We were a spinoff of TU Eindhoven. Robovalley went up into Holland Robotics recently, AFAIK, but Netherlands is small of course.
Our company just stopped. I actually interviewed at https://www.robotcaresystems.com/ that now have an autonomous rollator on the market and I recently found out about https://mojin-robotics.de/ which seems to continue where we left off. So, yes, there is still animo for robotics in care.
I don't know any companies that focus on Alzheimers, but there is a bunch of medical robot tech companies around here, eg. http://microsure.nl/ that do micro-surgery and http://www.preceyes.nl/ that make eye-surgery robots.
A
Maybe he realized that his behavior would be against the new CoC.
Maybe he had a good conversation with people he respects, where they confronted him with his behavior, and he was finally able to view his behavior through the lens of an outsider.
Maybe he finally found and realized the "bugs" in his social interaction code and needs some time of to improve his mental tools.
I do think that Google has data sharing with "hundreds of companies". These are not advertisers, these are ad companies. They recently updated to comply with GDPR.
Edit: And about it being "evil" or "bad", let's just say that it is "unnecessary" (from a user viewpoint). You can still make money from ads without hovering up user data. But then you don't make money from users not clicking on the ad, and it is slower to build up an effective profile. Relevant ads are better than irrelevant ads, but nothing beats no ads at all. The best future ads will not look like ads at all (but will be hidden inside reviews and editorials).
That's not the point. The point is the ad is clearly marked and separate from the content you want to see. The other type of ad is known as "selling out." Where a legit content creator abuses their viewers trust in them to put out false information for financial gain. I would much rather have the first option. Although I think a paid tier with no ads is respectable as well.
Modern advertising is an industry rife with abuse and coercion. The ad industry is to blame. Content creators can be evil to, but enabled by the ad industry who is happy to be in like company.
If I followed you around with a paper advertisement, wrote down where you frequent and who you talk to in my notebook, and left a copy of the advertisement everywhere you went, you would call the police. Online advertising does just that and much more and they do it with impunity.
You can't really draw parallels with the virtual and real world. Starting at someone's Facebook profile pic is not the same as standing next to the person and doing the same.
But the tracking is in the real world. Adtech for tracking your presence in store and then online and connecting the dots has been in action for some time. You don't even need GPS enabled.
I meant "the best" for the advertisers, not necessarily for the users. It is possible to do this transparently and there are times when users may actively search such "ads" out (and being paid a small fee, instead of that fee going to ad click companies), but the trend is going to obfuscation. You can block ads, but you won't block content.
In a sense this complaint and PR is such a form of obfuscated advertising. The money and technological skills is in the hands of the advertisers, not the users, so this will be an unfair fight (advertisers will be better at hiding ads, than users are able to detect them).
At least reviews don’t mine bitcoin on my box, come with malware, chug my processor, and track me across the web. Ads stink, but it’s the fact that ads have become synonymous with info brokering, spying, and all of the rest that makes me ready to dance on the industry’s grave. Maybe 5 or 6 years ago I’d have cared about what Brave had to say, now I have uBlock Origin and uMatrix and I evangelize it to everyone I know offline. I won’t be going back because of a long delayed come-to-Jesus moment had out of desperation.
Besides, a lot of ad supported sites are hideous, and the sooner they can’t support themselves and stop cluttering the net, the better. HN will still be here, most of the sites with articles submitted here will be too. The best content out there is free, crowdfunded, or paywalled, while the worst of clickbait is ad supported. Besides, it’s so much more relaxing to avoid ads, I don’t have to waste thinking about how they’re trying to manipulate me into buying tat, make me feel inadequate unless I buy their products, etc. When you stop seeing ads online, on tv, and then you watch some cable or unfiltered internet... it’s horrible. Marketing is a grim, tiring, assault on the senses aimed at the absolute lowest common denominator, and I’m glad to be rid of it and hopefully eventually, the businesses which make it.
This industry that abused everyone it could until a technical means to fight back was developed, doesn’t deserve any more chances. This whole, “oh we’re the good parasites, we’ve figured out that it’s bad to kill the host, we just want a slice out of you,” shtick deserves to go over like a lead balloon.
