This isn't the EU, it's individual member states' governments not complying with EU data protection rules.
The EU is the one telling these governments to stop allowing companies to track citizens using their web sites. The EU is making things better.
It's incredible how even when the EU is doing the right thing it gets blamed somehow. Just think about how wrong your view of the EU is that you leapt to this conclusion without apparently even reading the summary, which clearly states that it is member states' web sites at issue.
I mentioned caching. There is nothing new in this, there is a performance hit if there is contention for that memory
Yeah... I don't think you understand how this kind of caching works. That memory isn't reserved, it's used when it is free but as soon as an application wants it the cached data is wiped and it is handed over for use. The performance penalty is tiny - the RAM has to be cleared on allocation anyway so it's just a little bit over accounting overhead, for a massive overall speed boost.
All modern operating systems support this and already do it for things like disk cache.
I'm not the OP but I like how minimal the basic Chrome install is. Opera has a crypto wallet, currency converter, RSS reader and an ad blocker that I would probably not use (prefer uBlock Origin).
Privacy wise, Chrome is pretty robust and Opera is Chinese-owned now, so I don't think that argument really works.
Flying even a kilometer or two above ground is very different to flying into the upper reaches of the atmosphere. The space based defence systems rely on shooting down ICBMs as they are on the way up, and there is a fairly narrow window where the atmosphere is thin enough and the missile is travelling on a trajectory that can be tracked and hit with a laser or another missile. Hypersonic missiles don't have that vulnerability.
A better question is what is a reasonable level of security for a given situation.
These sirens could have been better secured relatively easily by using a more complex radio system or a wired system. The cost would have been higher. There is a danger that such a system might fail in the event of an emergency, e.g. the security codes are lost or repairs are harder to effect than with a less secure system that uses more commonly available equipment.
These days most of those problems can are mitigated by using off-the-shelf systems, but back when it was installed things may have been different.
The potential costs are interesting too. The cost of fixing the system is easy to calculate, but the cost to the city of having it hacked is hard to even estimate. What monetary cost does lost sleep and subsequent tiredness at work have?
To be fair, even today a 16 bit microcontroller with 16k RAM is on the large side. In the sub 32 bit market there are a lot of sub 4k parts with 8 or fewer GPIOs...
Web browser memory use must be the most misunderstood topic in tech these days.
Firstly, unused RAM is wasted RAM. If it's not used for anything else you might as well use it for cache. Modern operating systems support this, allowing applications to allocate RAM for caching but immediately release it if something else needs to use it.
For maximum performance web browsers do a lot of caching. HTML5 itself is quite complex - the browser has to build up a "document object model" that allows CSS and Javascript to interact with it. CSS and Javascript are also quite complex and for speed browsers use just-in-time compilation with the results cached.
On top of that you have the actual rendering. To make scrolling smooth much more than you can see is rendered. Most browsers use a tile system that splits the page up. If the system is otherwise idle and has lots of free RAM it might as well background render the whole page, and then when you scroll it's just moving a bunch of tile bitmaps around.
Of course if your system isn't idle or needs RAM for something else that stuff is the first to get purged, and browser performance suffers as a result.
Firefox reduces its memory footprint by deferring some of this stuff until a tab becomes active. There are performance trade-offs for that, but to their credit Mozilla has some an impressive job of balancing them.
Back then space was still seen as the ultimate high ground. Now things have changed due to the availability of surface to space anti-satellite missiles and hypersonic missiles.
Hypersonic missiles in particular make space much less militarily important, because ICBMs going up and over are no longer the only reliable way to deliver nuclear warheads. In fact they aren't even the best way any more, as a hypersonic nuke is harder to detect, gives less warning (if any) and is harder to shoot down.
The problem is that these systems are old and crap, and can't be secured. The only option is to rip them out and replace them with something better.
They are radio based. When a particular signal is sent on a particular frequency they sound. Kinda like a garage door opener, but much longer range so that only one high power transmitter can cover a wide area. Unfortunately, like most garage door openers, they are very easy to spoof and the main challenge is transmitting a relatively high power signal and getting away with it.
Most of these radio based systems are similarly vulnerable. The RDS system, for example, can be spoofed with a few hundred bucks worth of gear bought on eBay.
Companies don't want you to do that as a hiring manager, because it creates a monoculture that does the organization as a whole harm. Trying to force you to consider other candidates is a rather blunt instrument, but also an easy one to implement.
Community rankings are too easy to game. Slashdot gets it all the time, Reddit is group-think central, everything else is gamed relentlessly. Any attempt to fix the spamming is decried as censorship and Big Brother telling us what to think.
In any case, it doesn't fix the problem. How are you going to stop people getting radicalized by people like Southern and Sargon? Just recommending a debunking video as the next in line doesn't seem to work.
