Okay I think we should all be frank in that Google charging a fee for Android isn't some massive surprise here. The "open" nature of Android was sketch in rose color light and non-existent if you want to be honest. Google via Android has been pretty hostile to forks and fragmentation. Google has wanted to keep a firm thumb on their baby and they've done an incredibly good job at it.
When Google began moving a lot of the OS level functionality out of the OS and into the Google Play Services, that was a clear sign that Google was done being "open". Pretty much you have a Linux kernel and a Google supplied display environment and not much more when you remove Google Play Services and Play Services is closed sourced and kept under insanely strict "can and cannot" rules for its use. Of course that hasn't stopped anyone from freely pushing around the APK for it. But for legit or widely distributed variants of Android, if you don't agree to Google's demands, you can't use Play Services legally and this pretty much has ended every actual open-source implementation of Android and pretty much rendered AOSP dead in all but name. Play Services is the leash to which Google retains control over Android vendors.
I for one would just like it for Google to just stop pretending that it's OS is somehow different from closed source projects. Yes, it has a Linux kernel, but that's pretty much it and the kernel is really paired down for the hardware it runs on. Outside that, everything else in Android, pretty much the other 90% of the OS is closed sourced. I'm seriously shocked that they haven't put more steam behind Fuchsia and the replacement for the Linux Kernel. It's no surprise that no one in Google really likes working with the Kernel devs anymore. They're cantankerous and capricious on their best days and devs at Google would like to think that they've got better things to do than to argue why their patch should go mainline.
Google propped itself up on actual "open" but now that they are where they are, they're more than happy to spit liquor into the eyes of open source and move on. I'm just tired of them pretending to give a damn, I'd actually have a bit more respect for them if they'd just be frank about it and pull the plug on being "open" or "friendly" to developers. They are neither at this point and they have so much money they don't give a damn about it anymore.
Wow, just wow. There's a whole lot of wrong there. I'm just going to point out some highlights and just point you in a direction for your own research.
The senate only deals with business before them and has no role in pointing out facts regarding the invalidity of treaties or amendments/additions to treaties that were not confirmed
Senate does whatever they like, feel free to work in DC to see that first hand.
BUT going through the motions does absolutely zero to make it a legitimate or binding agreement
Go grab a dictionary and read the definition of legitimate. Let me know how you think the word legitimate equals binding.
There's no clause in the constitution that a treaty or addition to a treaty...
Go read the Tenth amendment. Let me know what you think that says.
In fact, nothing Trump can do will "legitimize" the agreement so that it becomes a binding on our government and future administrations
Again, go pick up a book on the word legitimize and then compare that to the word binding. I cannot underscore the importance of you understanding what the difference in what those two words mean. Because it is clear you think they mean the same thing.
These do NOT require confirmation of the senate, Because they are an exercise of the executive authority within the law
Oh good grief, Geneva Convention, please tell me you recognize it as a binding agreement still in affect. Because if you do, then go read up PL 107-40 and then let me know how you feel those two relate to each other. And that's just touching the surface.
a future administration can simply repudiate and throw the agreement out at will
It's like you almost understand the word legitimize but have it completely wrong.
Look buddy, it's clear. You are arm chairing this. I can't make you understand law, it is what it is. And honestly, understand any of the aspects involved really don't matter to everyday people. I'm not your teacher, I'm not going to school you on law and international agreements, but I will say, you've read a book on civics or at least understand some of the legal system as it is sold in books, but reality is not what is in the books. I think that's what frustrates folks the most. They're told this pretty rigid set of rules their people play by and it is anything but. There's a lot of flaws in pretty much everything you just wrote, but the ones I highlighted are the big ones. I wish you the best, but I'm pretty done with the topic at hand. It's pointless, because no matter how we feel, whatever person in charge decides, that is what is going to happen and when new person comes into power, we'll be doing what that person wants, wash, rinse, and repeat. And you might be wondering why that is, why this keeps happening with the back and forth, or you might not. But if you are wondering why that happens, you're on the right track to understanding why you're not correct.
You know what? You take that up with your Senator. You tell them that they ought to have an strict reading of the Constitution. Let me know how that goes. Till then, that's the legal basis the Obama admin went into the Paris Agreement with, that position was never challenged in a court of law, and Trump pretty much legitimized that thinking by pulling out of the agreement in the exact manner that the UNFCCC dictates.
So you can feel a certain way about what the Constitution "says", but if everyone is doing things counter to your viewpoint on what is written, it just might be that it's not actually written the way you think it is written. Or at the very least, no one elected cares that it is written that way.
But it's mostly the former.
Oh also, if that's the case, the Senate hasn't signed off on any of the tariffs the most recent admin, nor is the travel ban been agreed to by the Senate, but they are all happening none the less and the SCOTUS gave the President the thumbs up on the travel ban. Again, that's just the President unilaterally acting, which (I know this is going to be hard for you to swallow) the Senate has kind of given that power to the President and he doesn't have to check with them.
So just once more to hammer it home. You can say that, and I'm not going to call you wrong, just, no one is doing it (it being govern) the way you are talking about.
Have fun on that letter to your Senator.
The President did get consent from Senate to the agreement. In 1992. The Senate consented to membership with the UNFCCC on June 4th, 1992. In their consent they gave the President, who was then Bush #1, the ability to agree to whatever, so long as it was within the framework of the UNFCCC.
