Samsung S series phones are extremely expensive, fragile, laden down with crapware and have poor support. Why would anyone subject themselves to a phone like this? If you're going to waste that amount of money on a soon-to-be-last-gen phone you may as well buy an iPhone - at least there is no crapware on it and the support is better.
Better yet, buy a mid range phone. There is a vast choice of Android devices some of which are very good indeed and carry all the features most people need anyway.
Dirty money on one side of the world, clean money on the other side. I assume the people "buying" the books are trying to get cash into the US by selling obscure items.
Of course it would be relatively easy for Amazon to crack down on this if they cared, but then they'd deprive themselves the revenues from these activities. I wouldn't be surprised that if like all things Amazon they'd devised a system which minimized the security required to meet their legal obligations and a fraudulent activity model designed to maximize the funds they seize from suspect accounts.
Because they're kind of shit TBH. They work but they're basic. Feedpro has a customizable 3-pane layout where I can see all the feeds, the articles and summary of the article I've selected in a single tab.
I'm not sure you needed to see the video at all to know how likely it was to be terrible. Just looking at the state of the art in AR or VR and compare to the ludicrous videos they used to hype this project.
Feeds are great but they don't align with the business models of Facebook, Yahoo, Google, et al. A feed is something outside of their control, their algorithms, their aggregation. These days if you want to use feeds you have to get an extension to do it. I use Feedbro in Firefox which is quite nice for this purpose.
An even better option might be to apply a quality filter to search results so that bullshit conspiracy brain damage sinks down the search ratings. Demonetize it too.
The stupid part is that the AOL TW merger could have actually worked and had obvious synergies. AOL was a media delivery platform, Time Warner was the media, cable and broadband. AOL could have been iTunes. It could have been Netflix. It could have been Spotify. It had the nascent beginnings for these services in the likes of WinAmp, AOL Radio etc.
But AOL ran its properties like silos and was crippled by lack of innovation or vision. Synergy to them was a few extra AOL keywords on some of its properties. This was a company so far up its own ass that it would run protracted marketing studies just to decide whether the fat AOL client should have 6 or 8 bookmark slots and relative support call costs from each.
It is easy to break software which turns analogue inputs into a digital model of some kind. All you have to do is figure out how the process works and confound it. Doesn't matter if its speech recognition, biometrics, or autonomous vehicles.
Facial recognition is obviously looking for points on a face so if you confuse it by wearing a mask or makeup, you're going to break it. I doubt anyone would bother to do it unless they were participating in something where there was a fear of identification. That could be a lawful protest, or some unlawful act like a riot. Even there I'm sure the cops would have other methods of identification if they felt it necessary - CCTV, clothing, phone signals etc.
Licence plates are government issued tags. The number is unique and rarely needs to be changed. A plate costs a nominal amount of money to produce and lasts decades.
Devising a replacement that uses e-ink to display the same information, costs a fortune and offers marginal, highly questionable benefits has to be the dumbest business idea ever. And if I had to track the location of a vehicle for some reason I wouldn't put that device outside the car where it would be subjected to the elements and easily stolen.
They should be coming up with an alternative that doesn't incur a Certification Authority tax for sites that use it. Wether that tax is monetary or in effort. I shouldn't have to pay a vendor for a cert to make a scary box go away.
Even a self signed cert is better than plaintext especially if its registered with a service like SSL lighthouse. Better yet would be web of trust system where site certs have signatures from businesses & people that they have an actual relationship with rather than some faceless CA nobody has ever heard of.
Don't even respond to requests out of the blue, at least on LinkedIn. It costs them an InMail point to send one, but they get it back if you reply. Just ignore them and they lose their point. Let them stew.
