While I am a bit rolling my eyes at it too, there is a logic.
Currently, they only have grid power.
I don't think anyone is saying they won't have grid power with on-grid power plants, as is traditional.
It would not be a bad idea to *also* have batteries and distributed solar power generation.
As it stood, the grid got destroyed, all power gone save for a handful of generators.
If they had both, then the grid got destroyed *and* probably a lot of solar capacity also destroyed, but there would probably still be little spots of power generation that survived and could do a lot of good compared to zero power surviving.
Yeah, but I don't like having to hit Fn-F1 and Fn-F4 to mute speaker/mic when suddenly I'm in a meeting and something auto-plays. Alternatively, I'd despise having to hit fn-f1 to hit f1 when I need f1. And it's not one of those modal things where toggling fnlk makes it any better moment to moment.
Fine for the other special keys, I never urgently need to mess with brightness, I prefer the native OS shortcut for spawning multi-monitor/projector management, I never need to cut wireless and if I do it's never an urgent thnig. I've never even used the other functions. I think phones prove the point by always having volume buttons despite getting rid of all other hard button controls.
Well the X1 tablet is 3:2, but despite being very good for a tablet keyboard, it's still not as care free as a real hard attached keyboard in terms of opening it up on your lap.
My brand new thinkpad does not have a glossy screen....
Yes they are widescreen... just like everybody else...
The keyboard is still decent. It feels as nice despite being a chiclet. The shallower keys leave my screen looking nicer when opened, and if you *did* care about the sort of thing, keyboard backlight is nicer than thinklight was, but I never use that either way.
I'll even go one step further. With the previous keyboard, they would *always* leave marks on the screen when closed. I have not seen that phenoenon on any of the chiclet key models.
I was terrified it would be like Acer or Toshiba chiclet keyboards I tried, but the feel is really good and I don't miss the old keyboard at all. I did miss the buttons for trackpoint, but with them back I'm fine.
The one annoyance I have remaining is the function keys doing double duty as volume control. I'd at *least* like a button that is *always* mute, regardless of the f-key/media key preference and fn-lock setting.
Yeah, that one generation was nuts, also had the premium laptop with no function keys and home and end where capslock is. What crazy sort of company replaces the F-keys with a touch strip;)
Unfortunately, after using a modern trackpoint, going back to that generation of trackpoint is annoying because it is not *nearly* as good as they are now.
This is one of the reasons I liked when they finally went to a clickable trackpad. I no longer have to disable it, I just disable tap-to-click and it's still nice to use sometimes. I use the trackpoint the vast majority of the time, occasionally the trackpad, and when someone uses my system for a second, they are never put out by their favored input method not working.
Of course I think their first clickable trackpad removed *all* the buttons, but the one I have is the generation after, with trackpoint and three buttons intact, and the touchpad a very nice large clickable one that my wrists never cause issues with.
For my experience, my car (2015) had Sirius raidio and they are eternally giving me new 'trials' and HD radio as well as line in and bluetooth, so I have some comparison for myself.
Sirius radio sounds the worst to me, blatantly obvious compression artifacts, I would say roughly like a 64kpbs mp3. I don't understand why I don't see more bitching about the quality of satellite radio. I would say then that my stereo is *at least* good enough for Sirius to let it down.
A step up from there is FM, and then by the time I get to HD radio, it's reached about as good as *I* can tell.
HD Radio, line-in, and bluetooth all sound the same to me on my car stereo (which is a 'premium' sound system in terms of positioning by the vendor).
Now I don't touch bluetooth headphones, they are expensive and a hassle to pair and charge. For that I don't see myself moving away from wires (the phone is on my person anyway, don't see why I would fret about having to deal with a cable). I have a Moto-Z2 Force, which also has no 3.5 mm jack, but my headphones just always have the usb-c to 3.5mm adapter on it. At least this adapter is unobtrusive, no 90 degree turns, not heavy, not particularly large. I see the potential upside of externalizing the DAC and the higher potential power delivery for a usb-type-c compared to what a 3.5mm can do.
I don't understand the fixation on wireless headphones rather than on usb-c headphones as the answer to no 3.5mm jack.
Maybe in theory, in practice it'll get transcoded. However it is possible it is being transcoded to AAC @ 250kbps, and other than moster cable customers no one is going to claim there is a difference that can be perceived.
