Sigh, you can't help but feel (a little) sorry for the Japanese people. They have such amazing and interesting qualities, among them courtesy, care/attention to detail, social cohesion, respect for government/authority, reverence of technical ability.
On the other hand, it produces really weird side effects like social repression, workplace stress, conformity in a bad way, racism / xenophobia, and relevant to this point... high cost of living.
If they don't start letting immigrants help them, and in a big way, this amazing culture will really die out. I mean, their countryside is basically emptying out.
This just goes to show how people's expectations and tolerances get more and more demanding (and forgetful) over time as technology improves.
Before Apple and others made this move to maximize battery space by removing the capability to user-replace, everyone complained about battery life.
Now, despite battery life being hours more than before, we forget how much benefit the capacity benefit has brought, and move on to the next complaint about how the battery isn't user replaceable and eats into performance when it gets old (mind you, performing and delivering usable hours far beyond what was possible before).
So users, which is it? Is this not the nightmare of technology developers, when people keep on demanding the next thing, and you no longer get acknowledgement / it's just table stakes for the achievements you've made so far.
First, ask yourself why you really need to go to a phone that will be less supported, less well-debugged, less secure. Do you really need that special use case that rarely if ever comes up? Do you have the energy / time to maintain a phone like that to the same standards (and if not, are you just implicitly deciding not to)?
Sometimes, don't you just want a phone that may not do absolutely everything, but otherwise generally just works? Aren't you old enough to not need to put up with half-assed shit any more?
Well, the issue I foresee in this effort is that while the algorithms will be perfectly fine, it's the policies created to make up for well functioning algorithms that will be the problem.
Because what policymakers will quickly find is that having equal algorithmic treatment or having equal standards for all does not lead to the outcomes they want, as people of different demographics, backgrounds, capabilities do not take up services or have success against different programs in the same way.
This is the problem with policy always -- a tendency to believe (at least in recent liberal democracy) that people are all drawn from the same starting set and have equal propensities for doing / being / acting / achieving / using certain things. And when policymakers find that to be the unavoidable truth, democratic pressure forces them to find ways around this truth and distort the outcomes.
Any details on why a tractor would have been able to cut through what should have been buried in a concrete trench? I thought the rule was that the more vulnerable and possible to be interfered with by humans, the more armoring and protection a fiber cable would have.
For example, near shore, a cable is deeply buried and clad with multiple layers of steel pipe, then gradually far offshore it becomes a lesser and lesser diameter rubber shielded cable.
That a tractor could cut through accidentally sounds like poor cable protection to begin with.
One thing I love about SF supervisors and government offices! They focus on the important things that touch everyone, like food delivery robots. Not those pesky little problems that only affect a few people, like housing policies, transportation policies, tax policies. These are the things that matter, right on, good job!
I have always said that for something like this, actually yes we should take a market approach, which Republicans should love.
As in, let the penalty market for breaches of data be: $1 per name $2 per address $3 per phone number $10 per SSN And multiply those figures for combinations thereof.
Let companies choose to store and protect people's personal information with these potential penalties. The market will sort itself out pretty quickly.
Funny though, isn't it, how the pilots' union leaders are turning it into an opportunity to criticize the airline management and milk more $ from them for this mistake.
They could try to take the cooperative approach and say, "ok, no harm done yet, let's redo the schedule and not have to pay people 150% normal rates for time they would've worked anyway during these mistake days", but no, they're saying that the contract doesn't cover working if not scheduled -- and it's "management's" mess to clean this up. Even if the airline were to reimburse everyone for costs incurred due to this mess, it's amazing that the sides are not cooperating at all. So you suddenly see that you got 2x the vacation you expected, and you're going to say, "hey, that's what the computer says and what my contract says to follow,
fuck everyone else".
IT quickly learns that technology doesn't solve everything.
Is it private information if you walk around shouting your name wherever you go? Or showing your face? Is it not just a short leap from that to your cell phone doing that for you?
Well, to be fair, your own using of your incognito browser might count as "using tools to impede, obstruct, or influence legal investigation", if someone was later interested in suing or prosecuting you for: 1) purchasing alcohol while underage, 2) browsing someone's LinkedIn profile to try to poach them for your company, 3) bypassing ads and depriving them of revenue.
Lots of things depend on how they're looked back on later...
Cmon, wtf was that article? It was like 2 lines of journalism written on a piece of toilet paper.
