines you have to produce things... which will help you to produce even more machines...
The machines are operated by the labor forces, the real humans. However, the exponential compounding benefits of theses feedbacks loop us are mostly redirected to the ones owning the machines, the owner of the means of production.
Of course, the labor forces operating the machines/means of production benefits it, because they have either cheaper, or more goods. However they doesn't get this compounding effect.
AI is the god of the machines, the ultimate means of production. The amount of labor forces needed to operate it is very few. When the owner of capital invest a specific amount of money for their company, they get X amount of tokens, enabling them to work on Y amount of tasks. It's reward with low-risk.
The drift between capital owners and labor forces will become wider and wider. Until the labor forces doesn't have any more capacity of buying the goods produced. And then the system will implode.
But if goods and services become so cheap and easy to mass produce, won’t they become vastly cheaper? Thus helping to bridge the gap created by production concentration and job elimination?
- 1% of the world population owns 95% of the total world wealth, as per Oxfam
- World Food Program from the UN calculated a need to 93 billion per year to solve food hunger in 5 years
- A single SpaceX IPO already raised 85$ billion of cash
I would say... a lot.
After indeed, maybe without capitalism we would have not got this amount of wealth already, and nothing stops us to build socialism inside a capitalistic system, by using more cooperative, governement venture capitals, sovereign funds.
After working with AI at work for quite some time... I can envision it. But mostly based on an Idiocracy society than a a Terminator or Matrix like scenario.
When LLM is so good, why bother to learn more, when we know we cannot be as good?
And if LLM give us already what we need... why ask her for more complicated things? And so why would the AI improve or be improved?
If it was not for a state actor just trying to get information, but for personal gain: he could sell the information to some unethical hedge fund for some good money, ahead of the IPO.
I found an example online, I cannot find the github again, but it was interesting: an instant dynamic generation of React component, you type what you want to build using natural language, and it directly add one to the page.
If I remember well, in the background, it does the multi-choice question: "What is the component requested ? --> Calendar, Slider, ..."
I feel like the ability of making connections is relative to the domain, and more learned by exposure rather than innate.
For example, someone doing system engineering will be able to understand how the networking of a system works, while someone being a movie critics will find the hidden meanings and connections in the movies they watch. Similar for a musician.
Probably indeed the semantic is important. Someone can say something stupid in a specific occasion or all the time in a specific domain, but almost every time there are areas of life where they will be considered "smart".
> ...but almost every time there are areas of life where they will be considered "smart".
This is a reasonable assumption if you've spent your life in places where the average person is well-educated, but, if we're being honest, it falls apart when you go to places where the average person is poor and/or uneducated. Think: places where people express eagerness to elect a certain person to a third term.
I do think there's a distinction to be made between "stupid" and "uneducated" but in terms of how you experience interactions, it's a distinction without a difference.
I actually was thinking on the following example, from my personal life: I have two masters, however I was doing summer jobs in my local town, as handyman, and was humbled very quickly.
The others colleagues all stopped school very early, got the same irrational political views that the ones you mentioned, etc.
However, they were beating us totally, students coming from fancy universities, for everything else related to machinery, gardening, repair, etc... Even on new problems, they were able to quickly make these logical connections, that we would miss.
> poor and uneducated people can be quite smart about navigating poverty without education.
What does this mean? That they're able to scratch through existence on a minimum wage salary (or whatever) may be "quite smart" or it may be "meager survival". I don't think there's any inherent connection to anything, here, and it feels hand-wavy.
It means you can be very intelligent (a genetic trait) and poor/uneducated (a life circumstance).
Even some of the most intelligent people by IQ had "Mac jobs" and/or died poor. William James Sidis for example died in poverty working some desk jobs. Hey, even Ramanujan did manual labor at some port, and if he wasn't "adopted" by Hardy he'd had continued to.
"Very intelligent" is not simply "a genetic trait" and the extent to which it's genetically determined at all is heavily disputed in at least three mainstream science fields (psychometrics/quantitive psych, molecular genomics, and behavioral genetics).
Probably false. Twin studies had it pegged as high as 80+%, but they were methodologically flawed; you see estimates as high as 50% now and as low as the mid-teens.
