>Divide lobbying dollars by 20 and it suddenly becomes a lot harder to buy a politician.
I'm unconvinced - the worst lobbying is usually done by people with extremely deep pockets, and has a payoff a LOT better than 20:1 - having to lobby 20x as many Representatives might cost 20x as much (or it might not - less powerful politicians can usually be bought more cheaply, especially if their salaries were reduced so that it didn't cost us 20x as much), but that just reduces the profit margins a bit, it doesn't actually make it substantially less appealing to engage in except on the minor issues.
You're right, I should have stuck with the basic problem of small (population) versus large states - the small states had little incentive to join a union where they would have virtually no representation - especially not having just thrown off the yoke of external British control for giving them no representation.
Same thing remains now though - the small states have no incentive to give up their representation, and Congress has no way to alter the electoral process themselves other than dramatically increasing the size of the House - and thus dramatically decrease the personal power of all the Representatives that would have to approve it.
Please expand on this supposed Pennsylvania gerrymandering attempt. Are you talking about the initial solidification of the borders? Or an attempt to change how electors were allocated? Because as far as I can tell Pennsylvania does the usual popular-vote winner-takes-all allocation of electors, which makes gerrymandering impossible.
Oh, wait, dropped a zero - that should be a maximum of 10,043 Representatives, not 1,004. Which would make a much bigger difference, both positive and negative.
Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the number of electors of any state equals the size of its total congressional delegation (House and Senate seats). While Article One, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution states: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...[details about how exactly population is counted, changed by the 14th Amendment].
Now yes, the total number of Representatives could be changed comparatively easily, which would alter the significance of the two Senators per state when it comes to electoral votes, but that would be a rather dramatic change with far reaching effects - not a simple changing of the electoral college alone.
Heck, we could increase the number of Representatives to the constitutional maximum of 1 per 30,000 citizens, for a current total of 1004 Representatives, reducing the influence of the number of Senators from 18.7% of the electoral vote to 9.1%, along with the influence of the 1-Representative minimum, which wouldn't actually change much other than further reducing the electoral influence of a few states with an already-tiny influence. But it would come at the price of a much larger and more ungainly House - which might be a good thing for reducing corruption (or not), but would almost certainly make the consensus-building process substantially more difficult than it is now.
States could also choose to divide their electors proportionally, or by district (you want Gerrymandering to actually sway the presidential election?), or any other scheme - that's up to them. But most seem fairly firmly committed to winner-takes-all, as any finer allocation splits the vote and reduces the influence of that state in the presidential election.
That's the first time I've heard anyone make the accusation that state borders are gerrymandered. And I rather doubt that was actually your intent.
Quick civics lesson: Virtually all electors cast their vote based on who won the popular vote in their state. Any gerrymandering (redrawing of voting boundaries) would require redrawing interstate borders - which I don't believe has ever happened to a state after it has joined the union.
Now, the electoral college *is* set up so that each state gets as many electoral votes as it has congressional representatives, which does mean that some citizen's vote counts for more than others, the same way some citizens get more congressional representation, since states get two senators each, regardless of population. And it was set up that way for a reason - so that the small, densely-populated states couldn't just ignore the large rural ones. Without that, the large rural states would have had little incentive to join the nation in the first place. Who would want to be the farming-bitch for the cities, with little political power?
We could change the laws for how states get federal representation - but to do so we'd need a constitutional amendment to be ratified by all those states that would be delegated to political bitch status - and they'd have to be stupid to support that.
Except it doesn't decay away in one half-life, only half of it does. If you can get away with only a thousandfold reduction in radioactivity before calling it "safe enough", it'll take you ten half-lives to get there. For still-quite-dangerous medium-lived waste, with half-lives ranging up to about 90 years, that means you have to store it safely for at least 900 years - it's been centuries since we built anything designed to last that long. And I'm pulling that 1000-fold reduction number out of thin air - I suspect you mostly want a much larger reduction than that.
There's also a second, bigger problem: While it's true that long half lives mean low radioactivity, the problem is that high level nuclear waste is typically a whole lot of that negligibly radioactive unspent fuel, thoroughly mixed with some highly radioactive fission products. Disposing of it as-is means that the unspent fuel is constantly being bombarded by radiation from the radioactive products, which causes new fission and the creation of new products to replace the decayed ones. Essentially the waste functions as a very low-power nuclear reactor that just keeps generating fresh radioactive waste for a *very* long time.
