As it stands, I don't even know what they would even *claim* to offer over LibreOffice, they haven't exactly conveyed anything except 'well we aren't dead yet', so I have no idea why I should even think about caring at this point.
One of the sources gave a view of what it was like to be a source for the story. The writers came with some vague 'maybes' that probably had accumulated over several previous hypotheticals and then published as absolute fact, rather than 'this is how this could go down', then doubling down on the story when it's controversial.
I don't know if they had any maliciousness or were just caught up in thinking they were unwinding people being evasive about some secret and overplayed what their sources were giving them, but that seems to be the answer that makes the most sense, since this magical no-more-than-six-pin chip is hard to imagine how it could do what is claimed.
The follow up about an instrumented network port at least sounds credible as the technology to pull that off is a bit more plain, but there we have a single source, no evidence, and non-trivial chances that he didn't understand some legitimate part of the equipment or is trying to take advantage of the situation to get himself into the press.
Basically, if Supermicro is in the clear, they need to pursue a defamation suit and then perhaps we can stop having to engage in hypothetical debate over hypothetical things and actually evaluate the available evidence.
Actually, the AI simply perpetuated whatever trends the humans were doing.
It makes no value judgement, it's just a statistical analysis saying how similar new thing is to samples that were declared 'good' before by humans. There's no room to declare the AI some higher unbiased authority.
It does certainly sound that the reporters behind the story are not particularly good at understanding the information they get, or else vetting their sources...
The first story appears to be cobbled together out of misunderstandnigs spread across many sources (the number of sources then used to declare how valid it must be. Of course one of those 'sources' has come forth and said one source used a hypothetical and his role in corrobariting it was to include a picture of what a signal coupler is, showing how dodgy the story was assembled.
This time, it's at least more straightforward, one named source with a more straightforward and more credible strategy. However it is entirely possible that the guy doesn't know what a BMC is and mistakes the errant traffic from a BMC trying to DHCP or somethnig as an overtly malicious thing. He may not recognize some component of the jack or phy or noted the NCSI lines from NIC to another chip and presumed that was snooping.
Now it's one thing to put this out there for further investigation to get clarity, but the stories are emphatic and unambiguously making accusations which is causing the general tech market stock to move by billions of dollars and for customers to take the headlines at face value and decide things (moving from one company that was 'more chinese' than they realized to an american company with the same supply chain issues in all likelihood, even vendors making systems elsewhere generally ship circuitboards out of China). This could end up in a big defamation suit by many parties in the tech industry.
it just barfed out all kinds of convenient details about what I had going on.
The question being whether this really *requires* to be done in Google's datacenter versus an application framework on the endpoints doing the analysis there. Each user experiences all the data that is collected and thus it has the access and the horsepower to do this sort of stuff, but that's not how it does it. I remember for example being shocked going from an early 2000s cell phone that did serviceable voice recognition phonebook dialing to a modern platform that won't even *think* about speech recognition without sending the audio data to the cloud, despite having probably 20x more computational power.
For device mobility, an opaque backup of state done through the endpoint analysis would suffice.
It is a specific facet of the broader problem of these big companies deciding to not even think about delivering the value at the edge, because data mining in the cloud is so much more profitable.
However if they figure out you are idle and you obviously didn't bother to tell anyone knowing that you were idle, then they will be inclined to ditch you. No amount of playing with definitions will address this tendency.
It's not necessarily irrational either. If you've automated your current position away, why pay for that position? Why bother putting you on another task that they already have people doing, if they know your goal is to be no more productive than manual labor through 'secret' automation?
If however you did automate your position and informed management, they may feel quite inclined to have you work on something else instead, and in fact with a possible raise.
It may be nicer from a lifestyle perspective to take the essentially free time off as long as you can milk the secret automation, but don't feel shocked when upon discovery suddenly the lawyer-like interpretation of the definition of salary doesn't save your livelihood.
(...and what are they going to do, fire you for automating the job and keep all the people who are still doing it manually?)