Fast forward a lot, the Paris Agreement is drafted within the UNFCCC framework. Which, oh looky there, the Senate already gave the President broad authority to agree to whatever under that framework. Huh, funny how giving away power so broadly usually isn't good for the Senate. Gee, maybe the Senate ought to rethink the last 40 years of slowly giving the President the ability to do everything without their say.
The Senate got bamboozled, they need to man up and perhaps while they are at it, strip some of the power they've given the President over the last four decades.
They can start with national security tariffs, the WTO memberships and judgeship, NATO bylaw changes, and UN special diplomatic mission assignments for starters.
The Senate bemoans pretty much everything the President does when it doesn't serve the majority's interest. Well how about not letting the President have that power? Ya think?!
I'm more pissed at crybaby nation that is the Senate than anything else within the US government. I mean seriously, you're the upper house, grow some damn balls people!
HBO's parent is Time Warner. Now that AT&T owns Time Warner they can call the shots on the access to the service. So you have the following options.
(1) AT&T non-unlimited whatever standard service (~$45/mo). You not only pay AT&T, since they own Time Warner, for the HBO sub ($9.95/mo), but you're also paying them for being your ISP. Additionally, watching HBO (even though they have the servers literally on their fiber now, but that's beside the point) will cost you GB in bandwidth. Which then leads you to ask...
(2) Why not just pay the $70/mo (used to be $65/mo) to get HBO sub plus you don't use your data plan GB when watching.
(3) You're not an AT&T customer, so screw you, you can pay the $9.95/mo for HBO and you deal. However, if your ISP doesn't pay AT&T a priority fee, you only get 720p and if you're on T-Mobile, they're going to send it to you in something that is less that 720p, because T-Mobile blows. That's okay though because Verizon does pay and that's pretty much your only other alternative.
And here's the deal-o. That option #2 will look the best and that's the entire point. AT&T wants you to go option #2, it is what I call a loose garden, as opposed to a walled garden. The loose garden is supposed to optimized for a single set of combinations. Yes, you can technically get it other ways, but the absolute best bang for buck is only within the loose garden provided by AT&T. I do want to point out, we are talking mobile here, if we're talking landline ISP, ISPs haven't started hammering there too hard (except maybe Netflix + Comcast combo). Again the entire point is to create an "optimal" point that favors the ISP that's got the goods you want.
Now they're doing this with services that they own and on things that seemingly "make sense" (their words) to do this with. But there's nothing stopping them from taking HBO and turning it into a blank line and filling in the blank when they need to drum up more money. Think, "optimal YouTube", "optimal Twitter", "optimal [[insert something on the Internet]]". It isn't to create a roadblock, it's to create a better presentation of an Internet service. The whole "loose garden".
Now, how you feel about that, that's an entirely, vastly, giant, tee-totally massively, different thing altogether. Some would look at this an say, "Yeah, that's what ISPs are suppose to do, make their product look better. You don't go into a McDonald's and demand they make their hamburger look like Burger King's" And yes, if you view things like YouTube, Facebook, etc as products that need shine best for your clients and suck balls for everyone else, then cool. That's what capitalism is there for. However, there's the other team that views things like YouTube, Facebook, etc not as products but as public platforms that should be equally accessible to everyone. So they see them more like, uh, hospitals and civic plazas and what not (not sure if that's a good analogy but I hope that conveys the point). The entire thing is that making a service shine for only a handful of ISPs is wrong.
I don't think there is a more correct answer, really. Each one has pros and cons to it. The point being is that net neutrality prevents loose gardens (-ish). ISPs are pretty darn clever and they were making headway into getting around NN anyway, so I want to add that (-ish) to the end of that. However, sans NN, they can just go head first into building those "preferred networks". Again, that only really matters on how you view the Internet in the first place. So if you don't see it as this place where things "could" be equally shared, then there's not really a part of NN that you'd miss.
Well ask yourself this, where does the majority of mass of a proton come from? A proton is an imbalance in a sea of gluons of exactly two up quarks and one down quarks. That is 2 * 2.3 MeV/c**2 + 4.8 MeV/c**2 = 9.4 MeV/c**2 but the Proton is 938 and some change MeV/c**2, that's a roughly 930 MeV/c**2 difference. Where does the extra energy come from?
Potential energy, thermal energy, and so on all contribute to the mass of an object. Indeed, even particles that interact via the Higgs mechanism do so via a potential difference. The leading idea for potential energy difference in neutrinos is via the seesaw mechanism. but the point is that differences between any two things creates a potential and the energy of that potential contributes to mass and in the case of the proton, is pretty much the majority of the mass.
Crap tools written by morons with huge egos and rather mediocre skills
Yes. I'm the one with the immature posturing.
Good new tools also do not have to be pushed on anybody, they can compete on merit.
And here's a nice falsehood too. Apparently the tool is "new to you". However, some of us took note of the thing about five or six years ago when distro folks said they were changing. So, dear child, I wonder who truly is here suffering from "I am the world" syndrome? Because the tool clearly won out on merit, I guess you couldn't be bothered with that change as it was being made.
Either you are _really_ clueless or you are lying directly here. Because that is very obviously not true.
Apparently managing 1100 virtual host spread across 20 Power8 boxes and on-fly doc generation isn't something you do, I don't blame you, compliance in my wing is shit to begin with but I don't dictate that, I just get to pick which way I comply with that in the fastest manner so I can move on with life. Using an ifconfig approach which I am forced to do with AIX on a different 15 box Power7 set of systems even with thread count set to eight can take several hours to doc-gen the values from all of the prodding the fs that has to take place on each box that gets asked. The Linux ss/ip methods can take about two-three minutes even with the cores set to two thread per VM. But I'm more than happy to hear your success story there.