Maybe my ears suck or maybe my headunit sucks no matter the input (though *I* think it sounds pretty good, so back to point 1 in theory) or maybe the road noise renders it all moot or maybe A2DP in my case is using a really good codec (aac, @ 250 kpbs is for example possible), but I can't tell the difference between line in and bluetooth. With bluetooth your mileage may vary *greatly* based on the profile, codec, and codec implementation in your phone and other device. No one is going to say there is an audible difference between uncompressed and 250kbps AAC under *any* listening scenarios. An argument can be made for doing processing to the audio to remix or whatever, but for listening purposes, Bluetooth now can produce sound that no human can tell the difference.
Now I wouldn't want bluetooth headphones because it's yet another damn battery to worry about, but a usb-type c doesn't seem too onerous.
The problem is if you travel, *even* if you never do something like go camping in mountains, even if you don't have relatives in a rural area, you *still* are likely to be going down some road that is neither urban nore even a major interstate and not have coverage at some point.
It's not a big enough issue for me to pay extra, but the advertising should at least not mislead people to think in terms of geogrpahy rather than demographics.
Besides, what does 99.7% of the population even mean? Coverage of their home address? Coverage of their average location? I am 'covered', but I will venture places where I know I am not covered, but I presume I count as 'covered' in the metric, even when I'm not *currently* covered due to location.
Because people will easily conflate "hey it covers 99.7% of the people" with "hey, it works almost everywhere that verizon does", which as a t-mobile customer I am painfully aware that coverage is much more spotty as I go to rural areas with t-mobile than my family members that use verizon. For a large portion of the population, *where* it works as they travel is critically important. On the other hand it pretty much doesn't matter *who* it can work for apart for yourself, so 99.7% of other people isn't a metric that has value to a customer, so one assumes it should mean something of value and leaps to coverage area.
Our universe has uniform complexity, EVERYTHING is complex, not just one thing
This is not necessarily true. We only know about the complexity of what we are actively observing at a given moment. Even if we *think* we have a telescope logging data for us to review, the data may be made up at the time of review. Hell, I can't even be sure the scientists exist at all. A hypothetical simulation could be very very narrow and make up a lot of stuff or feed stuff in.
In a game, they can't synthesize voice convincingly, so they use voice acting. If an NPC declared that voice was not computable, and yet there is voice in the universe, therefore it can't be a simulation, they'd be incorrect because the stuff that couldn't be synthesized was meticulously provided manually by those creating the simulation.
The problem is again, our concept of computability may be limited.
But more to the point, we don't know that whatever effect we are 'observing' is actually really as complex as we think it is. We know what shows up on our displays that we see. We infer that means real exotic stuff because the most sane and simple explanation is that we are seeing data as it is, not as it is made up.
But in presuming a simulation, it cannot be taken for granted that the data we see is nothing more than a made up thing on a screen to give us data that tells us a computational model doesn't work.
In other words, this is indeed a more philosophical/sci *fi* topic than the realm of science. One can have a lot of presumptions about our observactions being true and our understanding of computability being complete and then make claims one way or another, but those presumptions are impossible in such a context.
For all *I* know, all that's simulated is what I personally see. There might not even be a simulation running with any detail for things even a foot behind me. What we think we observe may not be how thnigs are. We only get input through 5 senses. Anything beyond we just have to trust that displays are outputting real data not made up stuff.
For example, if you were an NPC in Half-Life, you might think 'there's no way we could even simulate a test chamber, therefore this can't be simulated' Of course the test chamber is nothing but a prop and any complex presumed mechanism behind it is all made up, but presumed to be real by a hypothetically 'self-aware' NPC in-universe.
This entire discussion is not falsifiable and is thus not a good realm of 'proving' or 'disproving'.
"the hackers will win, no matter what... why even bother doing anything?"
While no single company can really adopt that mindset safely, it is however not a bad idea for us as a society to take measures to mitigate the risk.
For example, checks and credit cards are still based on trusting a company with an open ended account number for even the smallest transactions. Even if I avoid companies that make me type in my credit card online to *their* website (most all of them) and avoided magstripe only point of sale equipment, they could still see my number and use it somewhere.
Also, why the hell is a social security number such a risky secret?
We live in a world where nearly every person has a personally owned terminal with them wherever we go. Online can transfer a user to the financial institution's site and get validation without ever being in the middle with customer related secrets. There isn't a good reason why the data these companies have should be so powerful, and we need to take more measures to take the teeth out of this data.