I'd like to see a good explanation of why the FCC and phone companies have not been more proactive in requiring some kind of hard-registration of entities to be able to produce their own caller ID, and nip this problem in the bud. Or some more effective way for consumers to report and identify these serial spammers.
The amount of experimentation by the bad guys is way outpacing the response. The innovation they are showing is obvious -- I get calls from the same xxx-yyy-1234 prefix as mine, different variations, even my own number calling me, twice!
Agencies typically move way too slow for something like this. They are outmanned and outgunned.
I'm guessing that Google would do well to quickly take this out of state jurisdiction (if something threatens to be filed), to forestall mushrooming multiple state investigations if one succeeds, and claim that if anything should be tried at a federal level it's internet competition. And then so swamp the opposition with studies and facts about how they simply reflect the bidding of their advertisers and express no opinion or facilitate no anticompetitive behavior themselves.
It may be security theater and it may be so leaky that it only stops the stupid. But one thing is for sure, there is an abundance of stupid people in this country, and a general unwillingness to nip problems in the bud, so I'm willing to accept this security theater as a compromise.
Can you imagine the situation if there were no security? Welcome to public bus territory. We have so many people clamoring about the ability to carry weapons in public already. You want them to have airplanes as the next debate ground?
Feel free to create that unscreened airport system, and let people decide if they want that or what we have now.
There is no way, with the level of air travel we have, that we can ever have the perennially-admired goal of Israel-level security. They have 1 airport, and a willing/skilled/alert security service. The goal here is preventing the lowest common denominator, not UBL again.
Sometimes, you have to do something stupid just to prevent something even stupider from happening.
I am always amazed, impressed, disgusted, disbelieving, aghast, saddened, at the level of the Japanese culture of repressing emotions, guilt, refusing to speak things plainly, and bottling things up.
Leads to some great things, admittedly, but also sometimes very saddening!
The problem isn't smog. It's that the Indian system of government + their citizens' learned behavior in such a system makes the country ungovernable, and so it's impossible to get people to follow rules.
It's a societal problem, and note I didn't say that Indian people are the problem. Take Indian people out of India and here in the US, they follow rules.
The problem is when enough people don't follow rules in a country, the otherwise-willing rest give up and say, "why should I follow the rules?"
Sometimes, democracy isn't great, and you need a little bit of authoritarianism...
Is the lava lamp really the source of most of the randomness, or is it kind of a gimmick that people can say and understand? I mean, cmon, the noise in the camera itself is probably already enough, right? They're taking the Nth decimal place of some characteristic of the entire image -- the lava really isn't that important, is it?
Despite the photo in the article having some kind of astronaut-looking person in it, I hope they're not wasting $/effort on trying to put people in space.
For any satellite or cargo mission in the foreseeable future, there is absolutely no need to have a person in space, and doing so just increases the costs / risks and decreases the useful load of what has to go up there.
Aside from going to Mars / putting a person on Mars, there really isn't any need for humans to be in space at this point.
As a certain scientist said, the main scientific output from the ISS has been high-school-science-fair-level projects.
Aside from the glory factor, there's no need for people. And while maybe for some countries that's still necessary, for a country like China -- guys, we already believe you.
-- Has the definition of harrassment and creating a hostile workplace culture broadened to include when the offensive activity in question is actively engaged in (through calmly / voluntarily reading a website) by the person who claims being harrassed or antagonized?
-- Does the person who claims being harrassed or feeling antagonized have complete free reign to define what constitutes this and is reasonable for someone to be fired over?
-- If all of the claims in the "manifesto" were true, does it change whether someone can legally be fired over it? (truth of course is hard to judge)
I don't think the problem is "tech companies have a history of giving low level employees high level access".
I think the issue is "tech companies give many employees priviliges to do things because it works, and then those things have unexpectedly important consequences that weren't realized because it's a young company doing something no one else did before".
If there is one news source that's worth paying for, it's the Wall Street Journal. Say what you will about their conservative / nonsensical editorial page writers and editors, but their actual journalism is top notch, and one of the few outlets actually worth subscribing to.
CNN is basically an infographic production group, with an uninformed talking soundtrack.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh, you can't help but feel (a little) sorry for the Japanese people. They have such amazing and interesting qualities, among them courtesy, care/attention to detail, social cohesion, respect for government/authority, reverence of technical ability.
On the other hand, it produces really weird side effects like social repression, workplace stress, conformity in a bad way, racism / xenophobia, and relevant to this point... high cost of living.
