A very poorly tuned loop which is why you see big discrepancies between cost of living and average income across all industries between different cities. In a really big macro scale you are right of course, but the reality is that people will experience significant stress long before the balancing acts set in which has a very big impact on society.
Every type of economic activity increases rents... like, all of them.
Hazardous facility opening directly across the road. Garbage dump opening next door. New airport runway expansion directs all planes right over your house.
Sorry, but simply muting is not "blocking" autoplaying videos. If the video is playing, it is still using bandwidth, using CPU, using power, and is visually extremely annoying.
Fail.
You don't understand how the feature works. Autoplaying videos ARE blocked if they contain sound. Muted autoplay is still allowed. Additionally autoplay is allowed if you bookmarked the site or interact with the site regularly and you can control that with the mute option. e.g. if you tick mute on the domain level then video autoplay is blocked for any video that doesn't have sound.
The entire purpose of this is to kill off background sound in tabs. I.e. you open a link in the background, if it has sound it won't suddenly jump scare you, or won't make you go find and kill it.
The few things you mention slip through on some unobnoxious videos, and are mild compared to the effect of having audio suddenly playing.
While this is a good feature I don't trust Google's motives. hey have done this to drive more business toward AdWords, that would never get blocked.
AdWords, the internet's least offensive form of advertising. Sometimes the motives of a for profit organisation actually align just fine with the desires of users.
This is not news. This kind of knowledge has been around since at least 10-15 years
Well no fucking shit. Sunscreen only blocks UVB, there are other factors that affect melanoma. As for the false sense of security, horseshit. It may not prevent melanoma but it does a fuckton to reduce it, and that much is self evident in pretty much any places lying anywhere near the Tropic of Capricorn..
How about the same way you're selecting your sun cream, by reading the effing label?!...
That's my line. You're the idiot who suggested, and I quote: "Just put on a light shirt". If you would have said, grab a shit, read the label and wear it if the UPF rating suits conditions then I wouldn't have called you out on your stupid comment.
Ok, so your alternative is to just spend the whole fscking day in the sun? Because hey, this magic cream makes eveything good? Really?!
Well, for starters, suncream doesn't block UV light, your skin does. Suncream just "enhances" the protection. It does so by aiding certain biochemical aspects, but not necessarily all, which form the natural UV barrier of your skin. Those aspects are strengthened nominally by a certain multiplicative factor (that's the F in SPF). But when you spend more time than your un-creamed skin can handle, everything that's not taken care of by the cream is massively overexposed.
Well yeah. None of that is opposed to anything I just said. You're the idiot who suggested to just stay in the sun just short of the point where you naturally get burnt and be done with it. That would just be stupid.
But hey, your skin. When was the last time you got a spot check? My last yearly spot check was last week. Clearly what I'm doing is working despite being in the sun constantly. My Oncologist's opinion.
As an aside, has the Australian banking cartel stopped airing those weird "Australian banks are owned by Australians?" propaganda pieces on TV over there yet?
Dunno, don't live there.
Imagine being the sort of whore that would take money to appear in one of those?
I know an actor who does minor things like adverts and being extras in movies. When you get paid fuck all you don't exactly get the luxury of being picky. The Whores of Amsterdam don't do it for shits and giggles. A girls gotta eat.
The Hatch Act is very much subject to interpretation
Every act is subject to interpretation. It's why courts exist in the first place. If you're worried about something not being clear then err on the side of caution.
The U.S. Office of special council interpreted it differently and chose to issue a warning. So what.
So nothing. Guy did wrong by an Act and got issued a warning. You're the one who started the discussion down the path of: "Everyone breaks a law" followed by jpaine619's "How can people possibly understand laws".
I think this article is written by the type of people who just discovered that when you hit the power button on a computer the power LED lights up. Every single release of Windows has changed screenshotting. It's about as consistent as a change in the build number.
Snipping Tool? That's soo old school. Windows ink spaces auto-magically launching with you double tap the pen button, that's a screenshotting tool, and it's been part of Windows 10 since (2 years ago, because who the fuck can keep track of windows 10 release names).