There may not be a good answer to privacy issues, but you could at least reduce the risks to people's financial situation in more intelligent ways.
While I agree it is foolhardy to presume protection from the outside world is perfect, it also is an impossibly large attack surface in a company if they are of any scale and the employees are the least bit empowered to get work done.
Sure, you don't set up anything that would be week nor do you accept "it's internal" as an excuse, but for every thing you do see, there are a dozen things you don't know the employees are doing, and 90% of those are wildly insecure in some way. If they were forced to be on the internet, *maybe* 25% of those would take it more seriously than an ostensibly internal site, but the majority don't even think about it.
It is a wise mitigation to at least try to have a wall, so long as you don't use it as a crutch in the face of known weak security situations.
Dear god no... My daughter has a chromebook, and if people think *that* is linux on the desktop... Boy they'll never touch Linux again.. ChromeOS is a festering pile of instability and intentionally limited capability. Have had so many glitches impact basic functionality because Google went their own way on so many fundamental aspect, and yet also don't seem to care much about it either.
The real problem is thinking that it is a technology problem anymore. Users are overwhelmingly apathetic about their OS and different is necessarily scary in that state. There is nothing an OS can do at this point to get the vast majority to reinstall their OS for *any* reason. If they are *forced*, they take it to an electronics store to get it taken care of or just buy a new device. In fact I would say at this point a vendor *could* start shipping linux and 60% of their customers would probably not care. The problem is there would probably be 30% pissed about it and causing massive bad reviews and returns, and Windows OEM license for the big players is next to nothing, so its not worth trying to cut that cost out.
For Linux you have three supported products: Ubuntu, SuSE, and RedHat. Of course *none of them* are that eager to play the consumer market game for revenue.
For Windows, how many people in the *consumer* space ever reach out to Microsoft? Generally speaking, they reach out to the vendor (Dell, HP, Lenovo) if they need help, and more advanced professionals engage with MS in their community forums.
The other stuff is just out of date. You can go your whole life of updating an Ubnutu install without seeing a CLI. I can't imagine going without it personally, but the fron and center option is a gui. If the usage is little more than what they would do with a chromebook, the CLI can be entriely ignored.
The reality of course is that WIndows OEM licenses are cheaper than the risk of a customer not being familiar with their new device and calling out of confusion, or returning the device for being 'different'. So every PC comes preloaded with Windows. And 90+% don't care about the operating system at all, they have more important things to them to worry about.
Basically from the time Sam Palmisano took the reigns, it's been about gutting the fundamentals more and more and seeing if things collapse. Even as the house of cards started to reveal itself in revenue decline, Rometty is just doubling down on Palmisano's playbook, because there is still millions to be gotten and despite the decline there's plenty of time for her to toss the hot potato to the next CEO, and even if her gambit fails, she and her group are still so wealthy as to not make much of a deal.
I wouldn't count on evan a *chance* of a reversal of IBM strategy until either the company has unambiguously fallen from grace and is essentially in ruin or a leader who is irrationally passionate about the industry appears.
Indian workers *can be as good or better*. However the ones IBM hires are *mostly* the ones who are note the best the labor market has to offer.
Not just IBM, generally any company going offshore (to any geo) is looking for cheap, and they forget that if you look *anywhere* for cheap, you won't get the best. When they offshore, they don't recognize realistic labor rates for the region, they don't recognize obvious degree mills and they chalk up any hard to ignore deficiencies during skill assessment to language or cultural gap.
Of course India contributes about 17% to GDP, so by those stats, the US market should still matter more by that calculus. Of course by that same calculus, the mom and pop restaurant up the street from me should be trying to cater to the global population, despite having no ability to sell to them.. A more relevant metric is *IBM* income percentage. The US comprises 44% of IBM income, while *all* of AP (including Japan, China, India, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand) makes up about 21% combined.
While you could *claim* IBM is hiring in India to balance those scales a bit more and attract Indian clients, the reality is they are exploiting naivete about offshored labor forces to temporarily boost margins until most clients figure it out. India as a market probably knows better than to go to IBM, and instead to go to more qualified Indian companies who actually hire the skilled Indian workers rather than the cheapest.
Slashdot Mirror
While I am a bit rolling my eyes at it too, there is a logic.
Currently, they only have grid power.