It's a great way to funnel tax money to the military-industrial complex. You don't even have to deploy these weapons, just waste billions developing them.
Problem with this argument is that you can't give equal ranking to every crackpot. There is only one top spot, there is only one first page of results. When people search for NASA videos they probably don't want stuff about the moon landings being fake and the earth flat either, so to provide a good service that stuff has to be "de-ranked" for searches about NASA.
On the other hand you have guys like Tarrant getting sucked into these conspiracy theories. The argument is that we should just debunk them and that will fix the problem, but when you look at something like Lauren Southern's "Great Replacement" video (cited by Tarrant in his manifesto) when debunkings are linked it just results in them getting hammered with dislikes and de-ranked.
In other words the concept of using ranking to preserve free speech or to combat extremism is flawed. It's the wrong tool.
Unfortunately even adding sources doesn't work - in fact it seems to have the opposite effect. To pick up Lauren Southern's video again, her own listed sources debunk her own video. But her audience doesn't check the links, they just see them there and think they add credibility, like it's some kind of well researched academic essay instead of a bizarre anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
The study only looked at skill levels, not quantity available. Maybe there are just not enough of these highly skilled US students.
There does seem to be some evidence of that, given that a number of big tech companies are investing in getting more students to take up CS. If all they wanted was H1B then why waste millions on education?
Should any sort of discrimination lawsuit arise itll be quite easy to justify why I hired the other person unless they match the specificity of the other candidate exactly (pretty impossible).
Are US courts really that dumb? I mean don't the plaintiff's layers just argue that the extremely specific requirements are part of the discrimination process and expose the fact that they can't really be justified? And even if they can be justified, that's often just evidence of institutional discrimination.
Do you perhaps have any examples of this happening? Would be especially interesting if there was a lawsuit as well so that we could examine what arguments were used.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't the EU, it's individual member states' governments not complying with EU data protection rules.
The EU is the one telling these governments to stop allowing companies to track citizens using their web sites. The EU is making things better.
It's incredible how even when the EU is doing the right thing it gets blamed somehow. Just think about how wrong your view of the EU is that you leapt to this conclusion without apparently even reading the summary, which clearly states that it is member states' web sites at issue.
I mentioned caching. There is nothing new in this, there is a performance hit if there is contention for that memory
Yeah... I don't think you understand how this kind of caching works. That memory isn't reserved, it's used when it is free but as soon as an application wants it the cached data is wiped and it is handed over for use. The performance penalty is tiny - the RAM has to be cleared on allocation anyway so it's just a little bit over accounting overhead, for a massive overall speed boost.
All modern operating systems support this and already do it for things like disk cache.
If you had read beyond the first sentence you would have realized that this likely has nothing to do with the internet or IT.
Did you reply to the right post? The quote isn't from the post you replied to. I definitely didn't say it.
I'm not the OP but I like how minimal the basic Chrome install is. Opera has a crypto wallet, currency converter, RSS reader and an ad blocker that I would probably not use (prefer uBlock Origin).
Privacy wise, Chrome is pretty robust and Opera is Chinese-owned now, so I don't think that argument really works.
Flying even a kilometer or two above ground is very different to flying into the upper reaches of the atmosphere. The space based defence systems rely on shooting down ICBMs as they are on the way up, and there is a fairly narrow window where the atmosphere is thin enough and the missile is travelling on a trajectory that can be tracked and hit with a laser or another missile. Hypersonic missiles don't have that vulnerability.
A better question is what is a reasonable level of security for a given situation.
These sirens could have been better secured relatively easily by using a more complex radio system or a wired system. The cost would have been higher. There is a danger that such a system might fail in the event of an emergency, e.g. the security codes are lost or repairs are harder to effect than with a less secure system that uses more commonly available equipment.
These days most of those problems can are mitigated by using off-the-shelf systems, but back when it was installed things may have been different.
The potential costs are interesting too. The cost of fixing the system is easy to calculate, but the cost to the city of having it hacked is hard to even estimate. What monetary cost does lost sleep and subsequent tiredness at work have?
Interesting how you posted exactly the same link as me, but came to exactly the opposite conclusion from it.
The photo shows a racially diverse group. White, south Asian, east Asian... Only one woman though.
To be fair, even today a 16 bit microcontroller with 16k RAM is on the large side. In the sub 32 bit market there are a lot of sub 4k parts with 8 or fewer GPIOs...
Web browser memory use must be the most misunderstood topic in tech these days.
Firstly, unused RAM is wasted RAM. If it's not used for anything else you might as well use it for cache. Modern operating systems support this, allowing applications to allocate RAM for caching but immediately release it if something else needs to use it.