I've been plagued by recruiters on LinkedIn. In the past I during a layoff I linked to some but I would get a lot of spam. At first I'd politely decline it before it sank in they simply don't care - I'm a row in some search result and they'll spam me regardless of relevance or interest. So I unlinked these fuckers. But then they'd send invites but I'd ignore those too. Occasionally I'll get InMails, which are a limited resource that cost a credit to send but they only get their credit back if I respond so I ignore those too.
The only recruiters I'm remotely concerned about work for the company they're recruiting for. I might respond politely to those. The rest can go hang themselves. The more they're ghosted the better I feel. Their job is parasitic by nature, as is the likes of LinkedIn. Anything that devalues and frustrates their existence is fine by me.
You're not an employee of them so you have zero rights and whatever contract your "independent company" signs with them is undoubtedly so lopsided and inequitable that it isn't even funny. And because Amazon are basically evil, they'll probably oversaturate the market with more drivers than necessary just so they can stiff drivers on bonuses and game the system in other ways.
Yeah it's almost as though practice and the judicious application of technology means people are getting better at making them. Not only getting better but often blogging and filming themselves do it. But hey, space aliens.
I've locked down my settings too. My own experience of accepting recruiters is it rapidly becomes intolerable. These idiots do a search on "java" and then spam all the top matches with the job spec regardless of expressions of interest, qualification, salary, or being geographically close to the job. As far as they are concerned I'm a "prospect" so they'll spam on the off-chance. Unlink and they at least have to go through the motions with an InMail.
I generally ignore that too because I consider recruiters to be a fucking pox. As soon as I realised these assholes were collecting 10% of my monthly wage for literally acting as nothing more than an introduction to a company. I would rather approach a company directly, split the difference and cut these parasites out of the equation.
The only recruiters I give any consideration to are those working in the HR department of the company doing the hiring. They're not raking a % their way. In that instance, I'll be polite and respectful. To the rest I just ignore them, hoping I devalue LinkedIn in the process.
If you have to use the platform and you're not actively seeking work, the best thing you can do is unlink from every single recruiter you've linked with in the past and refuse further invites. If they're linked they can spam you with impunity and can see more detail of your own links
If a recruiter is that keen to make contact they can send an InMail. They only get a limited number of InMail credits in a month so it acts as a deterrent unless they have something of high relevance. Responding to the InMail returns the credit so I don't do that either unless the recruiter actually works for the hiring firm. Anything that devalues LinkedIn is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Its bad enough that "autopilot" lets the driver take their hands off the wheel for up to 30 seconds. But using a device to defeat even that amount of time is just plain stupid.
The article was talking about a couple of things - the construction of individual sites and another suggesting disparate sites were actually laid out at exact positions to form a triangle over a map for some reason. It's the second I was referring to. Britain has hundreds of circles and there are more dotted around Ireland, France etc. It straightforward with that amount of points to drag some geometric pattern out, discard the remainder and proclaim it was their intent to make a pattern. It's a common theme in pseudo archeological books.
Slashdot Mirror
Better yet, buy a mid range phone. There is a vast choice of Android devices some of which are very good indeed and carry all the features most people need anyway.
Of course it would be relatively easy for Amazon to crack down on this if they cared, but then they'd deprive themselves the revenues from these activities. I wouldn't be surprised that if like all things Amazon they'd devised a system which minimized the security required to meet their legal obligations and a fraudulent activity model designed to maximize the funds they seize from suspect accounts.
Because they're kind of shit TBH. They work but they're basic. Feedpro has a customizable 3-pane layout where I can see all the feeds, the articles and summary of the article I've selected in a single tab.
Perhaps working on Python wouldn't be so rancorous if the project was pulling in the same direction.
I'm not sure you needed to see the video at all to know how likely it was to be terrible. Just looking at the state of the art in AR or VR and compare to the ludicrous videos they used to hype this project.
Feeds are great but they don't align with the business models of Facebook, Yahoo, Google, et al. A feed is something outside of their control, their algorithms, their aggregation. These days if you want to use feeds you have to get an extension to do it. I use Feedbro in Firefox which is quite nice for this purpose.