Separating out the unspent fuel (reprocessing) would completely eliminate the second problem. But working with the highly radioactive mixture is dangerous and expensive, and we stopped doing it about as soon as mining advances made fresh enriched uranium cheaper than reprocessed. We absolutely could start doing it again at any time - the fact that we haven't tells you exactly how much the people in power care about long-term problems. Which is why I don't trust them to manage such problems properly.
No, I haven't destroyed anything - I've just denied you access to it. The moment I change my mind, you can have access - the data will still be there. No different than locking it in an uncrackable/self-desctucting safe.
If you have enough other evidence to convince a judge to order me to do so, then he can hit me with contempt of court penalties until I comply.
So does nuclear - namely, nuclear waste. Peak global nuclear energy production was ~2.7 trillion TWh/year. Increasing that to 100 trillion TWh/y using current technologies means 37x as much nuclear waste production, and we haven't even figured out a safe way to deal with the waste we're already producing.
Some newer technologies could eliminate a lot of that - but we haven't really tested any of them at scale yet.
Are they actually less likely to bypass that, than a much-lower-(time)cost-to-you biometric scanner though? Assuming they weren't specifically targeting you at least - in which case recording you entering your passcode is probably only a bit more difficult that getting your fingerprints (unless of course your phone had a nice
I think such generally low-criticality security is exactly where biometrics make sense. They'll probably never be secure enough for places where security is truly important, except perhaps as an auxiliary layer. But as a lock for your "diary"? Sure. You're really just trying to keep out casual prying eyes and make sure a casual thief only steals the device itself and not your data. Once you're personally targeted by someone who knows what they're doing, your odds of staying secure are low unless you're truly paranoid. Of course, it you are personally targeted it's probably with good reason, unless it's just authorities flexing their power.
You never have control over anything but your own actions, but those actions influence the probable actions of the people around you. You could be hit at any moment by a careless driver - but that doesn't mean you just ignore your own part and go wandering in traffic at night wearing black clothes. Heck, that's the entire point of wearing bright orange hiking gear during hunting season.
Or, you know, maybe they don't actually kill you. There's a pretty good chance a bullet wound just causes serious pain over an extended period, large medical bills, and possibly permanent partial paralysis or other health problems.
So, you need a gun to take out a few assholes with box-cutters?
The only reason the early hijackers were able to get away with anything was that it was official policy to let hijackers have the plane, so that everybody could walk away safely when it eventually landed. Once the result of the early hijackings hit the news, the later attempts were foiled by the passengers. And shortly thereafter the only necessary increase in security was made - locks on the cockpit door. Everything else has been security theater, either to make people feel safer, or, if you're cynical, for the purpose of getting people used to living in a police state.
Besides which, it's not like it's particularly difficult to get a gun license in the U.S. - like a drivers license the purpose is primarily to make sure you know how to handle it safely, and (increasingly) aren't a violent criminal or otherwise mentally unstable. If you can't get a license, then the odds are that you'll do a lot more harm than good with a gun.
Well, in general it's a bad practice to make threats you don't intend to follow though on. And vanishingly few people consistently behave rationally.
And while a person facing imminent *certain* death should anticipate no particular problems at all (and in fact it seems common for such people to experience preternatural calm and often life-changing clarity - at least according to those whose lives were spared by chance) Facing imminent *potential* death on the other hand leaves you facing the very large problem of "not being killed" - as your death will not only hurt all your loved ones (an important consideration for non-psychopaths), but also put a serious damper on continuing to enjoy life. Which personally is a priority I rank higher than all but a small handful of other concerns.
So, somebody asks for my PIN at gunpoint - I'm giving them my PIN, as it's far more likely that I'll survive that way. I'm just as dead if they kill me out of spite or self-consistency, and would much rather they profit from the theft if it means I also profit by continuing to survive. The only exception would be if that PIN provided access to information that would jeopardize one of the few priorities I hold higher than my life - but I don't carry any nuclear launch codes, bioweapon designs, or even really juicy blackmail material on my loved ones - so that seems unlikely.