For maximum performance web browsers do a lot of caching. HTML5 itself is quite complex - the browser has to build up a "document object model" that allows CSS and Javascript to interact with it. CSS and Javascript are also quite complex and for speed browsers use just-in-time compilation with the results cached.
On top of that you have the actual rendering. To make scrolling smooth much more than you can see is rendered. Most browsers use a tile system that splits the page up. If the system is otherwise idle and has lots of free RAM it might as well background render the whole page, and then when you scroll it's just moving a bunch of tile bitmaps around.
Of course if your system isn't idle or needs RAM for something else that stuff is the first to get purged, and browser performance suffers as a result.
Firefox reduces its memory footprint by deferring some of this stuff until a tab becomes active. There are performance trade-offs for that, but to their credit Mozilla has some an impressive job of balancing them.
Back then space was still seen as the ultimate high ground. Now things have changed due to the availability of surface to space anti-satellite missiles and hypersonic missiles.
Hypersonic missiles in particular make space much less militarily important, because ICBMs going up and over are no longer the only reliable way to deliver nuclear warheads. In fact they aren't even the best way any more, as a hypersonic nuke is harder to detect, gives less warning (if any) and is harder to shoot down.
And Russia already has them.
The problem is that these systems are old and crap, and can't be secured. The only option is to rip them out and replace them with something better.
They are radio based. When a particular signal is sent on a particular frequency they sound. Kinda like a garage door opener, but much longer range so that only one high power transmitter can cover a wide area. Unfortunately, like most garage door openers, they are very easy to spoof and the main challenge is transmitting a relatively high power signal and getting away with it.
Most of these radio based systems are similarly vulnerable. The RDS system, for example, can be spoofed with a few hundred bucks worth of gear bought on eBay.
Who says we should fix the problem?
People who don't want to be murdered by extremists.
So you get a groupthink where they all trust each other.
Not really, they are constantly attacking each other in fact.
Companies don't want you to do that as a hiring manager, because it creates a monoculture that does the organization as a whole harm. Trying to force you to consider other candidates is a rather blunt instrument, but also an easy one to implement.
Community rankings are too easy to game. Slashdot gets it all the time, Reddit is group-think central, everything else is gamed relentlessly. Any attempt to fix the spamming is decried as censorship and Big Brother telling us what to think.
In any case, it doesn't fix the problem. How are you going to stop people getting radicalized by people like Southern and Sargon? Just recommending a debunking video as the next in line doesn't seem to work.
It's a great way to funnel tax money to the military-industrial complex. You don't even have to deploy these weapons, just waste billions developing them.
Problem with this argument is that you can't give equal ranking to every crackpot. There is only one top spot, there is only one first page of results. When people search for NASA videos they probably don't want stuff about the moon landings being fake and the earth flat either, so to provide a good service that stuff has to be "de-ranked" for searches about NASA.
On the other hand you have guys like Tarrant getting sucked into these conspiracy theories. The argument is that we should just debunk them and that will fix the problem, but when you look at something like Lauren Southern's "Great Replacement" video (cited by Tarrant in his manifesto) when debunkings are linked it just results in them getting hammered with dislikes and de-ranked.
In other words the concept of using ranking to preserve free speech or to combat extremism is flawed. It's the wrong tool.
Unfortunately even adding sources doesn't work - in fact it seems to have the opposite effect. To pick up Lauren Southern's video again, her own listed sources debunk her own video. But her audience doesn't check the links, they just see them there and think they add credibility, like it's some kind of well researched academic essay instead of a bizarre anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
I don't know what the solution is.
It's fake news. Here is an article with a better photo of the whole team: https://www.cmu.edu/news/stori...
As you can see, the team is more diverse than your image suggests.
The study only looked at skill levels, not quantity available. Maybe there are just not enough of these highly skilled US students.
There does seem to be some evidence of that, given that a number of big tech companies are investing in getting more students to take up CS. If all they wanted was H1B then why waste millions on education?
Should any sort of discrimination lawsuit arise itll be quite easy to justify why I hired the other person unless they match the specificity of the other candidate exactly (pretty impossible).
Are US courts really that dumb? I mean don't the plaintiff's layers just argue that the extremely specific requirements are part of the discrimination process and expose the fact that they can't really be justified? And even if they can be justified, that's often just evidence of institutional discrimination.
Do you perhaps have any examples of this happening? Would be especially interesting if there was a lawsuit as well so that we could examine what arguments were used.
The study looked at quality, not quantity.
No, it's consumption.
As one example, European homes tend to be much more efficient and require a lot less heating and cooling.
nothing of value was lost?
To be honest I thought the whole site was gone years ago, or was that Geocities?
This just underlines why it is important for phone manufacturers to block this kind of invasive software entirely.
What if your device is not compatible with their software?