Good new tools also do not have to be pushed on anybody, they can compete on merit
That's exactly what happened with the new tools. The new tools are insanely better by every single measure possible. The code is incredibly clean and well maintained, everything in net-tools uses old, slow, and poorly maintained code. Hell even the people who maintain net-tools don't want to maintain net-tools. We already had the competition and the new tools won out hand over fist. I know everyone is just now getting to the game here, but these "crap tools" were written something like nine ~ ten years ago. I mean, how much notice and merit is everyone looking for here? The only reason there's a push now, is cause over the last five to six years vendors have been telling everyone that they're dropping net-tools. But yeah, we already did the whole "compete" thing, net-tools sucked so bad, it wasn't hard convincing the folks on every level to start focusing on the new tools.
There's a fundamental problem with ifconfig, it uses ioctl. That's an insanely crappy interface given the three dozen other interfaces that not only Linux, but other versions of UNIX out there have created since the late 1970s. At some point you've got to let go, otherwise you're Microsoft support trying to support win32 legacy and bringing with that support a whole host of crap interfaces at the kernel.
If I just type ifconfig it will show me the state of all the active interfaces on the system
Oh heavens! The great UNIX gods of yore forbid you type "ip a" into a command line. It literally takes maybe about five or six minutes of studying and you'll be replacing ifconfig in no-time for typing the command in. It seriously is not that hard.
with far more complex arguments
If ip confuses you, and it's pretty straight forward a command IMHO, then I can only imagine how strange things like tar, sed, awk, grep, or hell even gcc might seem to you. No one likes change, but c'mon ip is nowhere even remotely as complex as say tar before they added automatic detection. I think what you want to say is that it is "new to you", but that does not mean that the command is this dizzying complex thing that is entirely unknowable. Hell, go try PowerShell for a day to build shadow groups on an AD tree.
shell scripting is a central feature of UNIX
In some UNIX, but not all. SGI and Mac OSX immediately come to mind. Shell scripting works for some and for others it doesn't. Stop trying to make sloppy generalizations.
I get it, people don't like change for the sake of change (that seems to be the mob mentality on Slashdot, heck try bringing up IPv6 on Slashdot and see if that doesn't prove true.) But these changes are there because the method these tools use have long since been deprecated by newer methods for finding that information. If you don't want to move on that's your call, by all means fork it. However the folks behind the actual steering wheel are done using an interface that's slow and inefficient for modern usage and written almost four decades ago. There's a point that it's time to let go. And I can't stand the whole GNOME thing and how ignorant they've gone in a direction. Or how bad Wayland has been implemented for some use cases. But I totally understand this. Trust me, this isn't the hill you all want to die on. net-tools is old, really, really, really, really old and poorly maintained code. I get that "it still works" but to use a horse metaphor, net-tools is a horse missing two legs, thin to where you can see every bone, and it's hacking up blood from it's lungs. Yes, the horse still "pulls" a plow, but this is clearly not the absolute best horse for this job.
no edge case to read text in public domain online, don't need http for that either. nor for a dozen other things.
If you're heading down that road, let me just go ahead and cut to the chase. All traffic on the Internet should be secure, thinking otherwise is dumb. The content of that traffic doesn't matter, **all traffic** on the **Internet** should be **secure**. Full stop. Whatever, reason a person thinks that "this content" shouldn't be secure, usually boils down to subjective logic and lack of any clear rationale argument. Now you can sit there and conjure up reasons, why this content "could" be sent insecure. But that doesn't cover why "it is better to send it insecure versus secure." There exists zero "good" reasons why any content is better to send insecure rather than secure. People moan about the "technical difficulties for making the switch from HTTP to HTTPS" and the reality is that you can self cert in seconds, you can use an open cert service in just a few minutes, you can purchase a full blown well trusted cert in no time. I mean literally there are hundreds of HOWTOs, hundreds of cert services, and so on all developed around the sole notion that "Hey! You should secure your damn traffic." Hesitation for moving from HTTP to HTTPS boils down to one thing. Developers being insanely lazy. If you can be bothered to secure your traffic on a production server, regardless of the content, then the developer is a lazy fuck. 100 out of 100 times I've seen folks not secure their production server, it has always been "we're getting around to it..." Doesn't take more than 30 - 40 seconds to do the bare minimum, there is just zero reasons why it shouldn't be secured.
If it's not then shut the fuck up as I already pointed out that entire case in the first comment.
the need for browser to do http is real and we don't need browser programmers trying to be everyone's nagging nanny
When the majority of folks using web browsers are morons, yes, yes we do. Your edge case can go to hell. No one took away your precious http, you still have, it just has a red icon now. That's because you and your fucking HVAC system, can't speak a pretty basic fucking protocol and apparently it was made to be completely unupdatable, which also sounds brilliant. So for your corner case, the the millions of other corner cases out there, you all get red icons. Compare that to the literal billions who will use it on the actual Internet, which is the thing I pointed out that you, I guess, didn't give two fucks about to read. So ya know what, I'll be sure to cry you a river for your red icon. Idiot.
plenty of sensors and controllers need http to configure
If a place has a bare Internet facing HVAC controller with no in-between, then there's a ton of problems that no level of "a green icon in the corner" is going to fix. I did said "Production Site" and if you have a brain cell left in you, you know exactly what that means. But yeah, go ahead and put a insecure HVAC directly on the Internet, I'm sure that will pan well for you.