If they don't start letting immigrants help them, and in a big way, this amazing culture will really die out. I mean, their countryside is basically emptying out.
This just goes to show how people's expectations and tolerances get more and more demanding (and forgetful) over time as technology improves.
Before Apple and others made this move to maximize battery space by removing the capability to user-replace, everyone complained about battery life.
Now, despite battery life being hours more than before, we forget how much benefit the capacity benefit has brought, and move on to the next complaint about how the battery isn't user replaceable and eats into performance when it gets old (mind you, performing and delivering usable hours far beyond what was possible before).
So users, which is it? Is this not the nightmare of technology developers, when people keep on demanding the next thing, and you no longer get acknowledgement / it's just table stakes for the achievements you've made so far.
First, ask yourself why you really need to go to a phone that will be less supported, less well-debugged, less secure. Do you really need that special use case that rarely if ever comes up? Do you have the energy / time to maintain a phone like that to the same standards (and if not, are you just implicitly deciding not to)?
Sometimes, don't you just want a phone that may not do absolutely everything, but otherwise generally just works? Aren't you old enough to not need to put up with half-assed shit any more?
Well, the issue I foresee in this effort is that while the algorithms will be perfectly fine, it's the policies created to make up for well functioning algorithms that will be the problem.
Because what policymakers will quickly find is that having equal algorithmic treatment or having equal standards for all does not lead to the outcomes they want, as people of different demographics, backgrounds, capabilities do not take up services or have success against different programs in the same way.
This is the problem with policy always -- a tendency to believe (at least in recent liberal democracy) that people are all drawn from the same starting set and have equal propensities for doing / being / acting / achieving / using certain things. And when policymakers find that to be the unavoidable truth, democratic pressure forces them to find ways around this truth and distort the outcomes.
No algorithm will get around that.
That's great! I'm sure India doesn't have a problem with stuff in the air obscuring the line of sight right??
Any details on why a tractor would have been able to cut through what should have been buried in a concrete trench? I thought the rule was that the more vulnerable and possible to be interfered with by humans, the more armoring and protection a fiber cable would have.
For example, near shore, a cable is deeply buried and clad with multiple layers of steel pipe, then gradually far offshore it becomes a lesser and lesser diameter rubber shielded cable.
That a tractor could cut through accidentally sounds like poor cable protection to begin with.
One thing I love about SF supervisors and government offices! They focus on the important things that touch everyone, like food delivery robots. Not those pesky little problems that only affect a few people, like housing policies, transportation policies, tax policies. These are the things that matter, right on, good job!
I have always said that for something like this, actually yes we should take a market approach, which Republicans should love.
As in, let the penalty market for breaches of data be:
$1 per name
$2 per address
$3 per phone number
$10 per SSN
And multiply those figures for combinations thereof.
Let companies choose to store and protect people's personal information with these potential penalties. The market will sort itself out pretty quickly.
Funny though, isn't it, how the pilots' union leaders are turning it into an opportunity to criticize the airline management and milk more $ from them for this mistake.
They could try to take the cooperative approach and say, "ok, no harm done yet, let's redo the schedule and not have to pay people 150% normal rates for time they would've worked anyway during these mistake days", but no, they're saying that the contract doesn't cover working if not scheduled -- and it's "management's" mess to clean this up. Even if the airline were to reimburse everyone for costs incurred due to this mess, it's amazing that the sides are not cooperating at all. So you suddenly see that you got 2x the vacation you expected, and you're going to say, "hey, that's what the computer says and what my contract says to follow, fuck everyone else".
IT quickly learns that technology doesn't solve everything.
Is it private information if you walk around shouting your name wherever you go? Or showing your face? Is it not just a short leap from that to your cell phone doing that for you?
Well, to be fair, your own using of your incognito browser might count as "using tools to impede, obstruct, or influence legal investigation", if someone was later interested in suing or prosecuting you for: 1) purchasing alcohol while underage, 2) browsing someone's LinkedIn profile to try to poach them for your company, 3) bypassing ads and depriving them of revenue.
Lots of things depend on how they're looked back on later...
Cmon, wtf was that article? It was like 2 lines of journalism written on a piece of toilet paper.
I'd like to see a good explanation of why the FCC and phone companies have not been more proactive in requiring some kind of hard-registration of entities to be able to produce their own caller ID, and nip this problem in the bud. Or some more effective way for consumers to report and identify these serial spammers.