No it's just a stupid article. The screenshot tool has been "improved" with continuous changes with every single release of Windows. This article is like saying "Windows 10 finally gets a new build number".
So it's okay to only discriminate once? Is there a yearly quota you get? Are you allowed to do it once monthly? Or is it a percentage of your total interns you're allowed to discriminate against?
The problem with underrepresented groups in tech are that they are also under represented in all aspects leading up to the labour force. They are under represented in the job market and in universities too. You're not going to fix this problem with handouts based on skin colour.
It would seem to make sense to exclude white males since they are not traditionally underrepresented in tech.
That doesn't make it less illegal to do so. At least have the decency to pretend to have a fair process and find some excuse to implement a discrimination based corporate agenda.
They would know that they should switch to a bank with safer procedures
Sure. And we could all ride unicorns off into the sunset. Banks have the lowest customer satisfaction rates in Australia. Lower than cable companies and telecom companies. Yet they have a really high customer retention rate. People don't even switch banks due to high fees, or service outages, hell most people don't even competitively check their homeloans literally costing them 10s of thousands of dollars.
What makes you think even a single customer would give a crap that the bank can't prove that a tape full of old bank statements that was sent to be destroyed may not have been destroyed, but likely was anyway?
because next time (or perhaps already but also not disclosed) it may be current data.
And it would be just as irrelevant if it was current as if it was in the past.
meaning they lost about 4 years of records they were supposed to retain.
No they didn't lose a single thing. These were backup copies of tapes sent for destruction. The only thing that was "lost" was the chain of custody as they can't confirm in writing that the tapes were actually destroyed. They likely were, but don't have a receipt for it.
First drive failure happened a few days ago with an unimpressive 385 hours on it. Drives normally run around 88f temp wise.
Considering the MTBF is supposed to be around 1,000,000 hours I am less than impressed with its lifespan.
MTBF is a statistic that captures randomised failures and accelerated failures due to end of life. What you described is an infant mortality failure and is completely meaningless to MTBF figures. They are purposely filtered out to not skew the results due to a shoddy production.
Unit Y may keel over tomorrow
Yes that's where the "mean" under mean time between failures comes in. There's no guarantee that it will last 1000000 hours. That said failures that exclude infant mortality follow a standard statistical curve, and statistically it is more likely that if your drive survives the first few months that it will get to somewhere near 1000000 hours than die in month 4.
Don't laugh at something just because you don't understand its application.
People in general are willing to put up with a lot to gain something. It doesn't really matter where it started, what matters is where it reaches the tipping point.
And how did you draw that conclusion? Bank statements for a decade were lost. That's a lot of information on any particular person. Were other account numbers in those statements? For example if you paid your credit card bill then the CC number might be exposed or at a minimum the bank that issued the credit card. You've asserted a lot based on a lack of information.
Nope. Bank statements weren't lost. Bank statements sent to be destroyed don't have a receipt for being destroyed despite being on general nondescript tapes in a large collection of other tapes that were destroyed. Credit card numbers? What are you talking about? There's not enough credit card information on a bank statement to financially affect a customer. Maybe in some other countries stuff that is normally sent by unsecured mail has such stupid security practices, but not here. The biggest concerns even by the Australian media have pointed out to the fact that you could in theory match a transaction to a person. Nothing more.
Which is troubling. The data should have been destroyed. In the bank's best case scenario, they were destroyed but someone was lax in confirming it. In the bank's worse case scenario, the tapes were taken.
And given the nature of the data it's not a concern.
Maybe the customer would like to check if any accounts for possible breaches. Maybe the customer would need to sign up for credit monitoring to ensure that their accounts haven't been breached.
You don't understand quite how benign the data on statements are do you. Here's a hint: They contain: Name, address, your account number, and a list of purchases. In Australia the only thing on that list that isn't routinely shared with anyone who asks is your list of purchases. You can do fuck all with a name, address and account number other than send someone money, although I've heard in America you keep those things secret. Heck in Europe it's quite standard practice to take a photo of someone's debit card if you want their account information.