Well, presumably if it's the same thing, they'd lay off most of you, and you wouldn't receive special consideration for having been the one to do it and try to keep it secret, and an emotional influence of wanting to punish you for 'cheating' them. They'll be glad to save the money, but they cannot rationally expect you to do the same thing in a new position about something else and be honest about it. So it makes some amount of sense to roll the dice to get someone else, either a person who will do manual labor and be no worse than the secret automation, but maybe get someone who would do automation and actually announce it so the business knows when to move.
While we may never know everything, we may be running into the reality that we simply can't conduct experiments/observe enough to solve what we don't know. There is an exponential factor in difficulty of getting new data and we are increasingly stuck being unable to get further.
Already it seems like it is mostly coming up with new models to describe existing observations, so we are to a large extent stuck with just re-examining the same data over and over again.
We do occasionally get new observations and it is great, but how much of the field is able to drive getting new observations is relatively smaller.
Here it's because it is such a rarity (1 woman in 55 year period of awarding), so it's noteworthy.
While it's unreasonable for someone to look at Nobel winners like them before entering the field, in reality people find anecdotes more compelling and it helps data showing it is a viable field for women.
It's a tough line to walk, to highlight female winner against a backdrop of mostly male winners versus diminishing the achievement by adding a qualifier 'female nobel winner'. It invites a lot of folks to speculate that it's a token gesture and that the committee wanted to give it to a female winner (honestly, given two teams they couldn't decide between, they likely would prefer to have some diversity, but I don't think they would let that factor outweigh the substantive facets of the achievement, they would know how bad that would go if they did).
Among other things, I would assume the manually operated mowers also happen to usually be gasoline, and as such louder.
Even for electric mowers, a manually operated electric mower is going to have a relatively huge mowing deck and will be loud operating still, the robot mowers have about 1/3rd the size mowing deck, and even more strives for quiet operation in various ways that would be intolerable if a human were busy operating it.
Yeah, Parasite Eve/Final Fantasy 8 was where PS1 games (graphically) hit their stride. Of course note that those were sparing use of 3D against 2D backgrounds mostly.
I personally feel like Mario 64 was clumsy camera and control wise still. A fun game, but clearly they weren't comfortable with the camera. Graphically the N64 was well served by the precision and the texture mapping so it doesn't suffer some PS1 problems, but the 3D stuff wasn't a slam dunk there either.
I will say that Saturn/PS1/N64 represented a very awkward phase (emulation has done a lot to salvage the bad parts though).
SNES/Genesis represented nearly the pinnacle of 2D gaming. So much better than the NES/SMS.
The '3D' craze caused gaming to go mostly 3D before things were necessarily ready. There are some great PS1 2D games (Wild Arms... mostly, Symphony of the Night), but there was a rush to do 3D and it looked in many ways uglier than the SNES generation in the attempt.
Not only graphically, but control/gameplay/camera angle wise, the industry was very awkward in sorting out this whole 3D things.
Later PS1 games did much better job and PS2 games were pretty unambiguous about having the hang of 3D, but early PS1 games and many N64 games were less pleasant than their 2D predecessors on many fronts.
So the geometry is still simple (but what complexity is there is better preserved at distance thanks to the added precision) and the textures are still simple (though xbr scaling does an admirable job of upscaling them), but resolution, geometry instability, and texture warping can all be improved on modern stack.
Question is whether Sony is availing itself of these advances or not.
Notably that while they were making room for all that moderately flowery language about inclusion, they removed the parts where they warn that there may be criticism, because criticism is an important facet. Since a frank warning that *appropriate* criticism was deemed too scary, I suppose they omitted it.
I still say there should be plenty of teach in 'be excellent to each other'. If there has been a problem, it is in how they have not enforced that philosophy, not that the philosophy tied their hands and prevented them from intervening to correct inappropriate interactions.
Sure, you should be able to behave. In an open source endeavor, I see a formal document saying so as superfluous. You want to kick out someone for being a bad actor, kick them out. It's not like they can come back and sue you for not accepting their contributions. Professional environments engage in codifying a code of conduct because they want things as clear as possible to protect against wrongful termination suits if they decide they need to terminate someone for being a racist. If the kernel community wants to disassociate from a jerk, they shouldn't need a document to justify that action.
Formality in various forms can cripple open source communities. It is a significant contributor to bureaucracy.
