The beauty of the internet is that it allows readers to check multiple sources for any one subject/story, as opposed to just swallowing whatever the legacy media told them to believe. That scares the shit out of them.
The danger of the internet is literally anybody can put up a website that looks like it's a reliable source so it's easy to fool a lot of people quickly. The next danger is the ability to skew search engine results by "paying" for higher ranking.
The end result is that the "truth" is for sale and there is no way to know if what you are reading is actually the truth or somebody's attempt to influence you to support their cause.
Also, it means the that the mainstream media outlets, who are chasing profits, are prone to publish sensationalism over substance.. Which is the third problem... The internet is about profit, not about facts or truth. What they fear is losing their audience, either by offending them when the facts don't agree with reader's opinions or being shown for the profit whores they have become.
Then, dare I mention him, Trump comes along and upsets everybody's apple carts, by using the same medium to push his messaging and all you know what breaks lose. Now we are in this rough and tumble period where everybody has to figure out what the hub-bub is about and when and how it will end.
The new reality is, the internet is a waste land where grains of truth are strewn about in the sand dunes of a partisan desert being blow around by the breath of the yelling talking heads.
LOL You do realize that DARPA has been after the autonomous vehicle concept for over a decade now right? It's been going on so long now that I've seen multiple TV programs on the "science channel" about it and at least one "National Geographic" and one "NOVA" special too.
I left my last job because it was a hostile work environment where my boss' boss was fond of yelling and blaming folks for what ever happened to suit his fancy that day. Sometimes it was for not following his instructions. Sometimes it was because his instructions where followed but we should have known better. He was always yelling at individuals about one thing or another and often yelled at his direct reports all at the same time. We had weekly 3 hour meetings for this purpose that often went to 4 or 5 hours.
The last straw was when he demoted me during one of his fits, but didn't bother to tell me for almost 2 weeks. I found out during a meeting when he flashed up the current org chart in one of his long pointless rambling presentations and my name had moved. Say what? So I had my authority to do the work he wanted done taken away and he still wanted to hold me responsible? Sorry buddy, I'm out of here.
Folks where leaving this place in droves, so, I followed them. Now, as a group, we are all happier working for a competitor and meet as a group on a regular basis to remember all the reasons why we would never go back... I will NEVER work for him again, I'll cook burgers and fries for a living if I have too.
Oh sure, but DARPA has a limited budget and needs to be throwing it's money towards the ideas that have the greatest possibility of paying a dividend on the investment. So if there are other more promising ideas that are higher on the cost/reward estimates, they will be funded first.
But my post wasn't about DARPA. It was about the development in technology in general.
I'm beginning to think that we're reaching the limits of what we can do with the laser lithography method of silicon IC creation. For instance look at the problems Intel is having with 10nm fabrication right now. Perhaps the way forward is straight out of science fiction: a matter compiler/3D printer-like approach, where an integrated circuit is built up an atom or a molecule at a time? Pure imagination on my part, but is it really out of our reach?
Doesn't seem that far out of reach theoretically. However, as in all things, the practical cost effective reach seems a long way off.
A lot of things *could* be done, but we don't do them because they are too expensive or better/cheaper/faster options exist so we use the other options.
Because....If you cannot say you can at least read every nearly M$ Office document out there, your "office replacement" is a non-starter. Trust me.
Also, Even if Office doesn't meet the above requirement, you can bet that M$ will crank up the FUD campaign to beat you down and protect it's market share.
By the way... Just in case you wondered.... I actually LIKE the non-M$ Office offerings better than Office. I find them to be better designed, less cluttered and easier to figure out. The problem is, my wife and kids don't feel the same way and my employer mandates we use Office. Unfortunately this inertia is going to be HARD to overcome, even with the perfect solution that's free of purchase costs. I'm no M$ fanboy, but I do see what's reality here and it's going to be a HUGE uphill slog for any alternate solutions that arise, M$ will see to it...
It seems to me that blaming Microsoft for this is a bit wrong. You made the archives, but didn't maintain the ability to retrieve from them. Sorta like losing the key to your shed....
I have an old XP laptop laying around, fully functional, in order to handle legacy situations. I also have routinely gone though my "backup" material and refreshed it to new media or knowingly destroyed it because it wasn't worth keeping (like my old BBS from 1989 on 1.44Meg floppies). So over the years my data archives have migrated from floppies, to tapes, then to CD's then to DVD's and now I'm working on moving to SATA hard drives and BluRay's. That's just my personal stuff.