I don't think anyone is saying they won't have grid power with on-grid power plants, as is traditional.
It would not be a bad idea to *also* have batteries and distributed solar power generation.
As it stood, the grid got destroyed, all power gone save for a handful of generators.
If they had both, then the grid got destroyed *and* probably a lot of solar capacity also destroyed, but there would probably still be little spots of power generation that survived and could do a lot of good compared to zero power surviving.
Yeah, but I don't like having to hit Fn-F1 and Fn-F4 to mute speaker/mic when suddenly I'm in a meeting and something auto-plays. Alternatively, I'd despise having to hit fn-f1 to hit f1 when I need f1. And it's not one of those modal things where toggling fnlk makes it any better moment to moment.
Fine for the other special keys, I never urgently need to mess with brightness, I prefer the native OS shortcut for spawning multi-monitor/projector management, I never need to cut wireless and if I do it's never an urgent thnig. I've never even used the other functions. I think phones prove the point by always having volume buttons despite getting rid of all other hard button controls.
Well the X1 tablet is 3:2, but despite being very good for a tablet keyboard, it's still not as care free as a real hard attached keyboard in terms of opening it up on your lap.
My brand new thinkpad does not have a glossy screen....
Yes they are widescreen... just like everybody else...
The keyboard is still decent. It feels as nice despite being a chiclet. The shallower keys leave my screen looking nicer when opened, and if you *did* care about the sort of thing, keyboard backlight is nicer than thinklight was, but I never use that either way.
I'll even go one step further. With the previous keyboard, they would *always* leave marks on the screen when closed. I have not seen that phenoenon on any of the chiclet key models.
I was terrified it would be like Acer or Toshiba chiclet keyboards I tried, but the feel is really good and I don't miss the old keyboard at all. I did miss the buttons for trackpoint, but with them back I'm fine.
The one annoyance I have remaining is the function keys doing double duty as volume control. I'd at *least* like a button that is *always* mute, regardless of the f-key/media key preference and fn-lock setting.
Yeah, that one generation was nuts, also had the premium laptop with no function keys and home and end where capslock is. What crazy sort of company replaces the F-keys with a touch strip ;)
Unfortunately, after using a modern trackpoint, going back to that generation of trackpoint is annoying because it is not *nearly* as good as they are now.
This is one of the reasons I liked when they finally went to a clickable trackpad. I no longer have to disable it, I just disable tap-to-click and it's still nice to use sometimes. I use the trackpoint the vast majority of the time, occasionally the trackpad, and when someone uses my system for a second, they are never put out by their favored input method not working.
Of course I think their first clickable trackpad removed *all* the buttons, but the one I have is the generation after, with trackpoint and three buttons intact, and the touchpad a very nice large clickable one that my wrists never cause issues with.
For my experience, my car (2015) had Sirius raidio and they are eternally giving me new 'trials' and HD radio as well as line in and bluetooth, so I have some comparison for myself.
Sirius radio sounds the worst to me, blatantly obvious compression artifacts, I would say roughly like a 64kpbs mp3. I don't understand why I don't see more bitching about the quality of satellite radio. I would say then that my stereo is *at least* good enough for Sirius to let it down.
A step up from there is FM, and then by the time I get to HD radio, it's reached about as good as *I* can tell.
HD Radio, line-in, and bluetooth all sound the same to me on my car stereo (which is a 'premium' sound system in terms of positioning by the vendor).
Now I don't touch bluetooth headphones, they are expensive and a hassle to pair and charge. For that I don't see myself moving away from wires (the phone is on my person anyway, don't see why I would fret about having to deal with a cable). I have a Moto-Z2 Force, which also has no 3.5 mm jack, but my headphones just always have the usb-c to 3.5mm adapter on it. At least this adapter is unobtrusive, no 90 degree turns, not heavy, not particularly large. I see the potential upside of externalizing the DAC and the higher potential power delivery for a usb-type-c compared to what a 3.5mm can do.
I don't understand the fixation on wireless headphones rather than on usb-c headphones as the answer to no 3.5mm jack.
Maybe in theory, in practice it'll get transcoded. However it is possible it is being transcoded to AAC @ 250kbps, and other than moster cable customers no one is going to claim there is a difference that can be perceived.