The amount of experimentation by the bad guys is way outpacing the response. The innovation they are showing is obvious -- I get calls from the same xxx-yyy-1234 prefix as mine, different variations, even my own number calling me, twice!
Agencies typically move way too slow for something like this. They are outmanned and outgunned.
All I ask is that Brits give up the stupid use of "aeroplane". It doesn't fly through the fucking "aero", it flies through "air", guys. Ok?
If nothing else, it makes you sound like a kindergartener trying to say the word for the first time.
yada yada I know the roots of the word. Just do it.
I'm guessing that Google would do well to quickly take this out of state jurisdiction (if something threatens to be filed), to forestall mushrooming multiple state investigations if one succeeds, and claim that if anything should be tried at a federal level it's internet competition. And then so swamp the opposition with studies and facts about how they simply reflect the bidding of their advertisers and express no opinion or facilitate no anticompetitive behavior themselves.
But just guessing, I'm no lawyer.
It may be security theater and it may be so leaky that it only stops the stupid. But one thing is for sure, there is an abundance of stupid people in this country, and a general unwillingness to nip problems in the bud, so I'm willing to accept this security theater as a compromise.
Can you imagine the situation if there were no security? Welcome to public bus territory. We have so many people clamoring about the ability to carry weapons in public already. You want them to have airplanes as the next debate ground? Feel free to create that unscreened airport system, and let people decide if they want that or what we have now.
There is no way, with the level of air travel we have, that we can ever have the perennially-admired goal of Israel-level security. They have 1 airport, and a willing/skilled/alert security service. The goal here is preventing the lowest common denominator, not UBL again. Sometimes, you have to do something stupid just to prevent something even stupider from happening.
I am always amazed, impressed, disgusted, disbelieving, aghast, saddened, at the level of the Japanese culture of repressing emotions, guilt, refusing to speak things plainly, and bottling things up.
Leads to some great things, admittedly, but also sometimes very saddening!
Yeah, exactly! Give me all those random parts in a box, and I'll put it together for you!
The problem isn't smog. It's that the Indian system of government + their citizens' learned behavior in such a system makes the country ungovernable, and so it's impossible to get people to follow rules.
It's a societal problem, and note I didn't say that Indian people are the problem. Take Indian people out of India and here in the US, they follow rules.
The problem is when enough people don't follow rules in a country, the otherwise-willing rest give up and say, "why should I follow the rules?"
Sometimes, democracy isn't great, and you need a little bit of authoritarianism...
Is the lava lamp really the source of most of the randomness, or is it kind of a gimmick that people can say and understand? I mean, cmon, the noise in the camera itself is probably already enough, right? They're taking the Nth decimal place of some characteristic of the entire image -- the lava really isn't that important, is it?
Despite the photo in the article having some kind of astronaut-looking person in it, I hope they're not wasting $/effort on trying to put people in space.
For any satellite or cargo mission in the foreseeable future, there is absolutely no need to have a person in space, and doing so just increases the costs / risks and decreases the useful load of what has to go up there.
Aside from going to Mars / putting a person on Mars, there really isn't any need for humans to be in space at this point. As a certain scientist said, the main scientific output from the ISS has been high-school-science-fair-level projects.
Aside from the glory factor, there's no need for people. And while maybe for some countries that's still necessary, for a country like China -- guys, we already believe you.
-- Has the definition of harrassment and creating a hostile workplace culture broadened to include when the offensive activity in question is actively engaged in (through calmly / voluntarily reading a website) by the person who claims being harrassed or antagonized?
-- Does the person who claims being harrassed or feeling antagonized have complete free reign to define what constitutes this and is reasonable for someone to be fired over?
-- If all of the claims in the "manifesto" were true, does it change whether someone can legally be fired over it? (truth of course is hard to judge)
Yay! Buggy whips and stove pipe hats for everyone!
I don't think the problem is "tech companies have a history of giving low level employees high level access".
I think the issue is "tech companies give many employees priviliges to do things because it works, and then those things have unexpectedly important consequences that weren't realized because it's a young company doing something no one else did before".
Funny how this is being reported by the WSJ.
If there is one news source that's worth paying for, it's the Wall Street Journal. Say what you will about their conservative / nonsensical editorial page writers and editors, but their actual journalism is top notch, and one of the few outlets actually worth subscribing to.
CNN is basically an infographic production group, with an uninformed talking soundtrack.
I hope the mail-in rebate helps.