Microsoft may be a bit quick to dump support for things that don't make them money, but it's not like they don't warn their customers about this. So, you may have at least some part of the blame here for the loss of your data. Plus, I'll bet that *somebody* out there has the ability to retrieve it, maybe even Microsoft, but it may cost a lot to get it done.
So I'm curious.. What Microsoft Product are you needing to get a copy of?
So, if you apply the same logic to the rest of the world, we need at least one more for each of us.
Joking aside.. How many? I don't know, but you will be able to tell you are approaching the right number when folks stop buying and manufacturers stop building them. Which basically says, more than we have now and are likely to have built any time soon.
The basic problem Linux faces is not really the OS or even Office, but compatibility with other legacy windows programs. Nobody really cares what OS is under the GUI, Linux Office Suits are fully functional but different from M$oft's offerings and if you want/need to run something else, it's a crap shoot with WINE and it's derivatives.
What we actually need is a fully functional Windows environment to run windows programs on Lunix that is 1. easy to configure, 2. Seamless and 3. works with a whole host of current windows applications, 4. Acceptable performance.
SO.... You need the OS, a drop in replacement for Office that can read all the current document formats, AND a windows emulator/execution environment to run applications at near the same performance and functionality. That's a tall order.
Now... they should have taken advantage of the wording in the story. Instead of "mind-boggling speeds" it should have been "astronomical speeds". Or, "faster than your standard astronomical speeds". Or something.
Albert Einstein was right with his theory? Imagine that. I only wish he had lived to see his theories validated like this because he was an exceptional thinker who kept working to within days of his death. He would have loved to see his theories work out such complex problems yet be as simple as they are expressed. I applaud that he was right and I applaud the man, the work ethic and his abilities. We will be lucky to ever know his equal again.
LEO satellites are usually orbited low enough that they will naturally re-enter with in a few years of "unpowered" flight, such as after it's run out of fuel or is no longer controllable. So LEO orbits are generally self cleaning over time.
For orbits that are higher, the natural decay times can be quite long (as in practically not going to happen) and in such cases the usual thing is to either plan to deorbit the satellite by putting it into a highly elliptical orbit where it drags in the atmosphere at the low point and letting gravity take it's course, OR you plan a parking orbit out of the way. Such things usually take fuel and active control of the satellite so they are not always successful. Also, some orbits have natural collection points due to the gravity between say the moon and earth. These points are often the final destination of space junk as it's a low energy way to get it out of the way into a place where it will naturally stay without help, which is a good thing.
So for LEO the issue of debris is naturally correcting, though still a bit of a risk to the satellites that operate there because of the relative speed differences which can be very high for objects in different but crossing orbits. However for LEO, there are all sorts of possible orbits and directions so you can usually stay out of each other's way. Form geosynchronous orbits the relative speed differences is quite low, given that the whole point is to make the satellites all stay in one place in the sky. This stacks up a lot of hardware in a very small space though so collisions would be more slow motion train wrecks that won't create a lot of debris than quick obliteration events that generate a lot of fast moving objects.
Of course there are all sorts of highly elliptical orbits used for various types of satellites and these are usually designed to be decaying over time, with their low points being at or near LEO levels. As in most of this stuff, they have a planned way to get the used up hardware out of the way somehow.
So no, we certainly don't convert them to debris, usually, though some have been used for target practice to prove anti-satellite weapons actually can work. Such weapons have been demonstrated by multiple countries, including the USA, China and Russia/Soviet Union.
I like how you think, but I seriously doubt that the MPPA would fund any politician that supported this idea so it isn't going to happen.
Also, Criminal prosecution is one thing, and I think that those who make something distributing copyrighted works, if it be money, advertising revenue or something else of value should be subject to criminal charges should the local DA where the person was when the distribution took place decide it's worth it. But Civil suits are quite another. I like your idea that a downloader should only be liable for the fair market value of the material at the same resolution as determined by the retail value of the same general material.
Also, if the material is NOT available for purchase because it's not yet been released at a retail price, the value of the settlement must be capped to the same rate collected per verified viewer as the distributor would have collected from the theaters at the time of viewing. So your first run bootleg copy of the latest blockbuster you show to 3 people would cost you no more than theater tickets would have.
However, if the material is not available for retail sale, being out of print and not available for viewing in theaters, damages are limited to the average cost of a first release offered for retail sale in the last year.
