Three weeks ago it was widely reported that Google had just bought a big chunk of smartwatch tech from Fossil. It's hardly surprising they now would be hiring more people for that.
But here we have a Slashdot article about an Android Police article celebrating their ability to sniff out the next move of the big G through a job posting, when both Slashdot and Android Police wrote about the Fossil acquisition in mid-January.
The actual news story (and the one the rest of the media actually reported) is that Tesla missed expectations on profitability -- rather badly, actually ($1.93 per share rather than $2.20, and on more revenue than expected, which makes the profit margin even lower than expected). And that performance resulted from continuing to skim the high-margin cars off the Model 3 backlog, so there are no structural reasons for it to get any better, and plenty of reasons (e.g., when people actually start needing significant warranty work on the huge fleet he's pumping out the door) for it to get worse.
"Tesla Reports Second Consecutive Profit" sort of... how to put this gently... skirts all that.
Mainly because she's publicly and loudly long TSLA, and has long ago shown herself utterly incapable of being objective or otherwise critically thinking about much of anything relating to Tesla or Elon.
That makes this story nothing more than a PR puff piece.
Collecting gold was the primary objective of the game (you then had to navigate to the top of the screen after collecting it all). There's a fairly playable emulation of the original Apple ][ version here. One of the best action/puzzle games of its time in my view.
They'll buy it up, crank the price to the point of sheer lunacy and charge folks something like $100,000+ for the treatment.
Think through what you would do if you owned the rights to it and wanted to maximize profits. Assume cost of production/distribution is fairly low, which is typically the case, and cost of development was ~$1B.
Choice 1: Price it sky high, say $100k. Sell a few thousand units (let's be really generous and say 100k) to people who (a) have the money and (b) are developing Alzheimer's or are worried they will. Revenue = ~$8-9B.
Choice 2: Make it affordable, say $100. Sell it to everyone as a prophylactic. Heck, get governments behind you as for vaccines. Revenue = ~$500B.
That doesn't seem like even remotely a close call.
Assuming every incidence of lidar damage to a digital camera is this extreme and well-defined. That seems like it would have a lot to do with the angle the light hit the lens, the distance from the car, the focal length of the beam, and so on.
and a self driving car
Which apparently the average Joe would immediately deduce from the big banner reading "SELF DRIVING" on the side?
"People have taken many pictures of these cars, and as far as we know none of them have suffered camera damage. So most lidars being tested in public today do not seem to pose a significant risk to cameras."
Or maybe, just maybe, this was one of the few instances where (1) camera damage happened; (2) the camera owner realized the damage must have been due to snapping a picture of a self-driving car; and (3) the camera owner knew who owned the self-driving car so they could complain?
The CEO actually didn't know what to do about IP addresses that couldn't be located more precisely than "the USA"? I can do that one instantly. Tell the user that the IP address can't be located more precisely than "the USA".
If you read the fine article, that's exactly what they did:
But computer systems don’t deal well with abstract concepts like “city,” “state,” and “country,” so MaxMind offers up a specific latitude and longitude for every IP address in its databases (including its free, widely-used, open-source database). Along with the IP address and its coordinates is another entry called the “accuracy radius.”
The accuracy radius does what you might expect. It says how accurate the coordinates are; it indicates the 5-mile, or 100-mile, or 3,000-mile area included with “a point” on a map. Unfortunately, it is ignored by many geo-mapping sites such as IPlocation.net, which gets its data from IPInfo and EurekAPI, two more IP geolocation databases that use MaxMind as a source.
The issue is users / other services ignoring the accuracy radius. The question from the CEO was about the best approach to try to dumb down the system for people who were not using the information as intended/provided.
1. Cartographers for a U.S. intelligence agency published coordinates for the center of the populated area of Pretoria, South Africa. 2. An IP location service provided those coordinates, along with an uncertainty radius, for Pretoria IP addresses. 3. Other IP location services threw away the uncertainty radius. 4. South African government officials, bounty hunters, etc. used the IP location services that threw away the uncertainty radius. 5. The U.S. intelligence agency changed the coordinates to the center of the town square after being apprised of the issue.
That seems like fairly thin gruel for Slashdot's "U.S. sux" article du jour.
This sort of business strategy is as old as the hills. I'm not sure why this particular example is all that surprising or reprehensible. Savvy consumers can beat the system in other areas by, e.g., reusing razor blades much longer than the manufacturer intended or refilling toner cartridges, and here it's even easier -- they can just not use the "smart TV" functionality.
Nice try splitting hairs. Your submission included a link to a sensationalist article about the original report, which you yourself admit included the inflammatory headline. If you disagreed with it, you would have mentioned that in your submission, linked to a different article, or even just linked to the report itself.
But I'm sure you actually had something meaningful to say about the substance of my post and weren't just picking around the edges, right?