Geez, this summary totally missed the entire point here and linked story only gets to it, well down on the page. If the connection is insecure, the browser is going to notify you of that with either a "insecure message" if there is no input controls (web forms) and a red icon and red text if there is a web form on the page.
The entire thing is that there's no need to highlight the default, and damn it if your site isn't using HTTPS by default now you should just resign from your damn job, which is HTTPS.
And yes, I'm sure I'll hear folks say, "well XYZ doesn't use HTTPS by default and my job requires it." Well then your company is full of idiots then. We're at a point that there's zero reasons to not have a production site HTTPS by default, full f'ing stop. It's literally insulting to your company if this isn't the case./rant
I don't think it is and that might be something we just disagree on. Let us first agree, perhaps, on this: I don't think it wise for a government to punish a successfully company. I will say that I wish to reserve that there is an upper limit to that previous statement, though. Amazon isn't a successful company, they are about as damn near to a monopoly without completely shutting out the entire competition. They're exactly the thing that would set off warning bells and have the FTC keeping a sharp eye on their activities and acquisitions.
I don't have a fine line and I'm not going to pretend that there is one, that once you cross, you're in this danger zone that I speak of. And yes, Amazon isn't the only one, in fact a multitude of companies are these giant things that destroy everything in their path. In fact, a lot of American companies are these massive giants which is always why my "eye roll" triggers when I hear the DC critters talk about small job creators. But that's an entirely different, but somewhat related, topic. We have way too many of these monoliths in the US for it to be considered healthy. If the environment needs biodiversity, I would say an economy needs market diversity and the bank collapse in '07 was a good example of why a diverse number of corporations in an industry are a good thing. At least to me that makes sense, because look at how well Credit Unions weathered the storm.
But I digress, something being a good thing or a bad thing is mostly subjective and I won't linger on it. What I will posit, and I think it is the thing I'd like to debate but I ramble a lot so apologies ahead of time, is that even if we exclude good, bad, indifferent being a monolith is vastly different than being a business. I would say, that even if this is a thing we want to encourage, which again I don't think we should, but if it is something we want to encourage. There should be a premium for being it. I don't see a special tax on Amazon for being as "large" as it is, as being a bad thing. Want to be that massive? Okay, that's cool, here's a fee you have to pay for getting that large.
Now I hear you," well that would just encourage them to keep under whatever imaginary line your delusional brain conjures up." And I would say, "That's exactly the point." "Oh there would be so many missed things that a company would never get to do if we held them back," you might be so inclined to say (but I don't know what you would say, so I'll just stop that). But that is the point here. To keep small niches open for medium sized (not small, I'm not that crazy now) businesses to grow into, allow them to expand that niche and so on. But more importantly, to keep a diverse group of folks driving the boards of these companies. As opposed to a single board of directors governing over around 60% of US GAFO (link for the term GAFO and of course the figures.)
I just fail to see the logic that a single board of directors should command that much of the US market in that industry. It seems a lot like the eggs in one basket kind of deal, and those deals don't usually play out well when there is a misstep. And yes, the market is elastic and should Amazon fail we will bounce back, but it won't be without its hardships and for those "might be" hardships that "may" come I think it is best to have an insurance policy, "of sorts" and I won't pretend that I have a definition of that which is why I highlighted that there's a lot of "ifs" and "unknowns" there.
And I will admit, I'm not outright correct. There's tons of holes in my argument and I'll admit that. But I think it is worthwhile to discuss that, to say, "Should we let companies get this big?" and "Are we sure that this is healthy for the economy?". And if you are saying "yes" to those, then "Shouldn't we hedge our be
If your "data scientist" is using Excel, fire him, immediately.
I think that's a bit harsh. I've got a friend that, that is their job and it wasn't until a lot of crying and begging did they approve Python and R for install on the laptops. You've got to remember that sometimes you just have to work with the tools that upper management will allow.
I'm not suggesting that, that justifies anything, just that sometimes it's hard to get non-data folks to agree to thing, even free things.
serious work done making sure that all phases of the workflows creating systems "that have the potential to cause human casualty or death" are secure and error free.
Well some companies are indeed building tracks to begin neural net training live. Additionally, there's been enough failures and near misses from other car companies to begin edge testing as well.
Additionally, map makers are now refocusing on a new emerging market of maps for self driving cars. These maps differ from the typical on-line map in that they need typical pattern usage of a given intersection or piece of road that initial algorithms create too many edge cases for. Good example might be the 65/440 split in Nashville where I've seen map cars out there going over and over the exact same spot. Apparently it's confusing to self driving cars.
I think some companies are nearing the peek of the Dunning-Kruger chart and realizing that this problem is a lot harder than they expected. However, there is a lot of money if someone gets the self driving car right and so where in other ventures that peak would mean the end of research, the potential profits are driving some past the peak into the long valley.
I definitely echo your sentiment in that more testing to harden the product is needed and I think a few folks early on knew that (BMW, Ford, etc...). I think that Uber and Tesla might be going too fast, too soon on their implementations.
Well it's not just a matter of temperature. A more pressing matter about the measurements and the recent change is the temperature in relation to time. Typically a shift in global temperature average is on a scale of thousands of years. However, the most recent event of warming is occurring at a pace of only a few hundred years. In the slower process, living creatures have time to adapt to the change. It is feared that if the change is too rapid, living creatures will not be able to adapt fast enough via natural processes.
So obviously, what happened 800,000 years ago when the average CO2 levels were presumably higher than they are now?