Maybe my ears suck or maybe my headunit sucks no matter the input (though *I* think it sounds pretty good, so back to point 1 in theory) or maybe the road noise renders it all moot or maybe A2DP in my case is using a really good codec (aac, @ 250 kpbs is for example possible), but I can't tell the difference between line in and bluetooth. With bluetooth your mileage may vary *greatly* based on the profile, codec, and codec implementation in your phone and other device. No one is going to say there is an audible difference between uncompressed and 250kbps AAC under *any* listening scenarios. An argument can be made for doing processing to the audio to remix or whatever, but for listening purposes, Bluetooth now can produce sound that no human can tell the difference.
Now I wouldn't want bluetooth headphones because it's yet another damn battery to worry about, but a usb-type c doesn't seem too onerous.
Or pay extra for Verizon to have the coverage.
The problem is if you travel, *even* if you never do something like go camping in mountains, even if you don't have relatives in a rural area, you *still* are likely to be going down some road that is neither urban nore even a major interstate and not have coverage at some point.
It's not a big enough issue for me to pay extra, but the advertising should at least not mislead people to think in terms of geogrpahy rather than demographics.
Besides, what does 99.7% of the population even mean? Coverage of their home address? Coverage of their average location? I am 'covered', but I will venture places where I know I am not covered, but I presume I count as 'covered' in the metric, even when I'm not *currently* covered due to location.
Because people will easily conflate "hey it covers 99.7% of the people" with "hey, it works almost everywhere that verizon does", which as a t-mobile customer I am painfully aware that coverage is much more spotty as I go to rural areas with t-mobile than my family members that use verizon. For a large portion of the population, *where* it works as they travel is critically important. On the other hand it pretty much doesn't matter *who* it can work for apart for yourself, so 99.7% of other people isn't a metric that has value to a customer, so one assumes it should mean something of value and leaps to coverage area.
Our universe has uniform complexity, EVERYTHING is complex, not just one thing
This is not necessarily true. We only know about the complexity of what we are actively observing at a given moment. Even if we *think* we have a telescope logging data for us to review, the data may be made up at the time of review. Hell, I can't even be sure the scientists exist at all. A hypothetical simulation could be very very narrow and make up a lot of stuff or feed stuff in.
In a game, they can't synthesize voice convincingly, so they use voice acting. If an NPC declared that voice was not computable, and yet there is voice in the universe, therefore it can't be a simulation, they'd be incorrect because the stuff that couldn't be synthesized was meticulously provided manually by those creating the simulation.
Actually the computing power to simulate *my* visibile universe is acheivable: my personal vision, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.
To simulate the study in this article, it merely needs to render a text describing the result, and generate text responses.
The problem is again, our concept of computability may be limited.
But more to the point, we don't know that whatever effect we are 'observing' is actually really as complex as we think it is. We know what shows up on our displays that we see. We infer that means real exotic stuff because the most sane and simple explanation is that we are seeing data as it is, not as it is made up.
But in presuming a simulation, it cannot be taken for granted that the data we see is nothing more than a made up thing on a screen to give us data that tells us a computational model doesn't work.
In other words, this is indeed a more philosophical/sci *fi* topic than the realm of science. One can have a lot of presumptions about our observactions being true and our understanding of computability being complete and then make claims one way or another, but those presumptions are impossible in such a context.
Further, we don't *know* even what we observe.
For all *I* know, all that's simulated is what I personally see. There might not even be a simulation running with any detail for things even a foot behind me. What we think we observe may not be how thnigs are. We only get input through 5 senses. Anything beyond we just have to trust that displays are outputting real data not made up stuff.
For example, if you were an NPC in Half-Life, you might think 'there's no way we could even simulate a test chamber, therefore this can't be simulated' Of course the test chamber is nothing but a prop and any complex presumed mechanism behind it is all made up, but presumed to be real by a hypothetically 'self-aware' NPC in-universe.
This entire discussion is not falsifiable and is thus not a good realm of 'proving' or 'disproving'.
"the hackers will win, no matter what... why even bother doing anything?"
While no single company can really adopt that mindset safely, it is however not a bad idea for us as a society to take measures to mitigate the risk.
For example, checks and credit cards are still based on trusting a company with an open ended account number for even the smallest transactions. Even if I avoid companies that make me type in my credit card online to *their* website (most all of them) and avoided magstripe only point of sale equipment, they could still see my number and use it somewhere.
Also, why the hell is a social security number such a risky secret?