Sign up for credit monitoring? What a strange concept. I get an automatic notification if something out of the ordinary happens such as the first time a new debit transaction occurs, not to mention that 2FA has been standard practice for banks for any withdrawals for any reason other than a swipe of a CHIP+PIN card or a pre-authorized transaction for the best part of 10 years.
As someone who's life savings are affected by this breach... *yawn*.
For a bit of perspective, the entire Australian banking industry is currently being annihilated in front of a royal commission for shady practices that has among other things caused a CEO of one of the largest banks to resign.
There's no evidence that any information was mishandled. The only evidence they have is a missing destruction receipt. It wasn't just them who decided we didn't need to know, but a regulator and consumer advocating ombudsman also decided that.
We are talking about the equivalent of a head of a crime syndicate who has been caught red handed murdering here to not admitting that they have an unpaid parking ticket. As one of the people affected by it I simply can't get worked up about it.
If you are that sensitive to sun maybe dont live in a hot and sunny climate.
Who said I live there? I just spent last winter at -45degC. Guess what, I wore warm cloths. Just like when I was in the sun (and most people in the world are that sensitive to the sun) I decide to take appropriate measures.... e.g. SPF75 sunscreen.
desroy the planet
You need an incredibly huge dose of frigging reality if you think that me wearing SPF75 while on land inside a boat is somehow destroying the planet more than owning the boat is. You're doing far more damage simply buying cloths than most people who wear sunscreen, and that is even if the science were settled. Tip: It's not. Get a grip on yourself.
In other words, if you don't want MS to break your computer, pay MS some money and upgrade.
Pay peanuts and get monkeys.
Surprise, running the discounted stuff gets you all the joys of reduced functionality and adverts in your face. Wasn't that always the big complaints about the Android platform and why the iPhone with it's far larger ratio of non-free apps was superior?
Slashdot Mirror
The entire thing becomes a self regulating loop.
A very poorly tuned loop which is why you see big discrepancies between cost of living and average income across all industries between different cities. In a really big macro scale you are right of course, but the reality is that people will experience significant stress long before the balancing acts set in which has a very big impact on society.
Every type of economic activity increases rents... like, all of them.
Hazardous facility opening directly across the road. Garbage dump opening next door. New airport runway expansion directs all planes right over your house.
Sorry, but simply muting is not "blocking" autoplaying videos. If the video is playing, it is still using bandwidth, using CPU, using power, and is visually extremely annoying.
Fail.
You don't understand how the feature works. Autoplaying videos ARE blocked if they contain sound. Muted autoplay is still allowed. Additionally autoplay is allowed if you bookmarked the site or interact with the site regularly and you can control that with the mute option. e.g. if you tick mute on the domain level then video autoplay is blocked for any video that doesn't have sound.
The entire purpose of this is to kill off background sound in tabs. I.e. you open a link in the background, if it has sound it won't suddenly jump scare you, or won't make you go find and kill it.
The few things you mention slip through on some unobnoxious videos, and are mild compared to the effect of having audio suddenly playing.
I prefer this method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
CAUTION Autoplaying video in that link!
While this is a good feature I don't trust Google's motives. hey have done this to drive more business toward AdWords, that would never get blocked.
AdWords, the internet's least offensive form of advertising. Sometimes the motives of a for profit organisation actually align just fine with the desires of users.
This is not news. This kind of knowledge has been around since at least 10-15 years
Well no fucking shit. Sunscreen only blocks UVB, there are other factors that affect melanoma. As for the false sense of security, horseshit. It may not prevent melanoma but it does a fuckton to reduce it, and that much is self evident in pretty much any places lying anywhere near the Tropic of Capricorn..
How about the same way you're selecting your sun cream, by reading the effing label?!...
That's my line. You're the idiot who suggested, and I quote: "Just put on a light shirt". If you would have said, grab a shit, read the label and wear it if the UPF rating suits conditions then I wouldn't have called you out on your stupid comment.
Ok, so your alternative is to just spend the whole fscking day in the sun? Because hey, this magic cream makes eveything good? Really?!
Well, for starters, suncream doesn't block UV light, your skin does. Suncream just "enhances" the protection. It does so by aiding certain biochemical aspects, but not necessarily all, which form the natural UV barrier of your skin. Those aspects are strengthened nominally by a certain multiplicative factor (that's the F in SPF). But when you spend more time than your un-creamed skin can handle, everything that's not taken care of by the cream is massively overexposed.