Actually, that's just the end point of the dataset they used. So CO2 levels are higher than what their entire dataset tells them. No particular event, just ran out of data that they had at the ready. So I guess a more accurate headline might be, "CO2 levels higher than all 800,000 years of data that a group of scientist have access to." It's a bit wordy though.
ICANN now has a little over a month to come up with a replacement
After having been given almost three years of notice to do something about it. Look, it was never a point about if ICANN could or could not fix it. ICANN made it quite clear from their actions that they were not ever going to fix it. This whole thing shows that the most recent round of directors at ICANN are commercial focused buffoons that lack any real understanding of law or technology. It's a shit show right now at ICANN so this entire thing like, "Oh No! WHOIS will break!" is crap. Have idiots running an organization, watch idiotic results flow from that organization. It's that simple.
At issue is the ability for local utility to provide means to connect sources that reduce CO2 emissions. While some companies do indeed generate on-site power, they also rely on local utility to also provide any additional energy. Some locations provide the means to determine the source of power delivered to the site. Now obviously the local utility doesn't come out and hook Apple up to a wind farm or anything, but it is more along the lines of, "You used x kWh of power, so we generated x kWh of power from a clean source."
At any rate, since that's totally getting off rails here, the entire point is that cities and what-not have an administration cost to maintain those kinds of services and delivery. With the plan being rolled back, the fear (be it a real one or one that doesn't materialize) is that cities will offer less of these services and in turn Apple or Google will have to generate 100% power on-site (not possible) or have questionable sources (which was sort of questionable to begin with but less so questionable with the plan in place, I don't know it seems like a lot of marketing grey area here) to their energy needs.
There's other things at stake here like investment credits and regulation on CO2 emissions, but reading the statement it seems (to me at least, but take my word with a grain of salt) that availability is the thing that they're trying to hammer home here.
Getting cheaper isn't the only factor in choosing energy. Reliability also goes a long way. Something can be super cheap, but if it only delivers power for 40% of the day, then there's extra cost in having a setup that switches seamlessly from one to the other.
I honestly think the plan to begin with was good intentions but poorly executed since it totally circumvented Congressional approval. I grow tired of Presidents acting like they're kings of the nation and that rings true for our current and former Presidents. But at the same time I can't act surprised, Congress has slowly gifted large tracts of power to the executive so that they can play the blame game come reelection...
I'm going off on a tangent here. My apologies. At any rate, it seems availability is the issue here. They wish to secure the option to purchase green energy from local utilities. For where they're at, I don't think that they'll ever have to worry about not having the option, but whatever.
Yeah the name autopilot is one of the things that kills me about what they are truly selling. Tesla's cars are at best a level two self driving car, that is hands off only. You have to have eyes on and you have to give continual input to the system. It is adaptive cruse control, lane keeping, and auto parking. It has some guidance from GPS and on-board software, but the production car that you buy is nowhere near this crap. That video is clearly showing a level three car and the car is handling cleared intersections easily, something the current level twos would be suicide if you tried.
The autopilot is anything but. I'm totally pro-self driving cars, but folks need to know what they are buying and not have a hyped up product sold to them and they think it will do something it won't. Tesla cars are a hands off only car, period, the end. You have to keep eyes up, no matter what. Additionally, you need to know the absolute limits of camera/radar combos, that's right Teslas do not have LiDAR. Radar requires a calculation between differences in order to work. If traffic is stopping up ahead and the car in front of you that your Tesla is tracking suddenly pulls out of the lane to expose a car up ahead at a complete stop, your Tesla is going to ram full speed into that stopped car if you don't do something. That's because radar was tracking something and now it's not there. So the machine needs to recalculate everything, which if you're going highway speeds, you're going to end up dead before the car figures it out.
The cars need to see lines on the road. If the lines are iffy, you're going to end up dead. Traffic needs to follow a pace, it doesn't matter if it is start and stop, or if cars gracefully merge in and out of your lane. It just needs to follow a smooth flow to things and you slowly build up a feel for what's gradual enough and what isn't. If you don't pay attention to that, you're going to end up dead. If you are coming up on a change in the road's shape, like where two highways split off and you're in the lane closest to the split, you need to turn off autopilot and handle it yourself. Most of these kinds of things have really crappy indicators on the road that a split is happening and if you don't, you are going to end up like that dude. Dead.
Now if you think that level two automation is a half baked idea, that's cool. It sort of is, which is why everyone is aiming for that holy grail of level five. So perhaps maybe sit the sidelines till we get there? If what you are comparing to is level five, you're right, this shit is beta-level crap on crap. If you're talking about actual level two automation, the Tesla and all the other cars that offer level two are pretty solid. But people need to understand what they are getting themselves into and if that's not what you were expecting, then yeah, you shouldn't buy one. However, I also fault Tesla, since they post up videos like that one I linked and people buy their cars thinking, that's what they are getting which it isn't.
There is a reason we cannot have nice things. It's called "spam".
Oh yeah, I totally agree with that. Blah, talking about people ruining it for everyone. But do remember that even email suffers from that problem but we've seen email still stay strong. I think those who owned the platforms just weren't up for policing the platforms they created nor tossing their weight into a solution that would have helped filter out the spam. It's definitely one of those moments where the "innovators" were not taking a strong stance with the software and platform that they had created.
Well you do have to remember we're talking way back in 2006-2010. It wasn't unusual to think of these social platforms being about as open as say DNS. That changed really quickly obviously. But yeah, I get your point, it was a lot of idealism that wasn't taking reality into consideration. The big rush was "open" everything, hell I remember the IBM ads with the "linux" child and Apple banging the "open" gong with Facetime, so it seemed that everyone was going to go "open" and perhaps even "standards" level there for a bit, but yeah all that didn't happen and things became way more closed off.