I hate how Xi Jinping is running China so strictly. The Russian Apartment Bombings was an inside job. Westerners should have no business in the Middle East.
Current audience. What about a new young audience? What about the part of the audience that wants to listen to him on Twitter?
> That would be against Twitter's freedoms.
I think you should be able to fire your users for being assholes. But I do realize the slippery slope here. I could discriminate on race, political preference, smell, weight, sexuality, age, etc. and that causes me to label someone an asshole.
Now Twitter, the biggest public and digital town square of our future, labels you an asshole, but does not specify exactly why. The global media town crier goes around town telling everyone you are now the new village idiot. Even if you vehemently agree with their decision, this should give you pause: How could such a system be hacked by adversaries/what vulnerabilities are exposed? How much unchecked social/tribal power is held in the hands of the few? What would such a system look like if it is artificially/clumsily converged to a majority opinion ideology chamber? Then, will you still be heard by your audience if you have a dissenting/unpopular/asshole opinion? Not too long ago "homosexuality is not a mental disorder" was an unpopular opinion. Do you trust our current evolution enough to say: "We are there. We can now freeze our morals and views."
I can't speak for others, and I'm not convinced this is a Russian 'psyop'.
That said, I'm subscribed to the Qanon subreddit and spent quite a bit of time looking into it, and I can't see the whole phenomenon as anything other than bafflingly insane.
It's like someone took the worst conspiracy theories, the worst of evangelical-ish paranoia, quite a bit of legitimate discontent with the status quo, and let it metastasize.
As such, I downvote pro-Q comments because as far as I'm concerned they're noise on the level of climate-change deniers, flat-earthers, and vaccine-causes-autism level comments.
EDIT: that said, I curious enough about the whole thing to hear a good argument as to why Qanon should be taken seriously. But privately, by email.
Have you noticed that if someone disagrees with a Qanon claim the followers ask, “What evidence is there that my claim is false?”
But if someone makes a claim contrary to Qanon orthodoxy, the followers ask, “What evidence is there that your claim is true?”
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t make claims and expect people to prove that you’re wrong when they don’t believe you, then turn around and expect them to prove that they’re right when you don’t believe them.
This may have something to do with: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-conspiracy-... I think the Russia investigation has unearthed links between conspiracy theorists and efforts to divide and undermine US politics and these companies were warned behind the scenes to stop being complicit (or perhaps they had a inter-company meeting, Bilderberg-style). Also there was a concerted effort by media companies to have Jones banned. They kept him in the news cycle for weeks. Finally, the left united to have him banned, made him an issue and visible to employees of these companies.
The Periscope video was the last straw. Jones was angry and ranting, because that journalist had claimed that his campaigning/efforts lead to Jones' ban on social networks.
> Important to note that tech platforms did not enforce their own rules and take action against Alex Jones / InfoWars on their own accord.
> It took media outlets to point out for weeks that InfoWars was skirting the rules on these tech platforms for them to enforce own standards.
Previous offenses include: "dehumanizing trans people". That looks very bad on paper, so you search for the video, and you see him discussing an over-the-top drag queen reading a book for children in a public library. To me, with the long nails and the thick make-up and the wig, the drag queen really looks demonic/ridiculous/freaky and he remarks on that. You should have the right to call that abnormal and refuse to want to see that normalized.
Look at what happened with Pewdiepie when a media company goes on a crusade with an agenda, it is very similar.
The bottom line for this decision is not harassment or abuse, it is the political preference of Twitter's employees. Maybe it is not a good idea to have a left-leaning workforce police online debate, even if it is their platform. For all the talk about diversity, SF companies sure could do with some more political diversity.
They should have banned Alex Jones from public discourse when he had this crazy conspiracy theory that high-ranking politicians and businessmen workship Moloch and child sacrifice. They should have banned Alex Jones when had the crazy conspiracy theory that chemicals and pesticides in the water change the sex of frogs. They should have banned Alex Jones for saying that Lady Gaga turns satanism into a performance and flirts with illuminati symbology. They should have banned Alex Jones for stating that weather manipulation is still a thing after the Environmental Modification Convention.
Is there still animo for this? I would love to invest in elderly care technology, especially AI for Alzheimers.
Would this still be possible, or is it a big company (Philips?) thing now?