Skip to navigationSkip to content
Anasticia Sholik

Good afternoon.

Gaming's next frontier

Google Stadia is not the cloud gaming future we were promised. A less-than-perfect launch reveals the limits of streaming games.

Google Stadia is not the cloud gaming future we were promised

I really want the future Google and others are envisioning—where I can play games that used to require me to be tethered to a PC or console—wherever I am. It seems like a no-brainer move gaming into the cloud, much like we've done with music and movies, but streaming games is an entirely different prospect

I really want the future Google and others are envisioning—where I can play games that used to require me to be tethered to a PC or console—wherever I am. It seems like a no-brainer move gaming into the cloud, much like we've done with music and movies, but streaming games is an entirely different prospect. Latency nears to be as close to zero as possible, so that the game isn't jarring and you can actually play it, and networks need to be able to handle the large bandwidth streaming interactive high-resolution requires. Beyond the lackluster games on offer, Stadia seems to fall down on its core technology. But it's still early days. Hopefully Google can work out the kinks.

Not to be a Google defender, but these early hiccups seem excusable. We're only on day 2 of Stadia's public launch and early adopters can help iron out the bugs. If lag ruins the experience, Stadia will lose users, sure, but Google has every incentive to make it work. For now, the platform seems aspirational

Not to be a Google defender, but these early hiccups seem excusable. We're only on day 2 of Stadia's public launch and early adopters can help iron out the bugs. If lag ruins the experience, Stadia will lose users, sure, but Google has every incentive to make it work. For now, the platform seems aspirational but I can get behind Google's vision for the video game industry (even if that means using a wired controller). As a gamer, all I care about is speed, so I hope Google figures it out quick.

Virtual reality is too boring. Fast Company writes that developers haven’t given us a good enough reason to leave our own realities behind in favor of their artificial worlds.

The big problem with virtual reality? It’s almost as boring as real life

I feel like this article only focuses on the enterprise applications of VR, which of course are not for everyday people. In the wake of Valve announcing their first flagship VR game, Alyx, this article is incredibly narrow.

Hong Kong protests

Black Monday–Friday

The youth vote

Young US voters are really bad at spotting fake news. High school students who were shown a grainy video in which poll workers appear to stuff ballots concluded that it provided “strong evidence” of voter fraud in the 2016 Democratic primaries. It had actually been shot in Russia.

A new Stanford study shows young US 2020 voters are really bad at spotting fake news

Getting rid of online misinformation and its many pitfalls will require more than observations, statements or complains. Instead, new social media must be developed with inherent tools to deal with misinformation vigorously. Also, the role of scientists in this fight should not be overlooked since they

Getting rid of online misinformation and its many pitfalls will require more than observations, statements or complains. Instead, new social media must be developed with inherent tools to deal with misinformation vigorously. Also, the role of scientists in this fight should not be overlooked since they are among the best equipped to take part in this battle.

It isn't just young voters. Unless you are a news junkie the news is read or seen sporadically and in small doses with little thought and no background information. If that is the only way news is absorbed spotting the fake news is difficult.

Not learning the ability to apply critical thinking is a

It isn't just young voters. Unless you are a news junkie the news is read or seen sporadically and in small doses with little thought and no background information. If that is the only way news is absorbed spotting the fake news is difficult.

Not learning the ability to apply critical thinking is a major problem.

Another contributor to the problem is the absence of complete news. Main stream media is accurate except they either cannot or will not provide news on a global basis. The news presented fits the views that advertisers , owners, government and the viewers prefer. Unless individuals go out of their way to learn understanding of international issues is limited and that can be very dangerous.

The study authors recommend more digital literacy education, not more filters in our internet content. I couldn’t agree more - the right solution to this problem is to teach the human skills of discretion and wisdom.

That being said, there’s two types of bias I’m worried about in these results:

1

The study authors recommend more digital literacy education, not more filters in our internet content. I couldn’t agree more - the right solution to this problem is to teach the human skills of discretion and wisdom.

That being said, there’s two types of bias I’m worried about in these results:

1. The presence of authority - if this testing was done in a scholastic environment with teachers around, that might lend the students to trusting the authenticity of the media more so than if they found it on their SM feed from their home (where they gather most information for voting)

2. The “right” answer being framed by biased test-makers - from the paper’s summary:

“[S]tudents did not consider why ties between a climate change website and the fossil fuel industry might lessen that website’s credibility. Instead of investigating who was behind the site, students focused on superficial markers of credibility: the site’s aesthetics, its top-level domain, or how it portrayed itself on the About page.” Is it fair to say that a fossil fuel company could not ALSO care about environmental issues despite their main operations? Who decided that this exhibits bias?

Income inequality

ETFs are eating the market

AI for business

Businesses intend to invest big in AI next year. A survey of 200 CIOs found nearly 80% plan to up their use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the next 12 months, Fortune reports.

Why an AI Wave Could Hit the Business World in 2020

Wow, striking (but not surprising) to see how significant companies’ plans are for AI adoption in 2020. But as AI becomes more ingrained in businesses, and increasingly touches all aspects of our lives, we need to take a human-centric approach to the development and deployment of AI. Today AI has a lot

Wow, striking (but not surprising) to see how significant companies’ plans are for AI adoption in 2020. But as AI becomes more ingrained in businesses, and increasingly touches all aspects of our lives, we need to take a human-centric approach to the development and deployment of AI. Today AI has a lot of IQ, but no EQ, no emotional intelligence, and that’s an issue. Emotion is such an important part of who we are, of what makes us people, and yet for all that AI and machine learning can do, most of our devices are incapable of interacting with us in a way that takes our humanity into account. I expect that in 2020, as we see an increase in AI adoption, we’ll also see a demand for AI that is emotionally intelligent – a category of the field called “Emotion AI” – to ensure that AI can interact with people the same way that we interact with one another. If AI can’t relate to us as people, it’ll fall short of its potential in business and beyond.

Mining for silver

When life gives you right hooks...

Looking ahead

AI-enhanced brains are no longer science fiction. But such developments carry big risks, especially for security, surveillance, and privacy.

The brain is the final frontier of our privacy, and AI is about to breach it

It's fun to discuss the ramifications of a non-existent technology, but brain implants are very problematic. Yes, people have had them, and there are many cases of those people then interfacing with machines - especially prosthetics - but in every case the implant stops working after a few weeks. This

It's fun to discuss the ramifications of a non-existent technology, but brain implants are very problematic. Yes, people have had them, and there are many cases of those people then interfacing with machines - especially prosthetics - but in every case the implant stops working after a few weeks. This problem is called Glial Encapsulation. Basically, the implant moves around in your head, just from the movements of your own body, and that tiny movement causes the implant to slightly damage the cells of the brain around it. The brain reacts to this by building a form of scar tissue around the implant, which then stops it working.

For an in-brain implant to make sense, it first has to be accepted by the body, and for a long time. After that, we then have to be able to decode the signals coming from it. These are both unsolved problems.

Alternatively, we can use the signal extraction and interpretation layer we have already to interface with AI - you could learn to type really fast. The same social arguments play out, more or less.

I will always love you, boss

We want nothing...except for you to come back soon.

Close
Premier League accepts lowball bids for live rights from BT and new player

Premier League accepts lowball bids for live rights from BT and new player

Read more on The Telegraph

From Our Members