Considering how many people are beaten or killed by cops on the flimsiest of pretenses, sometimes even while officially in custody, without any consequences for the cop, that I'm not completely certain that "knowing your rights" is actually adequate defense against an "angry guy with a gun and a badge"
> That still could be taken at gunpoint, but I would argue that is actually an advantage, since I certainly don't have access to any data that is comparable in worth to my life.
Or even comparable in worth to my eye, thumb, etc. While many biometric scanners claim not to work with amputated body parts, I suspect they'd work just fine so long as the part was was kept alive with synthetic blood of the right color and temperature. Plus, I don't trust all thieves to know how difficult the procedure actually is - I'd hate to lose a body part because a thief didn't realize it would be useless. Besides, I'm sure any sufficiently disreputable fence would have the necessary synthetic blood, etc. to make use of a fresh stolen part kept on ice.
>"is refusing the passphrase a form of destruction of evidence?" I can't imagine how. It might be contempt of court, or even obstruction of justice, but unless you've got a script set up to securely wipe all data if you haven't logged in within a certain amount of time, nothing is destroyed. Except possibly by incompetent forensic hacking attempts hitting a built-in self-destruct limit, but I would think that that's on them, you had nothing to do with it.
However, they're considerably more difficult to mimic than password entry - which means that the asshole who stole your phone at the club is unlikely to be able to bypass it.
It's like having a password on your home computer - it (mostly) keeps the kids out, especially if they have their own account, and serves as a declaration of intent to anyone who happens to sit down at it. But unless you've gone a whole lot further than just adding a password, the real security against a dedicated attacker is minimal, so you may as well use something simple. Brute-forcing a three-character password is a lot more difficult than just booting off a USB stick, so there's nothing to be gained from having a password more secure than that, unless you've enabled the account for remote log in.
All of security is really just an exercise in making yourself an inconvenient enough target that attackers look elsewhere. The lock on your front door can almost certainly be picked in under a minute by anyone with a solid weekend of practice. Even then the only reason to pick a lock is to enter without breaking anything - the door is usually the most secure entrance to any building or room.
Because audio is analog, and adding digital "plug and pray" wrappers around a still-analog signal contributes nothing, while substantially raising the price of "dumb" peripherals.
There's also 2.5mm - not that anybody much uses it, for pretty much the same reason nobody wants USB-C audio: it's not compatible with the vast world of 3.5mm audio equipment without annoying, easily-lost adapters. At least the far older 1/4" standard is forward-compatible with 3.5mm using nothing more than an in-jack adapter that only protrudes far enough to be able to pull it out when needed.
Apple is in a unique position with lock-in though - if you don't like the absence of the 3.5mm jack your options are: don't upgrade your phone, or switch to Android or one of the other niche OSes, and lose all the apps you've invested in, and the nice integration with iTunes on your PC. And even then, sales are faltering, so perhaps some percentage of iPhone users are exercising those options.
No one else is really positioned to cram a significant unwanted change down users throats - when I upgrade my Android phone, I've got hundreds of choices from dozens of manufacturers. If a phone is missing an important feature - be it decent camera, screen, mic and sound, antenna, or a well-supported line-out, it just gets dropped from my list - lots of other options available.
And I don't even care much about mobile audio quality - what I *do* care about is mobile audio *compatibility*. 3.5mm jacks have been the standard for 70 years, for everything except pro which uses the easily convertible 1/4" jack that's been in use for ~140 years. EVERYTHING works immediately and flawlessly with 3.5mm jacks. Even if USB-C audio worked flawlessly, it wouldn't be compatible with the vast majority of audio equipment - same for Bluetooth.
Bluetooth at least brings wireless functionality to the table - USB-C audio offers *nothing* for the typical consumer Nice for a single-plug docking station perhaps, but other than that its only benefits are saving the phone manufacturer a few cents on a plug, and letting them make their phones even thinner - which as far as I can tell is another thing nobody actually wants.
Perhaps they updated the summary, but it seems pretty clear to me: > with Internet radio stations from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England, Scotland, France and Belgium, as well as U.S.A., Canada, Mexico and Guatemala, mapped for GNOME Maps
Sounds pretty like it does exactly what is says on the tin - maps the internet radio station broadcast locations so that they can be viewed in GNOME Maps.
Slashdot Mirror
>Divide lobbying dollars by 20 and it suddenly becomes a lot harder to buy a politician.