Personally, the general feeling about a CoC is that it is a waste of time in an open source endeavor. You shouldn't *need* a CoC to disown a contributor for being a terrible person. For a company where having everything possible in order to legally justify a termination, I can see it, but an open source project should be able to discontinue its relationship with a contributor for any reason and not fear any reprisal.
So CoC *tends* to strike me as: *adding needless bureaucracy to open source projects I explicitly prefer for having *less* bureaucracy than a professional setting *At times adding to the someone having an inflated sense of contribution or resume boosting by mucking about with a project without giving any evidence one way or another about their actual relevant skill in the subject matter. *As an extension to the above, I feel like it takes away from the accomplishments of people who have taken on real personal risk in the name of addressing social problems by using the same sorts of praise to describe people who work to slap CoCs on projects that have no evidence of conduct problems. *Spawning witchhunts. It's one thing if you are a genuinely terrible person and it comes out and people drop you. It's another thing if someone ascribes meaning to your words/actions that were not intended, or makes a baseless accusation that cannot be proved or disproved and use that to torpedo someone.
I'm going to guess trying to *intentionally* invoke Streisand effect.
They *know* that pulling these shenanigans in a beta build won't have *substantial* negative impacts. No legal troubles (it was just a preview) and people moving to a different desktop OS? Maybe if MS wasn't pretty much a monopoly and there were viable choices, but they know their users aren't going anywhere.
What they *did* get was every tech media outlet mentioning that MS considers edge good enough to tell people not to bother with chrome/firefox.
So people mock Edge some more, but edge *always* gets mocked. I wouldn't be surprised if some casual users latched on to the 'hmm... maybe Microsoft has something if they are willing to try to take things that far, maybe I'll give it a try now.
Basically, MS has nothing to lose, but the publicity might move the needle a little. I guarantee that edge nor Windows *loses* any share over this.
One could argue this undoes their efforts to earn goodwill by appearing to be industry friendly, but realistically speaking people don't trust them anyway.
Taking things too far and going out of your way to shame someone for some suggestion made in passing that was ill-advised is certainly over the top.
The concern is going the other way, and going with ideas and code submissions to spare the feelings or to avoid conflict.
I have seen all too often a kind and gentle project leadership get railroaded by bad ideas. Sure, they can reject a bad idea, but if the person advocating it keeps pushing it, then sometimes they roll with it just to make the confrontation go away.
The problem is the middle ground is nuanced and it's much easier to assume one extreme or another.
While his words are a bit off, I suspect he was going for what happens to the word 'respect' when it's diluted by giving to everyone. You lose succinct words to describe 'this person has exhibited competence and judgement worthy of me placing my trust in them to accept their work with a reduced level of skepticism' in the rush to apply the word to everyone.
Is the rush to apply the word to everyone, it loses meaning and in most daily use of it, it's insincere. Notably, when someone says 'With all due respect...' it certainly means they have no respect for the person, but it's the appropriate thing to say.
Treating someone with courtesy should be default. Being polite should be a default. Treating people with dignity is a good default. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt may be a reasonable default.
Things like respect and recognizing honor, those things should be evidence backed. This doesn't mean be a dick, it just means that someone who is unproven rightfully should have more scrutiny than someone who has earned respect through a track record of doing the correct and trustworthy thing (though always should be some scrutiny).
"With the launch of Chrome 70, Google plans on hiding the ‘www’ portion of a web address inside the search bar"
They are putting the 'm.' back in, not www. They are basing this on a rough idea of not knowing of a 'www.' that differs from the top level of a 'large' site, rather than some hard and fast rule.
The simple fact of the matter is it is a dumb idea. It doesn't make urls any friendlier (who in the world honestly believes that www. and m. are the thing that can make urls hard?), but it does potentially cause confusion.
As to calls of 'but Apple can...', the difference is that browser has less than 4% of the share of the desktop market, and those people are the unbelievably loyal to Apple. On the mobile browser, the url situation is already pretty useless given the limited screen real estate.
Slashdot Mirror
As it stands, I don't even know what they would even *claim* to offer over LibreOffice, they haven't exactly conveyed anything except 'well we aren't dead yet', so I have no idea why I should even think about caring at this point.
I think it's some weird blend of 2 and 3. Note:
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/09...