I read an article along these lines with a title like "how would you go about buying a car for $500." The gist is that folks in poorer rural areas would have the experience and contacts to buy the car. In contrast, most middle class folks would have no idea how to by such a car.
That's resourcefulness and I would argue that being resourceful is not the same thing as being smart. There can be a relationship between resourcefulness and intelligence, but they're inherently different.
About the car example: most middle class folks don't live in places where there's a substantial market for these types of cars. The availability of these types of cars is environmental.
Intelligence is about acquiring and processing information; resourcefulness is about adaptation to deal with limited resources. There is a relationship, obviously, but these are not the same things.
Humans have a high baseline intelligence (as compared to other animals) and are an inherently adaptable species. This is what has allowed us to survive and thrive despite the fact that we're pretty vulnerable physically.
People in wealthy countries are often more impressed with the resourcefulness of people in poor countries than they have legitimate reason to be. That's because, again, humans are an inherently resourceful species. We are literally hard-wired to be able to survive in resource-constrained environments.
The conveniences of being wealthy significantly reduces the need to be resourceful in the ways poor people have to be, so people in wealthy countries are often amazed by resourcefulness that is fundamentally human.
I would put resourcefulness as a form of intelligence. So it may be that I have a more expansive definition of what can be smart, and what can be stupid, than you do.
That poor people know how to survive on much less money, whereas a lot of educated people get deep into debt when they lose their source of income making stupid mistakes such as not giving up restaurant visits or an apartment they now can't afford. Sometimes this goes as far as making plans to avoid debt collection as long as possible (which, of course, makes things worse afterwards).
And, especially, that poor people understand and expect the basic mechanism companies use: cheap or even free up front price for a million different things with lots of expensive traps that come a little bit later, and they're ready for it. Whereas people who have fallen out of their income fall for 10 of these traps at the same time.
Read some articles about charitable organizations that help people get out of debt and you'll see this everywhere.
They're not the divider, but they are unsurprisingly correlates.
A vlogger I sometimes follow has generated many fascinating stories for me. They were getting by driving for instacart for a period, and they would do stuff like get home at the end of the day and... order instacart. They then proceed to say how they tip their driver well because they know how much it sucks to not be tipped. I honestly was confused about how these ecosystems even have a large enough market of rich people to be viable until I saw this; it did not cross my mind that poor people used it.
Or they got a small inheritance and went out and bought 2 brand new cars on finance. Basically never drove one of them. A year later and one of them has been repossessed, and they're complaining that their landlord is taking too long to change a smoke alarm battery, and that they can't afford to go buy a stool to change it themselves.
As far as I can tell, most of the luxury fashion industry exists to sell to people who can't afford to buy it. Like no rich person is spending $5k on an ostentatious bag covered in LV logos. But poor people do, thinking it will make them look rich (they have no idea that rich people know this, but I suppose if other poor people don't, maybe it works).
If you don't think stupid people exist, you are in a fortunate bubble. It can feel like you're an alien studying humanity watching some of the things they do. It's often baffling, and they have no idea when they do something stupid, so they don't try to hide it. Some people will instantly squander any way out of their situation, and then complain about it. It's like the parable of the drowning man.
>This is a reasonable assumption if you've spent your life in places where the average person is well-educated, but, if we're being honest, it falls apart when you go to places where the average person is poor and/or uneducated. Think: places where people express eagerness to elect a certain person to a third term.
That's just your political biases expressed as classism bigotry.
I might have disagreed at one point. But then people on the left started spitting on my electric car. "Let's fight climate change by intimidating people who drive emission-free cars!" Progressives who use the word 'libtard' were suddenly born. Circular firing squads are not a sign of intelligence.
> it falls apart when you go to places where the average person is poor and/or uneducated
But being poor or uneducated is not an innate property of a person. Everyone can become poor or rich, educated or uneducated at any time.
> Think: places where people express eagerness to elect a certain person to a third term.
That's exactly something where I think "Smart people don't think others are stupid" applies. Just because people don't vote in ways that would follow your logic means they are dumb. They maybe have different priorities, incentives or moral than you.
I'm not sure I can imagine an example that refers to what you mean. Can you give one? But keep in mind I never claimed that there are no stupid actions.
reply