I'm unconvinced - the worst lobbying is usually done by people with extremely deep pockets, and has a payoff a LOT better than 20:1 - having to lobby 20x as many Representatives might cost 20x as much (or it might not - less powerful politicians can usually be bought more cheaply, especially if their salaries were reduced so that it didn't cost us 20x as much), but that just reduces the profit margins a bit, it doesn't actually make it substantially less appealing to engage in except on the minor issues.
You're right, I should have stuck with the basic problem of small (population) versus large states - the small states had little incentive to join a union where they would have virtually no representation - especially not having just thrown off the yoke of external British control for giving them no representation.
Same thing remains now though - the small states have no incentive to give up their representation, and Congress has no way to alter the electoral process themselves other than dramatically increasing the size of the House - and thus dramatically decrease the personal power of all the Representatives that would have to approve it.
Please expand on this supposed Pennsylvania gerrymandering attempt. Are you talking about the initial solidification of the borders? Or an attempt to change how electors were allocated? Because as far as I can tell Pennsylvania does the usual popular-vote winner-takes-all allocation of electors, which makes gerrymandering impossible.
You also get far more direct access to ALL representatives than anyone else.
Oh, wait, dropped a zero - that should be a maximum of 10,043 Representatives, not 1,004. Which would make a much bigger difference, both positive and negative.
I stand corrected
Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the number of electors of any state equals the size of its total congressional delegation (House and Senate seats).
While
Article One, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution states:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...[details about how exactly population is counted, changed by the 14th Amendment].
Now yes, the total number of Representatives could be changed comparatively easily, which would alter the significance of the two Senators per state when it comes to electoral votes, but that would be a rather dramatic change with far reaching effects - not a simple changing of the electoral college alone.
Heck, we could increase the number of Representatives to the constitutional maximum of 1 per 30,000 citizens, for a current total of 1004 Representatives, reducing the influence of the number of Senators from 18.7% of the electoral vote to 9.1%, along with the influence of the 1-Representative minimum, which wouldn't actually change much other than further reducing the electoral influence of a few states with an already-tiny influence. But it would come at the price of a much larger and more ungainly House - which might be a good thing for reducing corruption (or not), but would almost certainly make the consensus-building process substantially more difficult than it is now.
States could also choose to divide their electors proportionally, or by district (you want Gerrymandering to actually sway the presidential election?), or any other scheme - that's up to them. But most seem fairly firmly committed to winner-takes-all, as any finer allocation splits the vote and reduces the influence of that state in the presidential election.
That's the first time I've heard anyone make the accusation that state borders are gerrymandered. And I rather doubt that was actually your intent.
Quick civics lesson: Virtually all electors cast their vote based on who won the popular vote in their state. Any gerrymandering (redrawing of voting boundaries) would require redrawing interstate borders - which I don't believe has ever happened to a state after it has joined the union.
Now, the electoral college *is* set up so that each state gets as many electoral votes as it has congressional representatives, which does mean that some citizen's vote counts for more than others, the same way some citizens get more congressional representation, since states get two senators each, regardless of population. And it was set up that way for a reason - so that the small, densely-populated states couldn't just ignore the large rural ones. Without that, the large rural states would have had little incentive to join the nation in the first place. Who would want to be the farming-bitch for the cities, with little political power?
We could change the laws for how states get federal representation - but to do so we'd need a constitutional amendment to be ratified by all those states that would be delegated to political bitch status - and they'd have to be stupid to support that.
Except it doesn't decay away in one half-life, only half of it does. If you can get away with only a thousandfold reduction in radioactivity before calling it "safe enough", it'll take you ten half-lives to get there. For still-quite-dangerous medium-lived waste, with half-lives ranging up to about 90 years, that means you have to store it safely for at least 900 years - it's been centuries since we built anything designed to last that long. And I'm pulling that 1000-fold reduction number out of thin air - I suspect you mostly want a much larger reduction than that.
There's also a second, bigger problem: While it's true that long half lives mean low radioactivity, the problem is that high level nuclear waste is typically a whole lot of that negligibly radioactive unspent fuel, thoroughly mixed with some highly radioactive fission products. Disposing of it as-is means that the unspent fuel is constantly being bombarded by radiation from the radioactive products, which causes new fission and the creation of new products to replace the decayed ones. Essentially the waste functions as a very low-power nuclear reactor that just keeps generating fresh radioactive waste for a *very* long time.