One of the sources gave a view of what it was like to be a source for the story. The writers came with some vague 'maybes' that probably had accumulated over several previous hypotheticals and then published as absolute fact, rather than 'this is how this could go down', then doubling down on the story when it's controversial.
I don't know if they had any maliciousness or were just caught up in thinking they were unwinding people being evasive about some secret and overplayed what their sources were giving them, but that seems to be the answer that makes the most sense, since this magical no-more-than-six-pin chip is hard to imagine how it could do what is claimed.
The follow up about an instrumented network port at least sounds credible as the technology to pull that off is a bit more plain, but there we have a single source, no evidence, and non-trivial chances that he didn't understand some legitimate part of the equipment or is trying to take advantage of the situation to get himself into the press.
Basically, if Supermicro is in the clear, they need to pursue a defamation suit and then perhaps we can stop having to engage in hypothetical debate over hypothetical things and actually evaluate the available evidence.
Actually, the AI simply perpetuated whatever trends the humans were doing.
It makes no value judgement, it's just a statistical analysis saying how similar new thing is to samples that were declared 'good' before by humans. There's no room to declare the AI some higher unbiased authority.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/co...
It does certainly sound that the reporters behind the story are not particularly good at understanding the information they get, or else vetting their sources...
The first story appears to be cobbled together out of misunderstandnigs spread across many sources (the number of sources then used to declare how valid it must be. Of course one of those 'sources' has come forth and said one source used a hypothetical and his role in corrobariting it was to include a picture of what a signal coupler is, showing how dodgy the story was assembled.
This time, it's at least more straightforward, one named source with a more straightforward and more credible strategy. However it is entirely possible that the guy doesn't know what a BMC is and mistakes the errant traffic from a BMC trying to DHCP or somethnig as an overtly malicious thing. He may not recognize some component of the jack or phy or noted the NCSI lines from NIC to another chip and presumed that was snooping.
Now it's one thing to put this out there for further investigation to get clarity, but the stories are emphatic and unambiguously making accusations which is causing the general tech market stock to move by billions of dollars and for customers to take the headlines at face value and decide things (moving from one company that was 'more chinese' than they realized to an american company with the same supply chain issues in all likelihood, even vendors making systems elsewhere generally ship circuitboards out of China). This could end up in a big defamation suit by many parties in the tech industry.
it just barfed out all kinds of convenient details about what I had going on.
The question being whether this really *requires* to be done in Google's datacenter versus an application framework on the endpoints doing the analysis there. Each user experiences all the data that is collected and thus it has the access and the horsepower to do this sort of stuff, but that's not how it does it. I remember for example being shocked going from an early 2000s cell phone that did serviceable voice recognition phonebook dialing to a modern platform that won't even *think* about speech recognition without sending the audio data to the cloud, despite having probably 20x more computational power.
For device mobility, an opaque backup of state done through the endpoint analysis would suffice.
It is a specific facet of the broader problem of these big companies deciding to not even think about delivering the value at the edge, because data mining in the cloud is so much more profitable.
However if they figure out you are idle and you obviously didn't bother to tell anyone knowing that you were idle, then they will be inclined to ditch you. No amount of playing with definitions will address this tendency.
It's not necessarily irrational either. If you've automated your current position away, why pay for that position? Why bother putting you on another task that they already have people doing, if they know your goal is to be no more productive than manual labor through 'secret' automation?
If however you did automate your position and informed management, they may feel quite inclined to have you work on something else instead, and in fact with a possible raise.
It may be nicer from a lifestyle perspective to take the essentially free time off as long as you can milk the secret automation, but don't feel shocked when upon discovery suddenly the lawyer-like interpretation of the definition of salary doesn't save your livelihood.
(...and what are they going to do, fire you for automating the job and keep all the people who are still doing it manually?)
Well, presumably if it's the same thing, they'd lay off most of you, and you wouldn't receive special consideration for having been the one to do it and try to keep it secret, and an emotional influence of wanting to punish you for 'cheating' them. They'll be glad to save the money, but they cannot rationally expect you to do the same thing in a new position about something else and be honest about it. So it makes some amount of sense to roll the dice to get someone else, either a person who will do manual labor and be no worse than the secret automation, but maybe get someone who would do automation and actually announce it so the business knows when to move.