Hype and bullshit fantastical claims rarely translate into viable real world products.
An even better option might be to apply a quality filter to search results so that bullshit conspiracy brain damage sinks down the search ratings. Demonetize it too.
But AOL ran its properties like silos and was crippled by lack of innovation or vision. Synergy to them was a few extra AOL keywords on some of its properties. This was a company so far up its own ass that it would run protracted marketing studies just to decide whether the fat AOL client should have 6 or 8 bookmark slots and relative support call costs from each.
It's the #1 way to guess if someone is ostentatious or not.
Facial recognition is obviously looking for points on a face so if you confuse it by wearing a mask or makeup, you're going to break it. I doubt anyone would bother to do it unless they were participating in something where there was a fear of identification. That could be a lawful protest, or some unlawful act like a riot. Even there I'm sure the cops would have other methods of identification if they felt it necessary - CCTV, clothing, phone signals etc.
Devising a replacement that uses e-ink to display the same information, costs a fortune and offers marginal, highly questionable benefits has to be the dumbest business idea ever. And if I had to track the location of a vehicle for some reason I wouldn't put that device outside the car where it would be subjected to the elements and easily stolen.
He has exactly one client that happens to be one of the most evil. It's a nice business, it'd be a shame if anything bad happened to it.
Even a self signed cert is better than plaintext especially if its registered with a service like SSL lighthouse. Better yet would be web of trust system where site certs have signatures from businesses & people that they have an actual relationship with rather than some faceless CA nobody has ever heard of.
Exactly. Wait for their production to stabilize rather than meet some arbitrary goal.
No more than there have already been.
Don't even respond to requests out of the blue, at least on LinkedIn. It costs them an InMail point to send one, but they get it back if you reply. Just ignore them and they lose their point. Let them stew.
The only recruiters I'm remotely concerned about work for the company they're recruiting for. I might respond politely to those. The rest can go hang themselves. The more they're ghosted the better I feel. Their job is parasitic by nature, as is the likes of LinkedIn. Anything that devalues and frustrates their existence is fine by me.
You're not an employee of them so you have zero rights and whatever contract your "independent company" signs with them is undoubtedly so lopsided and inequitable that it isn't even funny. And because Amazon are basically evil, they'll probably oversaturate the market with more drivers than necessary just so they can stiff drivers on bonuses and game the system in other ways.
Yeah it's almost as though practice and the judicious application of technology means people are getting better at making them. Not only getting better but often blogging and filming themselves do it. But hey, space aliens.
I generally ignore that too because I consider recruiters to be a fucking pox. As soon as I realised these assholes were collecting 10% of my monthly wage for literally acting as nothing more than an introduction to a company. I would rather approach a company directly, split the difference and cut these parasites out of the equation.
The only recruiters I give any consideration to are those working in the HR department of the company doing the hiring. They're not raking a % their way. In that instance, I'll be polite and respectful. To the rest I just ignore them, hoping I devalue LinkedIn in the process.
If a recruiter is that keen to make contact they can send an InMail. They only get a limited number of InMail credits in a month so it acts as a deterrent unless they have something of high relevance. Responding to the InMail returns the credit so I don't do that either unless the recruiter actually works for the hiring firm. Anything that devalues LinkedIn is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Its bad enough that "autopilot" lets the driver take their hands off the wheel for up to 30 seconds. But using a device to defeat even that amount of time is just plain stupid.
A bit like Commodore. These brands are cursed.
The article was talking about a couple of things - the construction of individual sites and another suggesting disparate sites were actually laid out at exact positions to form a triangle over a map for some reason. It's the second I was referring to. Britain has hundreds of circles and there are more dotted around Ireland, France etc. It straightforward with that amount of points to drag some geometric pattern out, discard the remainder and proclaim it was their intent to make a pattern. It's a common theme in pseudo archeological books.