Well yeah. None of that is opposed to anything I just said. You're the idiot who suggested to just stay in the sun just short of the point where you naturally get burnt and be done with it. That would just be stupid.
But hey, your skin. When was the last time you got a spot check? My last yearly spot check was last week. Clearly what I'm doing is working despite being in the sun constantly. My Oncologist's opinion.
As an aside, has the Australian banking cartel stopped airing those weird "Australian banks are owned by Australians?" propaganda pieces on TV over there yet?
Dunno, don't live there.
Imagine being the sort of whore that would take money to appear in one of those?
I know an actor who does minor things like adverts and being extras in movies. When you get paid fuck all you don't exactly get the luxury of being picky. The Whores of Amsterdam don't do it for shits and giggles. A girls gotta eat.
The Hatch Act is very much subject to interpretation
Every act is subject to interpretation. It's why courts exist in the first place. If you're worried about something not being clear then err on the side of caution.
The U.S. Office of special council interpreted it differently and chose to issue a warning. So what.
So nothing. Guy did wrong by an Act and got issued a warning. You're the one who started the discussion down the path of: "Everyone breaks a law" followed by jpaine619's "How can people possibly understand laws".
Seriously?
Have you people never heard of Snipping Tool?
I think this article is written by the type of people who just discovered that when you hit the power button on a computer the power LED lights up. Every single release of Windows has changed screenshotting. It's about as consistent as a change in the build number.
Snipping Tool? That's soo old school. Windows ink spaces auto-magically launching with you double tap the pen button, that's a screenshotting tool, and it's been part of Windows 10 since (2 years ago, because who the fuck can keep track of windows 10 release names).
No it's just a stupid article. The screenshot tool has been "improved" with continuous changes with every single release of Windows. This article is like saying "Windows 10 finally gets a new build number".
So it's okay to only discriminate once? Is there a yearly quota you get? Are you allowed to do it once monthly? Or is it a percentage of your total interns you're allowed to discriminate against?
The problem with underrepresented groups in tech are that they are also under represented in all aspects leading up to the labour force. They are under represented in the job market and in universities too. You're not going to fix this problem with handouts based on skin colour.
It would seem to make sense to exclude white males since they are not traditionally underrepresented in tech.
That doesn't make it less illegal to do so. At least have the decency to pretend to have a fair process and find some excuse to implement a discrimination based corporate agenda.
That's it: one internship.
Hhahahahahahaha. You think it'll stay at one. That's cute.
They would know that they should switch to a bank with safer procedures
Sure. And we could all ride unicorns off into the sunset. Banks have the lowest customer satisfaction rates in Australia. Lower than cable companies and telecom companies. Yet they have a really high customer retention rate. People don't even switch banks due to high fees, or service outages, hell most people don't even competitively check their homeloans literally costing them 10s of thousands of dollars.
What makes you think even a single customer would give a crap that the bank can't prove that a tape full of old bank statements that was sent to be destroyed may not have been destroyed, but likely was anyway?
because next time (or perhaps already but also not disclosed) it may be current data.
And it would be just as irrelevant if it was current as if it was in the past.
meaning they lost about 4 years of records they were supposed to retain.
No they didn't lose a single thing. These were backup copies of tapes sent for destruction. The only thing that was "lost" was the chain of custody as they can't confirm in writing that the tapes were actually destroyed. They likely were, but don't have a receipt for it.
Literally they say it may have fallen off the back of a truck
Or more likely the tapes were destroyed by the contractor as intended and a receipt has gone missing.
"may" is a powerful word.
It doesn't matter that he has boobs or his skin color is different.
FTFY.
Over time I've had pretty good luck with Seagate drives
I've had drives fail from every manufacturer. I've only had drives fail suddenly without any forewarning from Seagate.
First drive failure happened a few days ago with an unimpressive 385 hours on it. Drives normally run around 88f temp wise.
Considering the MTBF is supposed to be around 1,000,000 hours I am less than impressed with its lifespan.