While we may never know everything, we may be running into the reality that we simply can't conduct experiments/observe enough to solve what we don't know. There is an exponential factor in difficulty of getting new data and we are increasingly stuck being unable to get further.
Already it seems like it is mostly coming up with new models to describe existing observations, so we are to a large extent stuck with just re-examining the same data over and over again.
We do occasionally get new observations and it is great, but how much of the field is able to drive getting new observations is relatively smaller.
Here it's because it is such a rarity (1 woman in 55 year period of awarding), so it's noteworthy.
While it's unreasonable for someone to look at Nobel winners like them before entering the field, in reality people find anecdotes more compelling and it helps data showing it is a viable field for women.
It's a tough line to walk, to highlight female winner against a backdrop of mostly male winners versus diminishing the achievement by adding a qualifier 'female nobel winner'. It invites a lot of folks to speculate that it's a token gesture and that the committee wanted to give it to a female winner (honestly, given two teams they couldn't decide between, they likely would prefer to have some diversity, but I don't think they would let that factor outweigh the substantive facets of the achievement, they would know how bad that would go if they did).
Among other things, I would assume the manually operated mowers also happen to usually be gasoline, and as such louder.
Even for electric mowers, a manually operated electric mower is going to have a relatively huge mowing deck and will be loud operating still, the robot mowers have about 1/3rd the size mowing deck, and even more strives for quiet operation in various ways that would be intolerable if a human were busy operating it.
Well, in this case the consequence of well known default passwords are the various botnets of embedded devices, which happen very often.
Yeah, Parasite Eve/Final Fantasy 8 was where PS1 games (graphically) hit their stride. Of course note that those were sparing use of 3D against 2D backgrounds mostly.
I personally feel like Mario 64 was clumsy camera and control wise still. A fun game, but clearly they weren't comfortable with the camera. Graphically the N64 was well served by the precision and the texture mapping so it doesn't suffer some PS1 problems, but the 3D stuff wasn't a slam dunk there either.
I will say that Saturn/PS1/N64 represented a very awkward phase (emulation has done a lot to salvage the bad parts though).
SNES/Genesis represented nearly the pinnacle of 2D gaming. So much better than the NES/SMS.
The '3D' craze caused gaming to go mostly 3D before things were necessarily ready. There are some great PS1 2D games (Wild Arms... mostly, Symphony of the Night), but there was a rush to do 3D and it looked in many ways uglier than the SNES generation in the attempt.
Not only graphically, but control/gameplay/camera angle wise, the industry was very awkward in sorting out this whole 3D things.
Later PS1 games did much better job and PS2 games were pretty unambiguous about having the hang of 3D, but early PS1 games and many N64 games were less pleasant than their 2D predecessors on many fronts.
The emulators have actually added precision and perspective-correct texture mapping:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So the geometry is still simple (but what complexity is there is better preserved at distance thanks to the added precision) and the textures are still simple (though xbr scaling does an admirable job of upscaling them), but resolution, geometry instability, and texture warping can all be improved on modern stack.
Question is whether Sony is availing itself of these advances or not.
Notably that while they were making room for all that moderately flowery language about inclusion, they removed the parts where they warn that there may be criticism, because criticism is an important facet. Since a frank warning that *appropriate* criticism was deemed too scary, I suppose they omitted it.
I still say there should be plenty of teach in 'be excellent to each other'. If there has been a problem, it is in how they have not enforced that philosophy, not that the philosophy tied their hands and prevented them from intervening to correct inappropriate interactions.
Sure, you should be able to behave. In an open source endeavor, I see a formal document saying so as superfluous. You want to kick out someone for being a bad actor, kick them out. It's not like they can come back and sue you for not accepting their contributions. Professional environments engage in codifying a code of conduct because they want things as clear as possible to protect against wrongful termination suits if they decide they need to terminate someone for being a racist. If the kernel community wants to disassociate from a jerk, they shouldn't need a document to justify that action.
Formality in various forms can cripple open source communities. It is a significant contributor to bureaucracy.