Although 2018 was somewhat exceptional, it wasn't so exceptional that if nothing changes 2019 will see a reduction.
Oh, I guess not.
And also I'm kinda fed up certain people using a much, much smaller increase in the EU as an excuse or the basis of a bogus claim that no-one else is making any effort.
Yes, your anti-American perspective is exceptionally well-documented.
While we don’t expect a repeat of 2018 this coming year, the data provides some important insights into the emission reduction challenges facing the US.
The reasons they don't expect a repeat are sprinkled through the article, e.g.:
1. The winter was extremely cold. People used more energy staying warm. 2. The economy was roaring. People traveled more. More goods were shipped. More buildings were built.
On top of this, and somewhat amazingly for what purports to be an independent research group, they chose to put a negative spin on the fact that, as they put it, "a record number of coal-fired power plants were retired last year" and replaced with natural gas (which our friend AmiMoJo then further spun into the sensationalist title of this article).
At bottom, this is just more of the unfortunate stream of SlashClickbait that is gradually swamping what used to be a useful tech blog.
This seems very similar to Zuckerberg's brain implant we just heard about yesterday. I'm comforted to know that both the private and public sectors are racing so hard to be the first to turn me into a high-tech marionette.
I'm pretty sure their license allows them to distribute people's videos (necessary for YouTube to function). It does not allow them to edit then redistribute the edited video. That's a copyright violation.
Why guess when it takes only a minute or two to actually read the terms of the license? Here's the relevant provision (my emphasis):
For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.
It may well have been a bad business move, but it seems to me that "displaying/performing" a "derivative work" of the video in question "though any media channel" fits squarely within their rights under the license.
Slashdot Mirror
but did the users actually agree to the terms of service of the original app when they installed a modified version?
You could just make it illegal to scam people, you know?
Wow, talk about an effective ad blocker....
100% of people die within a few days of drinking water.
In as highly fragmented a market as this one, "best seller" seems not to convey much meaningful information.
Three weeks ago it was widely reported that Google had just bought a big chunk of smartwatch tech from Fossil. It's hardly surprising they now would be hiring more people for that.
But here we have a Slashdot article about an Android Police article celebrating their ability to sniff out the next move of the big G through a job posting, when both Slashdot and Android Police wrote about the Fossil acquisition in mid-January.
Great job, super sleuths.
No.
They're getting paid when you click on this shit.
Thanks for playing.
Folks must have modded you up before noticing that your link is paywalled. $8.99 for a 48 hour "rental" would make Blockbuster jealous.
The actual news story (and the one the rest of the media actually reported) is that Tesla missed expectations on profitability -- rather badly, actually ($1.93 per share rather than $2.20, and on more revenue than expected, which makes the profit margin even lower than expected). And that performance resulted from continuing to skim the high-margin cars off the Model 3 backlog, so there are no structural reasons for it to get any better, and plenty of reasons (e.g., when people actually start needing significant warranty work on the huge fleet he's pumping out the door) for it to get worse.
"Tesla Reports Second Consecutive Profit" sort of... how to put this gently... skirts all that.
Mainly because she's publicly and loudly long TSLA, and has long ago shown herself utterly incapable of being objective or otherwise critically thinking about much of anything relating to Tesla or Elon.
That makes this story nothing more than a PR puff piece.
Other than that, party on.
Just that the bug "allowed for" recording. Gotta watch those lawyers.
The full complaint is here and makes for some entertaining reading. This 30-page gem was filed by a local personal injury attorney 4 years out of law school the next day after the plaintiff supposedly found out about the bug. 'Nuff said.
Collecting gold was the primary objective of the game (you then had to navigate to the top of the screen after collecting it all). There's a fairly playable emulation of the original Apple ][ version here. One of the best action/puzzle games of its time in my view.
They'll buy it up, crank the price to the point of sheer lunacy and charge folks something like $100,000+ for the treatment.
Think through what you would do if you owned the rights to it and wanted to maximize profits. Assume cost of production/distribution is fairly low, which is typically the case, and cost of development was ~$1B.
Choice 1: Price it sky high, say $100k. Sell a few thousand units (let's be really generous and say 100k) to people who (a) have the money and (b) are developing Alzheimer's or are worried they will. Revenue = ~$8-9B.
Choice 2: Make it affordable, say $100. Sell it to everyone as a prophylactic. Heck, get governments behind you as for vaccines. Revenue = ~$500B.
That doesn't seem like even remotely a close call.
And Sean Gallagher was right in the middle of that era, so he can't even play the clueless Millennial card....
picture 101 has two dots
Assuming every incidence of lidar damage to a digital camera is this extreme and well-defined. That seems like it would have a lot to do with the angle the light hit the lens, the distance from the car, the focal length of the beam, and so on.
and a self driving car
Which apparently the average Joe would immediately deduce from the big banner reading "SELF DRIVING" on the side?