We live in a world where nearly every person has a personally owned terminal with them wherever we go. Online can transfer a user to the financial institution's site and get validation without ever being in the middle with customer related secrets. There isn't a good reason why the data these companies have should be so powerful, and we need to take more measures to take the teeth out of this data.
There may not be a good answer to privacy issues, but you could at least reduce the risks to people's financial situation in more intelligent ways.
While I agree it is foolhardy to presume protection from the outside world is perfect, it also is an impossibly large attack surface in a company if they are of any scale and the employees are the least bit empowered to get work done.
Sure, you don't set up anything that would be week nor do you accept "it's internal" as an excuse, but for every thing you do see, there are a dozen things you don't know the employees are doing, and 90% of those are wildly insecure in some way. If they were forced to be on the internet, *maybe* 25% of those would take it more seriously than an ostensibly internal site, but the majority don't even think about it.
It is a wise mitigation to at least try to have a wall, so long as you don't use it as a crutch in the face of known weak security situations.
Dear god no... My daughter has a chromebook, and if people think *that* is linux on the desktop... Boy they'll never touch Linux again..
ChromeOS is a festering pile of instability and intentionally limited capability. Have had so many glitches impact basic functionality because Google went their own way on so many fundamental aspect, and yet also don't seem to care much about it either.
The real problem is thinking that it is a technology problem anymore. Users are overwhelmingly apathetic about their OS and different is necessarily scary in that state. There is nothing an OS can do at this point to get the vast majority to reinstall their OS for *any* reason. If they are *forced*, they take it to an electronics store to get it taken care of or just buy a new device. In fact I would say at this point a vendor *could* start shipping linux and 60% of their customers would probably not care. The problem is there would probably be 30% pissed about it and causing massive bad reviews and returns, and Windows OEM license for the big players is next to nothing, so its not worth trying to cut that cost out.
For Linux you have three supported products: Ubuntu, SuSE, and RedHat. Of course *none of them* are that eager to play the consumer market game for revenue.
For Windows, how many people in the *consumer* space ever reach out to Microsoft? Generally speaking, they reach out to the vendor (Dell, HP, Lenovo) if they need help, and more advanced professionals engage with MS in their community forums.
The other stuff is just out of date. You can go your whole life of updating an Ubnutu install without seeing a CLI. I can't imagine going without it personally, but the fron and center option is a gui. If the usage is little more than what they would do with a chromebook, the CLI can be entriely ignored.
The reality of course is that WIndows OEM licenses are cheaper than the risk of a customer not being familiar with their new device and calling out of confusion, or returning the device for being 'different'. So every PC comes preloaded with Windows. And 90+% don't care about the operating system at all, they have more important things to them to worry about.
Basically from the time Sam Palmisano took the reigns, it's been about gutting the fundamentals more and more and seeing if things collapse. Even as the house of cards started to reveal itself in revenue decline, Rometty is just doubling down on Palmisano's playbook, because there is still millions to be gotten and despite the decline there's plenty of time for her to toss the hot potato to the next CEO, and even if her gambit fails, she and her group are still so wealthy as to not make much of a deal.
I wouldn't count on evan a *chance* of a reversal of IBM strategy until either the company has unambiguously fallen from grace and is essentially in ruin or a leader who is irrationally passionate about the industry appears.
Indian workers *can be as good or better*. However the ones IBM hires are *mostly* the ones who are note the best the labor market has to offer.
Not just IBM, generally any company going offshore (to any geo) is looking for cheap, and they forget that if you look *anywhere* for cheap, you won't get the best. When they offshore, they don't recognize realistic labor rates for the region, they don't recognize obvious degree mills and they chalk up any hard to ignore deficiencies during skill assessment to language or cultural gap.
Of course India contributes about 17% to GDP, so by those stats, the US market should still matter more by that calculus. Of course by that same calculus, the mom and pop restaurant up the street from me should be trying to cater to the global population, despite having no ability to sell to them..
A more relevant metric is *IBM* income percentage. The US comprises 44% of IBM income, while *all* of AP (including Japan, China, India, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand) makes up about 21% combined.
While you could *claim* IBM is hiring in India to balance those scales a bit more and attract Indian clients, the reality is they are exploiting naivete about offshored labor forces to temporarily boost margins until most clients figure it out. India as a market probably knows better than to go to IBM, and instead to go to more qualified Indian companies who actually hire the skilled Indian workers rather than the cheapest.