Separating out the unspent fuel (reprocessing) would completely eliminate the second problem. But working with the highly radioactive mixture is dangerous and expensive, and we stopped doing it about as soon as mining advances made fresh enriched uranium cheaper than reprocessed. We absolutely could start doing it again at any time - the fact that we haven't tells you exactly how much the people in power care about long-term problems. Which is why I don't trust them to manage such problems properly.
No, I haven't destroyed anything - I've just denied you access to it. The moment I change my mind, you can have access - the data will still be there. No different than locking it in an uncrackable/self-desctucting safe.
If you have enough other evidence to convince a judge to order me to do so, then he can hit me with contempt of court penalties until I comply.
So does nuclear - namely, nuclear waste. Peak global nuclear energy production was ~2.7 trillion TWh/year. Increasing that to 100 trillion TWh/y using current technologies means 37x as much nuclear waste production, and we haven't even figured out a safe way to deal with the waste we're already producing.
Some newer technologies could eliminate a lot of that - but we haven't really tested any of them at scale yet.
Are they actually less likely to bypass that, than a much-lower-(time)cost-to-you biometric scanner though? Assuming they weren't specifically targeting you at least - in which case recording you entering your passcode is probably only a bit more difficult that getting your fingerprints (unless of course your phone had a nice
I think such generally low-criticality security is exactly where biometrics make sense. They'll probably never be secure enough for places where security is truly important, except perhaps as an auxiliary layer. But as a lock for your "diary"? Sure. You're really just trying to keep out casual prying eyes and make sure a casual thief only steals the device itself and not your data. Once you're personally targeted by someone who knows what they're doing, your odds of staying secure are low unless you're truly paranoid. Of course, it you are personally targeted it's probably with good reason, unless it's just authorities flexing their power.
You never have control over anything but your own actions, but those actions influence the probable actions of the people around you. You could be hit at any moment by a careless driver - but that doesn't mean you just ignore your own part and go wandering in traffic at night wearing black clothes. Heck, that's the entire point of wearing bright orange hiking gear during hunting season.
Or, you know, maybe they don't actually kill you. There's a pretty good chance a bullet wound just causes serious pain over an extended period, large medical bills, and possibly permanent partial paralysis or other health problems.
$5 hammer is a lot cheaper and easier though. What, you want the enforcers to have to actually work for their results?
So, you need a gun to take out a few assholes with box-cutters?
The only reason the early hijackers were able to get away with anything was that it was official policy to let hijackers have the plane, so that everybody could walk away safely when it eventually landed. Once the result of the early hijackings hit the news, the later attempts were foiled by the passengers. And shortly thereafter the only necessary increase in security was made - locks on the cockpit door. Everything else has been security theater, either to make people feel safer, or, if you're cynical, for the purpose of getting people used to living in a police state.
Besides which, it's not like it's particularly difficult to get a gun license in the U.S. - like a drivers license the purpose is primarily to make sure you know how to handle it safely, and (increasingly) aren't a violent criminal or otherwise mentally unstable. If you can't get a license, then the odds are that you'll do a lot more harm than good with a gun.
Who said the cops lives were in danger? Other than them, to justify the fact that they beat the shit out of you.
Plus, if they kill me I won't care that they didn't profit, so what exactly is the motive to invite that?
Well, in general it's a bad practice to make threats you don't intend to follow though on. And vanishingly few people consistently behave rationally.
And while a person facing imminent *certain* death should anticipate no particular problems at all (and in fact it seems common for such people to experience preternatural calm and often life-changing clarity - at least according to those whose lives were spared by chance) Facing imminent *potential* death on the other hand leaves you facing the very large problem of "not being killed" - as your death will not only hurt all your loved ones (an important consideration for non-psychopaths), but also put a serious damper on continuing to enjoy life. Which personally is a priority I rank higher than all but a small handful of other concerns.
So, somebody asks for my PIN at gunpoint - I'm giving them my PIN, as it's far more likely that I'll survive that way. I'm just as dead if they kill me out of spite or self-consistency, and would much rather they profit from the theft if it means I also profit by continuing to survive. The only exception would be if that PIN provided access to information that would jeopardize one of the few priorities I hold higher than my life - but I don't carry any nuclear launch codes, bioweapon designs, or even really juicy blackmail material on my loved ones - so that seems unlikely.