MTBF is a statistic that captures randomised failures and accelerated failures due to end of life. What you described is an infant mortality failure and is completely meaningless to MTBF figures. They are purposely filtered out to not skew the results due to a shoddy production.
Unit Y may keel over tomorrow
Yes that's where the "mean" under mean time between failures comes in. There's no guarantee that it will last 1000000 hours. That said failures that exclude infant mortality follow a standard statistical curve, and statistically it is more likely that if your drive survives the first few months that it will get to somewhere near 1000000 hours than die in month 4.
Don't laugh at something just because you don't understand its application.
Since Bush. This all started with 9/11.
People in general are willing to put up with a lot to gain something. It doesn't really matter where it started, what matters is where it reaches the tipping point.
And how did you draw that conclusion? Bank statements for a decade were lost. That's a lot of information on any particular person. Were other account numbers in those statements? For example if you paid your credit card bill then the CC number might be exposed or at a minimum the bank that issued the credit card. You've asserted a lot based on a lack of information.
Nope. Bank statements weren't lost. Bank statements sent to be destroyed don't have a receipt for being destroyed despite being on general nondescript tapes in a large collection of other tapes that were destroyed. Credit card numbers? What are you talking about? There's not enough credit card information on a bank statement to financially affect a customer. Maybe in some other countries stuff that is normally sent by unsecured mail has such stupid security practices, but not here. The biggest concerns even by the Australian media have pointed out to the fact that you could in theory match a transaction to a person. Nothing more.
Which is troubling. The data should have been destroyed. In the bank's best case scenario, they were destroyed but someone was lax in confirming it. In the bank's worse case scenario, the tapes were taken.
And given the nature of the data it's not a concern.
Maybe the customer would like to check if any accounts for possible breaches. Maybe the customer would need to sign up for credit monitoring to ensure that their accounts haven't been breached.
You don't understand quite how benign the data on statements are do you. Here's a hint: They contain: Name, address, your account number, and a list of purchases. In Australia the only thing on that list that isn't routinely shared with anyone who asks is your list of purchases. You can do fuck all with a name, address and account number other than send someone money, although I've heard in America you keep those things secret. Heck in Europe it's quite standard practice to take a photo of someone's debit card if you want their account information.
Sign up for credit monitoring? What a strange concept. I get an automatic notification if something out of the ordinary happens such as the first time a new debit transaction occurs, not to mention that 2FA has been standard practice for banks for any withdrawals for any reason other than a swipe of a CHIP+PIN card or a pre-authorized transaction for the best part of 10 years.
As someone who's life savings are affected by this breach ... *yawn*.
For a bit of perspective, the entire Australian banking industry is currently being annihilated in front of a royal commission for shady practices that has among other things caused a CEO of one of the largest banks to resign.
There's no evidence that any information was mishandled. The only evidence they have is a missing destruction receipt. It wasn't just them who decided we didn't need to know, but a regulator and consumer advocating ombudsman also decided that.
We are talking about the equivalent of a head of a crime syndicate who has been caught red handed murdering here to not admitting that they have an unpaid parking ticket. As one of the people affected by it I simply can't get worked up about it.
Wholeheartedly agree on the scumbags part. Still, ... not technically lying.
If you are that sensitive to sun maybe dont live in a hot and sunny climate.
Who said I live there? I just spent last winter at -45degC. Guess what, I wore warm cloths. Just like when I was in the sun (and most people in the world are that sensitive to the sun) I decide to take appropriate measures. ... e.g. SPF75 sunscreen.
desroy the planet
You need an incredibly huge dose of frigging reality if you think that me wearing SPF75 while on land inside a boat is somehow destroying the planet more than owning the boat is. You're doing far more damage simply buying cloths than most people who wear sunscreen, and that is even if the science were settled. Tip: It's not. Get a grip on yourself.
In other words, if you don't want MS to break your computer, pay MS some money and upgrade.
Pay peanuts and get monkeys.
Surprise, running the discounted stuff gets you all the joys of reduced functionality and adverts in your face. Wasn't that always the big complaints about the Android platform and why the iPhone with it's far larger ratio of non-free apps was superior?