"People have taken many pictures of these cars, and as far as we know none of them have suffered camera damage. So most lidars being tested in public today do not seem to pose a significant risk to cameras."
Or maybe, just maybe, this was one of the few instances where (1) camera damage happened; (2) the camera owner realized the damage must have been due to snapping a picture of a self-driving car; and (3) the camera owner knew who owned the self-driving car so they could complain?
The CEO actually didn't know what to do about IP addresses that couldn't be located more precisely than "the USA"? I can do that one instantly. Tell the user that the IP address can't be located more precisely than "the USA".
If you read the fine article, that's exactly what they did:
But computer systems don’t deal well with abstract concepts like “city,” “state,” and “country,” so MaxMind offers up a specific latitude and longitude for every IP address in its databases (including its free, widely-used, open-source database). Along with the IP address and its coordinates is another entry called the “accuracy radius.”
The accuracy radius does what you might expect. It says how accurate the coordinates are; it indicates the 5-mile, or 100-mile, or 3,000-mile area included with “a point” on a map. Unfortunately, it is ignored by many geo-mapping sites such as IPlocation.net, which gets its data from IPInfo and EurekAPI, two more IP geolocation databases that use MaxMind as a source.
The issue is users / other services ignoring the accuracy radius. The question from the CEO was about the best approach to try to dumb down the system for people who were not using the information as intended/provided.
1. Cartographers for a U.S. intelligence agency published coordinates for the center of the populated area of Pretoria, South Africa.
2. An IP location service provided those coordinates, along with an uncertainty radius, for Pretoria IP addresses.
3. Other IP location services threw away the uncertainty radius.
4. South African government officials, bounty hunters, etc. used the IP location services that threw away the uncertainty radius.
5. The U.S. intelligence agency changed the coordinates to the center of the town square after being apprised of the issue.
That seems like fairly thin gruel for Slashdot's "U.S. sux" article du jour.
This sort of business strategy is as old as the hills. I'm not sure why this particular example is all that surprising or reprehensible. Savvy consumers can beat the system in other areas by, e.g., reusing razor blades much longer than the manufacturer intended or refilling toner cartridges, and here it's even easier -- they can just not use the "smart TV" functionality.
Nice try splitting hairs. Your submission included a link to a sensationalist article about the original report, which you yourself admit included the inflammatory headline. If you disagreed with it, you would have mentioned that in your submission, linked to a different article, or even just linked to the report itself.
But I'm sure you actually had something meaningful to say about the substance of my post and weren't just picking around the edges, right?
Although 2018 was somewhat exceptional, it wasn't so exceptional that if nothing changes 2019 will see a reduction.
Oh, I guess not.
And also I'm kinda fed up certain people using a much, much smaller increase in the EU as an excuse or the basis of a bogus claim that no-one else is making any effort.
Yes, your anti-American perspective is exceptionally well-documented.
I suppose "Cancer death rates plummeting" might not have generated quite as many clicks.
Come on, editors. You're better than this.
Talk about burying the lede:
While we don’t expect a repeat of 2018 this coming year , the data provides some important insights into the emission reduction challenges facing the US.
The reasons they don't expect a repeat are sprinkled through the article, e.g.:
1. The winter was extremely cold. People used more energy staying warm.
2. The economy was roaring. People traveled more. More goods were shipped. More buildings were built.
On top of this, and somewhat amazingly for what purports to be an independent research group, they chose to put a negative spin on the fact that, as they put it, "a record number of coal-fired power plants were retired last year" and replaced with natural gas (which our friend AmiMoJo then further spun into the sensationalist title of this article).
At bottom, this is just more of the unfortunate stream of SlashClickbait that is gradually swamping what used to be a useful tech blog.
This seems very similar to Zuckerberg's brain implant we just heard about yesterday. I'm comforted to know that both the private and public sectors are racing so hard to be the first to turn me into a high-tech marionette.
Came here to say this. By 2012, U.S. farmers were using no-till on over half of all acres planted to corn, soybean, and wheat.
Farming has moved so far beyond this article that I am not sure why it was even published.
Consider the source: a freshly-minted staff writer and an economics writer for the Christian Science Monitor. If they didn't know about it before, it must be news.
Wow -- guess you couldn't find the "-1, TruthHurts" mod and had to improvise. Idiot.
I'm pretty sure their license allows them to distribute people's videos (necessary for YouTube to function). It does not allow them to edit then redistribute the edited video. That's a copyright violation.
Why guess when it takes only a minute or two to actually read the terms of the license? Here's the relevant provision (my emphasis):
For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels .
It may well have been a bad business move, but it seems to me that "displaying/performing" a "derivative work" of the video in question "though any media channel" fits squarely within their rights under the license.