Considering how many people are beaten or killed by cops on the flimsiest of pretenses, sometimes even while officially in custody, without any consequences for the cop, that I'm not completely certain that "knowing your rights" is actually adequate defense against an "angry guy with a gun and a badge"
> That still could be taken at gunpoint, but I would argue that is actually an advantage, since I certainly don't have access to any data that is comparable in worth to my life.
Or even comparable in worth to my eye, thumb, etc. While many biometric scanners claim not to work with amputated body parts, I suspect they'd work just fine so long as the part was was kept alive with synthetic blood of the right color and temperature. Plus, I don't trust all thieves to know how difficult the procedure actually is - I'd hate to lose a body part because a thief didn't realize it would be useless. Besides, I'm sure any sufficiently disreputable fence would have the necessary synthetic blood, etc. to make use of a fresh stolen part kept on ice.
>"is refusing the passphrase a form of destruction of evidence?"
I can't imagine how. It might be contempt of court, or even obstruction of justice, but unless you've got a script set up to securely wipe all data if you haven't logged in within a certain amount of time, nothing is destroyed. Except possibly by incompetent forensic hacking attempts hitting a built-in self-destruct limit, but I would think that that's on them, you had nothing to do with it.
However, they're considerably more difficult to mimic than password entry - which means that the asshole who stole your phone at the club is unlikely to be able to bypass it.
It's like having a password on your home computer - it (mostly) keeps the kids out, especially if they have their own account, and serves as a declaration of intent to anyone who happens to sit down at it. But unless you've gone a whole lot further than just adding a password, the real security against a dedicated attacker is minimal, so you may as well use something simple. Brute-forcing a three-character password is a lot more difficult than just booting off a USB stick, so there's nothing to be gained from having a password more secure than that, unless you've enabled the account for remote log in.
All of security is really just an exercise in making yourself an inconvenient enough target that attackers look elsewhere. The lock on your front door can almost certainly be picked in under a minute by anyone with a solid weekend of practice. Even then the only reason to pick a lock is to enter without breaking anything - the door is usually the most secure entrance to any building or room.
> why should audio be any different
Because audio is analog, and adding digital "plug and pray" wrappers around a still-analog signal contributes nothing, while substantially raising the price of "dumb" peripherals.
There's also 2.5mm - not that anybody much uses it, for pretty much the same reason nobody wants USB-C audio: it's not compatible with the vast world of 3.5mm audio equipment without annoying, easily-lost adapters. At least the far older 1/4" standard is forward-compatible with 3.5mm using nothing more than an in-jack adapter that only protrudes far enough to be able to pull it out when needed.
Apple is in a unique position with lock-in though - if you don't like the absence of the 3.5mm jack your options are: don't upgrade your phone, or switch to Android or one of the other niche OSes, and lose all the apps you've invested in, and the nice integration with iTunes on your PC. And even then, sales are faltering, so perhaps some percentage of iPhone users are exercising those options.
No one else is really positioned to cram a significant unwanted change down users throats - when I upgrade my Android phone, I've got hundreds of choices from dozens of manufacturers. If a phone is missing an important feature - be it decent camera, screen, mic and sound, antenna, or a well-supported line-out, it just gets dropped from my list - lots of other options available.
And I don't even care much about mobile audio quality - what I *do* care about is mobile audio *compatibility*. 3.5mm jacks have been the standard for 70 years, for everything except pro which uses the easily convertible 1/4" jack that's been in use for ~140 years. EVERYTHING works immediately and flawlessly with 3.5mm jacks. Even if USB-C audio worked flawlessly, it wouldn't be compatible with the vast majority of audio equipment - same for Bluetooth.
Bluetooth at least brings wireless functionality to the table - USB-C audio offers *nothing* for the typical consumer Nice for a single-plug docking station perhaps, but other than that its only benefits are saving the phone manufacturer a few cents on a plug, and letting them make their phones even thinner - which as far as I can tell is another thing nobody actually wants.
Perhaps they updated the summary, but it seems pretty clear to me:
> with Internet radio stations from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England, Scotland, France and Belgium, as well as U.S.A., Canada, Mexico and Guatemala, mapped for GNOME Maps
Sounds pretty like it does exactly what is says on the tin - maps the internet radio station broadcast locations so that they can be viewed in GNOME Maps.