Also, MPPA should offer a "get legal" license, where you can buy a license for downloaded material for personal home use. This would allow you to keep the material you like and give the MPPA a way to get downloaders to "come clean" when they find them and if the MPPA offered rewards for disclosing the source of your download, could really generate some nice revenues and give them a way to issue DCA notices quicker to slow down the flood of material.
How many companies care about customer satisfaction these days? A few, but not big ones where customer service labor costs are significant. You are getting phone trees from them.
Actually, I was illustrating something using absurdity, just like the original poster was...
Usually 0 gets you a human, or press numbers that don't correspond to options until it figures you're a confused grandma or something.
Usually, 3 failed attempts to get a workable response from the user will get you a real person... At least that's what we used to program IVR's to do. So keep saying gibberish and I'm guessing you will talk to a human pretty quick if the place you are calling has *any* commitment to customer service. (So no cell carriers, government offices and such).
I'm just not seeing what's unique about this idea. It just sounds like any old IVR application out there, where you listen for keywords in the responses to try and figure out what the caller wants.
The technique is to prompt the user, then listen, and if the IVR doesn't understand with a specific level of confidence, start to "train" the user on easily recognizable words and phrases. How's AI going to help this? All it's going to do is make some likely vain attempt to parse the words said and try to equate that (with some level of confidence) to some predetermined set of options. It will say "I'm not sure what you mean" and proceed to prompt the user again by outlining a list of things it knows how to do, or (worse) just telling them to "try again". Trying again will likely get you EXACTLY the same input, said slower, which isn't going to help the AI any. The result with and without AI will be the same and take just as long.
Unless I missed something, this is nothing more than Google hype or the musings of some inexperienced IVR engineers trying to sound like they are thinking outside the box. Doesn't look like it's new to me.
Phone trees are even worse. If I were the CEO of a company and someone brought that up as an option at a board meeting, they'd be walking out of the building with their boxes thinking it sucks to be fired. Then when they got home, they'd seen their house had burnt down only to be abducted and sent to a black site to slowly starve to death on their least favorite food.
Wow... you must really hate IVR's...
You know, though, if you end up manning the phones with real folks, your labor costs will be higher than your competition and your profits will be lower.
What will happen then is after a board meeting you will be thinking "it sucks to be fired" and I hope stockholders don't know where your house is when they come to recover your severance package for gross negligence in your management policy as CEO.
What, like taking payments, restarting / starting service and changing address etc? Not too many calls in your average call center are that advanced. It could really help with large events by giving something a little more interactive than a blanket announcement and at least creating a basic ticket for humans.
Sorry, those things and more are certainly possible.
I worked in the industry almost 10 years ago, writing software and deploying call handling systems that where "voice driven" and we where doing such stuff back then, in a rudimentary and tedious way because the voice recognition was pretty new and limited. It's a lot better now, but it's NOT new or all that advanced to do those things.
Given the average customer support call center is a cost center, they are very cost aware. The biggest variable cost they have is labor, the folks talking on the phones. The one way to lower your costs is to have the IVR take care of it, so that's what happens and why it's usually so darned hard to get an actual person to talk to.
I can tell you, as someone who worked in a support call center when younger, that people love to be transferred during calls.Everyone loves to explain something twice.
See how much easier this is to read when it's punctuated properly?
Give'm a break, they worked at a call center and know how to read poorly worded stuff quickly so you cannot understand it...
As for me, When I was younger, I worked as a programmer who maintained the carefully worded marketing scripts that showed up on the screens at the call center. After I quit, they called me once so I told the CSR guy, "Oh, well, I'll tell you what you can do... Hit down arrow to the third option, hit 'Do' and hit 'Do' one more time to confirm." There was a brief pause as he absorbed what I told him ("Do not ever call me again!") and as he tried to keep me on the phone I said, "You understand what I told you. Good luck with your job but you better look for another.. Trust me, I know. "
Slashdot Mirror
The beauty of the internet is that it allows readers to check multiple sources for any one subject/story, as opposed to just swallowing whatever the legacy media told them to believe. That scares the shit out of them.
The danger of the internet is literally anybody can put up a website that looks like it's a reliable source so it's easy to fool a lot of people quickly. The next danger is the ability to skew search engine results by "paying" for higher ranking.
The end result is that the "truth" is for sale and there is no way to know if what you are reading is actually the truth or somebody's attempt to influence you to support their cause.
Also, it means the that the mainstream media outlets, who are chasing profits, are prone to publish sensationalism over substance.. Which is the third problem... The internet is about profit, not about facts or truth. What they fear is losing their audience, either by offending them when the facts don't agree with reader's opinions or being shown for the profit whores they have become.
