$1.9 doesn't afford you a comfortable life anywhere, but in the developing world, it's enough to not fear starvation. And that fear is a big part of being "extremely poor".
The interaction of AI and manual cars will depend on the general discipline of the drivers. There are countries in the world where according to rumours the traffic rules are somewhat open to interpretation...
Slightly pessimistic. Also, in 1911 knowledge about what works and doesn't work was a lot more limited. The safeguards modern democracies employ now are far superior. At the very least the control of information doesn't work as well as some people would like...
On the other hand there will always be a power differential between those who strive to political leadership (often sacrificing a lot on the way) and those who don't participate at all. And even in a completely equal power share, the power of an individual in a nation of millions is so small that it is easy to confuse it with zero.
1911 is about half way between the rise of modern democracy and present day, and the pace of development is faster in the beginning. Parliaments and political drama had been around much longer still.
Not necessarily. In U.S. politics the most important persons are always figure heads. Their prominence hides democratic and not so democratic mechanisms behind decision making or electing these figure heads.
The more troubling thing about the U.S. is, that the public demands qualities from their leaders which bear no meaningful predictive power on their leadership skills. At best, these politicians are a "costly signal" for the competency and reliability of the party behind that leader, whose members or employees are duing the actual work of governance.
> In U.S. politics the most important persons are always figure heads. Their prominence hides democratic and not so democratic mechanisms behind decision making or electing these figure heads.
Interesting, watching US politics from the outside it seems like Obama (OK, the executive branch) has a hell of a lot of power. Personally I agree with a lot of his recent "legacy forging" executive orders, but they sure don't feel very democratic.
If Jeb Bush became president, I would expect a very Bush-like reign. War with Iran, for example.
I'm not so sure about the Jeb Bush presidency. He seems like much more of a policy wonk than his brother. I'm not I know enough to compare him with his father.
It's not just morally questionable, it's outright wrong.
Unfortunately trying to stop genocide with violence and failing miserably is even more wrong. On the other hand using supposed genocide as excuse to forward geopolitical interests would also be wrong.
Given how Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq wars have turned out, I'm not in favor of meddling. Given how nobody gave single fuck about Khmer rouge, I don't believe in genuine good will in geopolitics. So I'm not giving my permission to anybody to conduct air strikes in Syria, but they won't ask me either. Only air strike that gets my approval is dropping several tonnes of polyurethane to Dabiq.
Because it is better to let your own terrorist grow the biggest terrorist owned zone, and build an enormous army full of cash ? This is exactly what create this big projection power that make successful terrorist attack in France.
There is 6000 europeans terrorists in Syria; 1000-2000 french, letting them settle there give them fantastical capabilities to recruit more, and project more power on european countries with trained terrorists.
Nobody ever said that the invasion of Iraq was to stop a genocide. In my opinion it was mainly revenge for 9/11, even if the association of Saddam Hussein with terrorism is murky at best.
@tommoor is making reference to Google and Microsoft releasing open source versions of their deep learning toolkits. Interesting that Google did not release a distributed version but Microsoft did.
As this stuff is more accessible, more people play with it, and perhaps more interesting learning apps emerge from that additional use. Hence, birth of the machines.
Microsoft has been pushing really hard to make Azure a contender. And they're right to do so, AWS is in a somewhat shakey position. They're moving people over to VPCs but haven't integrated their VPCs with their cloud services in a robust way, forcing the burden onto customers.
Anecdotally, friends of mine in the know tell me that it's been a good year for GCE. I wonder if Azure is seeing an uptick as well.