I have to disagree. In the early days Twitter's open API was the big boon to the entire platform. It really made the platform feel really open to have such a rich API at your finger tips that could push a notification out to a large group of folks and get feedback from the group in record time. It also worked with SMS and that was just crazy awesome at the time.
Time went by and we've basically seen every social platform turn into a walled garden. I think at that point devs should have jumped shipped, maybe rework what their ends goal were. Some stuck through it and on that I'll agree with you, was just plain dumb.
But there was once a point where these platforms and most notability Twitter, were very welcoming to outside devs putting together very imaginative clients. Hell, I remember in KDE there was a client that you could just from the desktop, send out a tweet and drop in a file from the file manager into the tweet and it would handle tweeting and posting the file to a file share. You could configure what file share to go to, what group you were tweeting to, and so on. The level of configurability was pretty amazing compared to Twitter today.
But I guess I'm just being nostalgic about the early days. But yeah, after a certain point it was just plain dumb to keep on going.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay I think we should all be frank in that Google charging a fee for Android isn't some massive surprise here. The "open" nature of Android was sketch in rose color light and non-existent if you want to be honest. Google via Android has been pretty hostile to forks and fragmentation. Google has wanted to keep a firm thumb on their baby and they've done an incredibly good job at it.
When Google began moving a lot of the OS level functionality out of the OS and into the Google Play Services, that was a clear sign that Google was done being "open". Pretty much you have a Linux kernel and a Google supplied display environment and not much more when you remove Google Play Services and Play Services is closed sourced and kept under insanely strict "can and cannot" rules for its use. Of course that hasn't stopped anyone from freely pushing around the APK for it. But for legit or widely distributed variants of Android, if you don't agree to Google's demands, you can't use Play Services legally and this pretty much has ended every actual open-source implementation of Android and pretty much rendered AOSP dead in all but name. Play Services is the leash to which Google retains control over Android vendors.
I for one would just like it for Google to just stop pretending that it's OS is somehow different from closed source projects. Yes, it has a Linux kernel, but that's pretty much it and the kernel is really paired down for the hardware it runs on. Outside that, everything else in Android, pretty much the other 90% of the OS is closed sourced. I'm seriously shocked that they haven't put more steam behind Fuchsia and the replacement for the Linux Kernel. It's no surprise that no one in Google really likes working with the Kernel devs anymore. They're cantankerous and capricious on their best days and devs at Google would like to think that they've got better things to do than to argue why their patch should go mainline.
Google propped itself up on actual "open" but now that they are where they are, they're more than happy to spit liquor into the eyes of open source and move on. I'm just tired of them pretending to give a damn, I'd actually have a bit more respect for them if they'd just be frank about it and pull the plug on being "open" or "friendly" to developers. They are neither at this point and they have so much money they don't give a damn about it anymore.
Wow, just wow. There's a whole lot of wrong there. I'm just going to point out some highlights and just point you in a direction for your own research.
The senate only deals with business before them and has no role in pointing out facts regarding the invalidity of treaties or amendments/additions to treaties that were not confirmed
Senate does whatever they like, feel free to work in DC to see that first hand.
BUT going through the motions does absolutely zero to make it a legitimate or binding agreement
Go grab a dictionary and read the definition of legitimate. Let me know how you think the word legitimate equals binding.
There's no clause in the constitution that a treaty or addition to a treaty...
Go read the Tenth amendment. Let me know what you think that says.
In fact, nothing Trump can do will "legitimize" the agreement so that it becomes a binding on our government and future administrations
Again, go pick up a book on the word legitimize and then compare that to the word binding. I cannot underscore the importance of you understanding what the difference in what those two words mean. Because it is clear you think they mean the same thing.
These do NOT require confirmation of the senate, Because they are an exercise of the executive authority within the law
Oh good grief, Geneva Convention, please tell me you recognize it as a binding agreement still in affect. Because if you do, then go read up PL 107-40 and then let me know how you feel those two relate to each other. And that's just touching the surface.
a future administration can simply repudiate and throw the agreement out at will
It's like you almost understand the word legitimize but have it completely wrong.
Look buddy, it's clear. You are arm chairing this. I can't make you understand law, it is what it is. And honestly, understand any of the aspects involved really don't matter to everyday people. I'm not your teacher, I'm not going to school you on law and international agreements, but I will say, you've read a book on civics or at least understand some of the legal system as it is sold in books, but reality is not what is in the books. I think that's what frustrates folks the most. They're told this pretty rigid set of rules their people play by and it is anything but. There's a lot of flaws in pretty much everything you just wrote, but the ones I highlighted are the big ones. I wish you the best, but I'm pretty done with the topic at hand. It's pointless, because no matter how we feel, whatever person in charge decides, that is what is going to happen and when new person comes into power, we'll be doing what that person wants, wash, rinse, and repeat. And you might be wondering why that is, why this keeps happening with the back and forth, or you might not. But if you are wondering why that happens, you're on the right track to understanding why you're not correct.
You know what? You take that up with your Senator. You tell them that they ought to have an strict reading of the Constitution. Let me know how that goes. Till then, that's the legal basis the Obama admin went into the Paris Agreement with, that position was never challenged in a court of law, and Trump pretty much legitimized that thinking by pulling out of the agreement in the exact manner that the UNFCCC dictates.