Then, dare I mention him, Trump comes along and upsets everybody's apple carts, by using the same medium to push his messaging and all you know what breaks lose. Now we are in this rough and tumble period where everybody has to figure out what the hub-bub is about and when and how it will end.
The new reality is, the internet is a waste land where grains of truth are strewn about in the sand dunes of a partisan desert being blow around by the breath of the yelling talking heads.
LOL You do realize that DARPA has been after the autonomous vehicle concept for over a decade now right? It's been going on so long now that I've seen multiple TV programs on the "science channel" about it and at least one "National Geographic" and one "NOVA" special too.
I left my last job because it was a hostile work environment where my boss' boss was fond of yelling and blaming folks for what ever happened to suit his fancy that day. Sometimes it was for not following his instructions. Sometimes it was because his instructions where followed but we should have known better. He was always yelling at individuals about one thing or another and often yelled at his direct reports all at the same time. We had weekly 3 hour meetings for this purpose that often went to 4 or 5 hours.
The last straw was when he demoted me during one of his fits, but didn't bother to tell me for almost 2 weeks. I found out during a meeting when he flashed up the current org chart in one of his long pointless rambling presentations and my name had moved. Say what? So I had my authority to do the work he wanted done taken away and he still wanted to hold me responsible? Sorry buddy, I'm out of here.
Folks where leaving this place in droves, so, I followed them. Now, as a group, we are all happier working for a competitor and meet as a group on a regular basis to remember all the reasons why we would never go back... I will NEVER work for him again, I'll cook burgers and fries for a living if I have too.
Oh sure, but DARPA has a limited budget and needs to be throwing it's money towards the ideas that have the greatest possibility of paying a dividend on the investment. So if there are other more promising ideas that are higher on the cost/reward estimates, they will be funded first.
But my post wasn't about DARPA. It was about the development in technology in general.
I'm beginning to think that we're reaching the limits of what we can do with the laser lithography method of silicon IC creation. For instance look at the problems Intel is having with 10nm fabrication right now. Perhaps the way forward is straight out of science fiction: a matter compiler/3D printer-like approach, where an integrated circuit is built up an atom or a molecule at a time? Pure imagination on my part, but is it really out of our reach?
Doesn't seem that far out of reach theoretically. However, as in all things, the practical cost effective reach seems a long way off.
A lot of things *could* be done, but we don't do them because they are too expensive or better/cheaper/faster options exist so we use the other options.
Why?
Because....If you cannot say you can at least read every nearly M$ Office document out there, your "office replacement" is a non-starter. Trust me.
Also, Even if Office doesn't meet the above requirement, you can bet that M$ will crank up the FUD campaign to beat you down and protect it's market share.
By the way... Just in case you wondered.... I actually LIKE the non-M$ Office offerings better than Office. I find them to be better designed, less cluttered and easier to figure out. The problem is, my wife and kids don't feel the same way and my employer mandates we use Office. Unfortunately this inertia is going to be HARD to overcome, even with the perfect solution that's free of purchase costs. I'm no M$ fanboy, but I do see what's reality here and it's going to be a HUGE uphill slog for any alternate solutions that arise, M$ will see to it...
It seems to me that blaming Microsoft for this is a bit wrong. You made the archives, but didn't maintain the ability to retrieve from them. Sorta like losing the key to your shed....
I have an old XP laptop laying around, fully functional, in order to handle legacy situations. I also have routinely gone though my "backup" material and refreshed it to new media or knowingly destroyed it because it wasn't worth keeping (like my old BBS from 1989 on 1.44Meg floppies). So over the years my data archives have migrated from floppies, to tapes, then to CD's then to DVD's and now I'm working on moving to SATA hard drives and BluRay's. That's just my personal stuff.
Microsoft may be a bit quick to dump support for things that don't make them money, but it's not like they don't warn their customers about this. So, you may have at least some part of the blame here for the loss of your data. Plus, I'll bet that *somebody* out there has the ability to retrieve it, maybe even Microsoft, but it may cost a lot to get it done.
So I'm curious.. What Microsoft Product are you needing to get a copy of?
The answer is always.....
Just one more than I currently have.
So, if you apply the same logic to the rest of the world, we need at least one more for each of us.
Joking aside.. How many? I don't know, but you will be able to tell you are approaching the right number when folks stop buying and manufacturers stop building them. Which basically says, more than we have now and are likely to have built any time soon.