Personally, the general feeling about a CoC is that it is a waste of time in an open source endeavor. You shouldn't *need* a CoC to disown a contributor for being a terrible person. For a company where having everything possible in order to legally justify a termination, I can see it, but an open source project should be able to discontinue its relationship with a contributor for any reason and not fear any reprisal.
So CoC *tends* to strike me as:
*adding needless bureaucracy to open source projects I explicitly prefer for having *less* bureaucracy than a professional setting
*At times adding to the someone having an inflated sense of contribution or resume boosting by mucking about with a project without giving any evidence one way or another about their actual relevant skill in the subject matter.
*As an extension to the above, I feel like it takes away from the accomplishments of people who have taken on real personal risk in the name of addressing social problems by using the same sorts of praise to describe people who work to slap CoCs on projects that have no evidence of conduct problems.
*Spawning witchhunts. It's one thing if you are a genuinely terrible person and it comes out and people drop you. It's another thing if someone ascribes meaning to your words/actions that were not intended, or makes a baseless accusation that cannot be proved or disproved and use that to torpedo someone.
I'm going to guess trying to *intentionally* invoke Streisand effect.
They *know* that pulling these shenanigans in a beta build won't have *substantial* negative impacts. No legal troubles (it was just a preview) and people moving to a different desktop OS? Maybe if MS wasn't pretty much a monopoly and there were viable choices, but they know their users aren't going anywhere.
What they *did* get was every tech media outlet mentioning that MS considers edge good enough to tell people not to bother with chrome/firefox.
So people mock Edge some more, but edge *always* gets mocked. I wouldn't be surprised if some casual users latched on to the 'hmm... maybe Microsoft has something if they are willing to try to take things that far, maybe I'll give it a try now.
Basically, MS has nothing to lose, but the publicity might move the needle a little. I guarantee that edge nor Windows *loses* any share over this.
One could argue this undoes their efforts to earn goodwill by appearing to be industry friendly, but realistically speaking people don't trust them anyway.
Taking things too far and going out of your way to shame someone for some suggestion made in passing that was ill-advised is certainly over the top.
The concern is going the other way, and going with ideas and code submissions to spare the feelings or to avoid conflict.
I have seen all too often a kind and gentle project leadership get railroaded by bad ideas. Sure, they can reject a bad idea, but if the person advocating it keeps pushing it, then sometimes they roll with it just to make the confrontation go away.
The problem is the middle ground is nuanced and it's much easier to assume one extreme or another.
While his words are a bit off, I suspect he was going for what happens to the word 'respect' when it's diluted by giving to everyone. You lose succinct words to describe 'this person has exhibited competence and judgement worthy of me placing my trust in them to accept their work with a reduced level of skepticism' in the rush to apply the word to everyone.
Is the rush to apply the word to everyone, it loses meaning and in most daily use of it, it's insincere. Notably, when someone says 'With all due respect...' it certainly means they have no respect for the person, but it's the appropriate thing to say.
Treating someone with courtesy should be default. Being polite should be a default. Treating people with dignity is a good default. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt may be a reasonable default.
Things like respect and recognizing honor, those things should be evidence backed. This doesn't mean be a dick, it just means that someone who is unproven rightfully should have more scrutiny than someone who has earned respect through a track record of doing the correct and trustworthy thing (though always should be some scrutiny).
respect:"a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements."
We have plenty of words like being polite, courteous. We don't need to dilute the meaning of respect like it's a participation trophy.
We need *some* word to describe that concept that can't simply be given without being earned.
Didn't realize that in chrome 69 they changed and 70 is next, not the reversal... in any event.. ugh..
"With the launch of Chrome 70, Google plans on hiding the ‘www’ portion of a web address inside the search bar"
They are putting the 'm.' back in, not www. They are basing this on a rough idea of not knowing of a 'www.' that differs from the top level of a 'large' site, rather than some hard and fast rule.
The simple fact of the matter is it is a dumb idea. It doesn't make urls any friendlier (who in the world honestly believes that www. and m. are the thing that can make urls hard?), but it does potentially cause confusion.
As to calls of 'but Apple can...', the difference is that browser has less than 4% of the share of the desktop market, and those people are the unbelievably loyal to Apple. On the mobile browser, the url situation is already pretty useless given the limited screen real estate.