So you can feel a certain way about what the Constitution "says", but if everyone is doing things counter to your viewpoint on what is written, it just might be that it's not actually written the way you think it is written. Or at the very least, no one elected cares that it is written that way. But it's mostly the former.
Oh also, if that's the case, the Senate hasn't signed off on any of the tariffs the most recent admin, nor is the travel ban been agreed to by the Senate, but they are all happening none the less and the SCOTUS gave the President the thumbs up on the travel ban. Again, that's just the President unilaterally acting, which (I know this is going to be hard for you to swallow) the Senate has kind of given that power to the President and he doesn't have to check with them.
So just once more to hammer it home. You can say that, and I'm not going to call you wrong, just, no one is doing it (it being govern) the way you are talking about. Have fun on that letter to your Senator.
The President did get consent from Senate to the agreement. In 1992. The Senate consented to membership with the UNFCCC on June 4th, 1992. In their consent they gave the President, who was then Bush #1, the ability to agree to whatever, so long as it was within the framework of the UNFCCC.
Fast forward a lot, the Paris Agreement is drafted within the UNFCCC framework. Which, oh looky there, the Senate already gave the President broad authority to agree to whatever under that framework. Huh, funny how giving away power so broadly usually isn't good for the Senate. Gee, maybe the Senate ought to rethink the last 40 years of slowly giving the President the ability to do everything without their say.
The Senate got bamboozled, they need to man up and perhaps while they are at it, strip some of the power they've given the President over the last four decades. They can start with national security tariffs, the WTO memberships and judgeship, NATO bylaw changes, and UN special diplomatic mission assignments for starters. The Senate bemoans pretty much everything the President does when it doesn't serve the majority's interest. Well how about not letting the President have that power? Ya think?!
I'm more pissed at crybaby nation that is the Senate than anything else within the US government. I mean seriously, you're the upper house, grow some damn balls people!
HBO's parent is Time Warner. Now that AT&T owns Time Warner they can call the shots on the access to the service. So you have the following options.
(1) AT&T non-unlimited whatever standard service (~$45/mo). You not only pay AT&T, since they own Time Warner, for the HBO sub ($9.95/mo), but you're also paying them for being your ISP. Additionally, watching HBO (even though they have the servers literally on their fiber now, but that's beside the point) will cost you GB in bandwidth. Which then leads you to ask...
(2) Why not just pay the $70/mo (used to be $65/mo) to get HBO sub plus you don't use your data plan GB when watching.
(3) You're not an AT&T customer, so screw you, you can pay the $9.95/mo for HBO and you deal. However, if your ISP doesn't pay AT&T a priority fee, you only get 720p and if you're on T-Mobile, they're going to send it to you in something that is less that 720p, because T-Mobile blows. That's okay though because Verizon does pay and that's pretty much your only other alternative.
And here's the deal-o. That option #2 will look the best and that's the entire point. AT&T wants you to go option #2, it is what I call a loose garden, as opposed to a walled garden. The loose garden is supposed to optimized for a single set of combinations. Yes, you can technically get it other ways, but the absolute best bang for buck is only within the loose garden provided by AT&T. I do want to point out, we are talking mobile here, if we're talking landline ISP, ISPs haven't started hammering there too hard (except maybe Netflix + Comcast combo). Again the entire point is to create an "optimal" point that favors the ISP that's got the goods you want.
Now they're doing this with services that they own and on things that seemingly "make sense" (their words) to do this with. But there's nothing stopping them from taking HBO and turning it into a blank line and filling in the blank when they need to drum up more money. Think, "optimal YouTube", "optimal Twitter", "optimal [[insert something on the Internet]]". It isn't to create a roadblock, it's to create a better presentation of an Internet service. The whole "loose garden".
Now, how you feel about that, that's an entirely, vastly, giant, tee-totally massively, different thing altogether. Some would look at this an say, "Yeah, that's what ISPs are suppose to do, make their product look better. You don't go into a McDonald's and demand they make their hamburger look like Burger King's" And yes, if you view things like YouTube, Facebook, etc as products that need shine best for your clients and suck balls for everyone else, then cool. That's what capitalism is there for. However, there's the other team that views things like YouTube, Facebook, etc not as products but as public platforms that should be equally accessible to everyone. So they see them more like, uh, hospitals and civic plazas and what not (not sure if that's a good analogy but I hope that conveys the point). The entire thing is that making a service shine for only a handful of ISPs is wrong.
I don't think there is a more correct answer, really. Each one has pros and cons to it. The point being is that net neutrality prevents loose gardens (-ish). ISPs are pretty darn clever and they were making headway into getting around NN anyway, so I want to add that (-ish) to the end of that. However, sans NN, they can just go head first into building those "preferred networks". Again, that only really matters on how you view the Internet in the first place. So if you don't see it as this place where things "could" be equally shared, then there's not really a part of NN that you'd miss.
from where does its mass come
Well ask yourself this, where does the majority of mass of a proton come from? A proton is an imbalance in a sea of gluons of exactly two up quarks and one down quarks. That is 2 * 2.3 MeV/c**2 + 4.8 MeV/c**2 = 9.4 MeV/c**2 but the Proton is 938 and some change MeV/c**2, that's a roughly 930 MeV/c**2 difference. Where does the extra energy come from?
Potential energy, thermal energy, and so on all contribute to the mass of an object. Indeed, even particles that interact via the Higgs mechanism do so via a potential difference. The leading idea for potential energy difference in neutrinos is via the seesaw mechanism. but the point is that differences between any two things creates a potential and the energy of that potential contributes to mass and in the case of the proton, is pretty much the majority of the mass.