Perhaps you feel unfairly treated? .....
I am altering the deal... Pray I don't alter it any further.
But they will, they will.
It's been tried before and failed.
The basic problem Linux faces is not really the OS or even Office, but compatibility with other legacy windows programs. Nobody really cares what OS is under the GUI, Linux Office Suits are fully functional but different from M$oft's offerings and if you want/need to run something else, it's a crap shoot with WINE and it's derivatives.
What we actually need is a fully functional Windows environment to run windows programs on Lunix that is 1. easy to configure, 2. Seamless and 3. works with a whole host of current windows applications, 4. Acceptable performance.
SO.... You need the OS, a drop in replacement for Office that can read all the current document formats, AND a windows emulator/execution environment to run applications at near the same performance and functionality. That's a tall order.
Now... they should have taken advantage of the wording in the story. Instead of "mind-boggling speeds" it should have been "astronomical speeds". Or, "faster than your standard astronomical speeds". Or something.
Helmet: "Prepare for ludicrous speed!"
Sandurz: "But Sir!" ....
Woooshhh!
Lone Star: "What was that!"
Barf: "They've gone to plaid!
Albert Einstein was right with his theory? Imagine that. I only wish he had lived to see his theories validated like this because he was an exceptional thinker who kept working to within days of his death. He would have loved to see his theories work out such complex problems yet be as simple as they are expressed. I applaud that he was right and I applaud the man, the work ethic and his abilities. We will be lucky to ever know his equal again.
Actually a very good question...
LEO satellites are usually orbited low enough that they will naturally re-enter with in a few years of "unpowered" flight, such as after it's run out of fuel or is no longer controllable. So LEO orbits are generally self cleaning over time.
For orbits that are higher, the natural decay times can be quite long (as in practically not going to happen) and in such cases the usual thing is to either plan to deorbit the satellite by putting it into a highly elliptical orbit where it drags in the atmosphere at the low point and letting gravity take it's course, OR you plan a parking orbit out of the way. Such things usually take fuel and active control of the satellite so they are not always successful. Also, some orbits have natural collection points due to the gravity between say the moon and earth. These points are often the final destination of space junk as it's a low energy way to get it out of the way into a place where it will naturally stay without help, which is a good thing.
So for LEO the issue of debris is naturally correcting, though still a bit of a risk to the satellites that operate there because of the relative speed differences which can be very high for objects in different but crossing orbits. However for LEO, there are all sorts of possible orbits and directions so you can usually stay out of each other's way. Form geosynchronous orbits the relative speed differences is quite low, given that the whole point is to make the satellites all stay in one place in the sky. This stacks up a lot of hardware in a very small space though so collisions would be more slow motion train wrecks that won't create a lot of debris than quick obliteration events that generate a lot of fast moving objects.
Of course there are all sorts of highly elliptical orbits used for various types of satellites and these are usually designed to be decaying over time, with their low points being at or near LEO levels. As in most of this stuff, they have a planned way to get the used up hardware out of the way somehow.
So no, we certainly don't convert them to debris, usually, though some have been used for target practice to prove anti-satellite weapons actually can work. Such weapons have been demonstrated by multiple countries, including the USA, China and Russia/Soviet Union.
Ariane cost: $165-220M per launch, 16,000 kg to LEO. Falcon 9 cost: $50M per launch (2018), 22,800 to LEO.
Taking the middle of the Ariane cost, it is $12,000 per KG to LEO. The F9 is $2200 per KG to LEO.
Not to doubt you, but where did you find those numbers?
I like how you think, but I seriously doubt that the MPPA would fund any politician that supported this idea so it isn't going to happen.
Also, Criminal prosecution is one thing, and I think that those who make something distributing copyrighted works, if it be money, advertising revenue or something else of value should be subject to criminal charges should the local DA where the person was when the distribution took place decide it's worth it. But Civil suits are quite another. I like your idea that a downloader should only be liable for the fair market value of the material at the same resolution as determined by the retail value of the same general material.
Also, if the material is NOT available for purchase because it's not yet been released at a retail price, the value of the settlement must be capped to the same rate collected per verified viewer as the distributor would have collected from the theaters at the time of viewing. So your first run bootleg copy of the latest blockbuster you show to 3 people would cost you no more than theater tickets would have.
However, if the material is not available for retail sale, being out of print and not available for viewing in theaters, damages are limited to the average cost of a first release offered for retail sale in the last year.
Also, MPPA should offer a "get legal" license, where you can buy a license for downloaded material for personal home use. This would allow you to keep the material you like and give the MPPA a way to get downloaders to "come clean" when they find them and if the MPPA offered rewards for disclosing the source of your download, could really generate some nice revenues and give them a way to issue DCA notices quicker to slow down the flood of material.
LOL, and my point was this is not new, we've been doing this for a decade or more now with voice based call flows.
Also, just ask Siri a question or two, isn't that effectively what Google is talking about when they say AI?
This isn't new... Not at all.
How many companies care about customer satisfaction these days? A few, but not big ones where customer service labor costs are significant. You are getting phone trees from them.
Actually, I was illustrating something using absurdity, just like the original poster was...
Usually 0 gets you a human, or press numbers that don't correspond to options until it figures you're a confused grandma or something.
Usually, 3 failed attempts to get a workable response from the user will get you a real person... At least that's what we used to program IVR's to do. So keep saying gibberish and I'm guessing you will talk to a human pretty quick if the place you are calling has *any* commitment to customer service. (So no cell carriers, government offices and such).
Did I miss something here?
I'm just not seeing what's unique about this idea. It just sounds like any old IVR application out there, where you listen for keywords in the responses to try and figure out what the caller wants.
The technique is to prompt the user, then listen, and if the IVR doesn't understand with a specific level of confidence, start to "train" the user on easily recognizable words and phrases. How's AI going to help this? All it's going to do is make some likely vain attempt to parse the words said and try to equate that (with some level of confidence) to some predetermined set of options. It will say "I'm not sure what you mean" and proceed to prompt the user again by outlining a list of things it knows how to do, or (worse) just telling them to "try again". Trying again will likely get you EXACTLY the same input, said slower, which isn't going to help the AI any. The result with and without AI will be the same and take just as long.
Unless I missed something, this is nothing more than Google hype or the musings of some inexperienced IVR engineers trying to sound like they are thinking outside the box. Doesn't look like it's new to me.
Phone trees are even worse. If I were the CEO of a company and someone brought that up as an option at a board meeting, they'd be walking out of the building with their boxes thinking it sucks to be fired. Then when they got home, they'd seen their house had burnt down only to be abducted and sent to a black site to slowly starve to death on their least favorite food.
Wow... you must really hate IVR's...
You know, though, if you end up manning the phones with real folks, your labor costs will be higher than your competition and your profits will be lower.
What will happen then is after a board meeting you will be thinking "it sucks to be fired" and I hope stockholders don't know where your house is when they come to recover your severance package for gross negligence in your management policy as CEO.
What, like taking payments, restarting / starting service and changing address etc? Not too many calls in your average call center are that advanced. It could really help with large events by giving something a little more interactive than a blanket announcement and at least creating a basic ticket for humans.
Sorry, those things and more are certainly possible.
I worked in the industry almost 10 years ago, writing software and deploying call handling systems that where "voice driven" and we where doing such stuff back then, in a rudimentary and tedious way because the voice recognition was pretty new and limited. It's a lot better now, but it's NOT new or all that advanced to do those things.
Given the average customer support call center is a cost center, they are very cost aware. The biggest variable cost they have is labor, the folks talking on the phones. The one way to lower your costs is to have the IVR take care of it, so that's what happens and why it's usually so darned hard to get an actual person to talk to.
I can tell you, as someone who worked in a support call center when younger, that people love to be transferred during calls. Everyone loves to explain something twice.
See how much easier this is to read when it's punctuated properly?
Give'm a break, they worked at a call center and know how to read poorly worded stuff quickly so you cannot understand it...
As for me, When I was younger, I worked as a programmer who maintained the carefully worded marketing scripts that showed up on the screens at the call center. After I quit, they called me once so I told the CSR guy, "Oh, well, I'll tell you what you can do... Hit down arrow to the third option, hit 'Do' and hit 'Do' one more time to confirm." There was a brief pause as he absorbed what I told him ("Do not ever call me again!") and as he tried to keep me on the phone I said, "You understand what I told you. Good luck with your job but you better look for another.. Trust me, I know. "
I disagree... The price sure is "pro" level.
we’ve identified that there is a missing digital key in the firmware that impacts the thermal management system
Are they just making stuff up now?
Unless you hold the key, there is no way to know now is there....
Here's a thought:
No, here's a thought.
These things are going to heat up to like a jillion degrees and some dude's [junk] is going to catch fire. Apple's plan all along? You decide.
If you have a problem with that, you are holding it wrong.