Crap tools written by morons with huge egos and rather mediocre skills
Yes. I'm the one with the immature posturing.
Good new tools also do not have to be pushed on anybody, they can compete on merit.
And here's a nice falsehood too. Apparently the tool is "new to you". However, some of us took note of the thing about five or six years ago when distro folks said they were changing. So, dear child, I wonder who truly is here suffering from "I am the world" syndrome? Because the tool clearly won out on merit, I guess you couldn't be bothered with that change as it was being made.
Either you are _really_ clueless or you are lying directly here. Because that is very obviously not true.
Apparently managing 1100 virtual host spread across 20 Power8 boxes and on-fly doc generation isn't something you do, I don't blame you, compliance in my wing is shit to begin with but I don't dictate that, I just get to pick which way I comply with that in the fastest manner so I can move on with life. Using an ifconfig approach which I am forced to do with AIX on a different 15 box Power7 set of systems even with thread count set to eight can take several hours to doc-gen the values from all of the prodding the fs that has to take place on each box that gets asked. The Linux ss/ip methods can take about two-three minutes even with the cores set to two thread per VM. But I'm more than happy to hear your success story there.
Good new tools also do not have to be pushed on anybody, they can compete on merit
That's exactly what happened with the new tools. The new tools are insanely better by every single measure possible. The code is incredibly clean and well maintained, everything in net-tools uses old, slow, and poorly maintained code. Hell even the people who maintain net-tools don't want to maintain net-tools. We already had the competition and the new tools won out hand over fist. I know everyone is just now getting to the game here, but these "crap tools" were written something like nine ~ ten years ago. I mean, how much notice and merit is everyone looking for here? The only reason there's a push now, is cause over the last five to six years vendors have been telling everyone that they're dropping net-tools. But yeah, we already did the whole "compete" thing, net-tools sucked so bad, it wasn't hard convincing the folks on every level to start focusing on the new tools.
The problem isn't new tools. It's crap tools.
There's a fundamental problem with ifconfig, it uses ioctl. That's an insanely crappy interface given the three dozen other interfaces that not only Linux, but other versions of UNIX out there have created since the late 1970s. At some point you've got to let go, otherwise you're Microsoft support trying to support win32 legacy and bringing with that support a whole host of crap interfaces at the kernel.
If I just type ifconfig it will show me the state of all the active interfaces on the system
Oh heavens! The great UNIX gods of yore forbid you type "ip a" into a command line. It literally takes maybe about five or six minutes of studying and you'll be replacing ifconfig in no-time for typing the command in. It seriously is not that hard.
with far more complex arguments
If ip confuses you, and it's pretty straight forward a command IMHO, then I can only imagine how strange things like tar, sed, awk, grep, or hell even gcc might seem to you. No one likes change, but c'mon ip is nowhere even remotely as complex as say tar before they added automatic detection. I think what you want to say is that it is "new to you", but that does not mean that the command is this dizzying complex thing that is entirely unknowable. Hell, go try PowerShell for a day to build shadow groups on an AD tree.
shell scripting is a central feature of UNIX
In some UNIX, but not all. SGI and Mac OSX immediately come to mind. Shell scripting works for some and for others it doesn't. Stop trying to make sloppy generalizations.
I get it, people don't like change for the sake of change (that seems to be the mob mentality on Slashdot, heck try bringing up IPv6 on Slashdot and see if that doesn't prove true.) But these changes are there because the method these tools use have long since been deprecated by newer methods for finding that information. If you don't want to move on that's your call, by all means fork it. However the folks behind the actual steering wheel are done using an interface that's slow and inefficient for modern usage and written almost four decades ago. There's a point that it's time to let go. And I can't stand the whole GNOME thing and how ignorant they've gone in a direction. Or how bad Wayland has been implemented for some use cases. But I totally understand this. Trust me, this isn't the hill you all want to die on. net-tools is old, really, really, really, really old and poorly maintained code. I get that "it still works" but to use a horse metaphor, net-tools is a horse missing two legs, thin to where you can see every bone, and it's hacking up blood from it's lungs. Yes, the horse still "pulls" a plow, but this is clearly not the absolute best horse for this job.
no edge case to read text in public domain online, don't need http for that either. nor for a dozen other things.
If you're heading down that road, let me just go ahead and cut to the chase. All traffic on the Internet should be secure, thinking otherwise is dumb. The content of that traffic doesn't matter, **all traffic** on the **Internet** should be **secure**. Full stop. Whatever, reason a person thinks that "this content" shouldn't be secure, usually boils down to subjective logic and lack of any clear rationale argument. Now you can sit there and conjure up reasons, why this content "could" be sent insecure. But that doesn't cover why "it is better to send it insecure versus secure." There exists zero "good" reasons why any content is better to send insecure rather than secure. People moan about the "technical difficulties for making the switch from HTTP to HTTPS" and the reality is that you can self cert in seconds, you can use an open cert service in just a few minutes, you can purchase a full blown well trusted cert in no time. I mean literally there are hundreds of HOWTOs, hundreds of cert services, and so on all developed around the sole notion that "Hey! You should secure your damn traffic." Hesitation for moving from HTTP to HTTPS boils down to one thing. Developers being insanely lazy. If you can be bothered to secure your traffic on a production server, regardless of the content, then the developer is a lazy fuck. 100 out of 100 times I've seen folks not secure their production server, it has always been "we're getting around to it..." Doesn't take more than 30 - 40 seconds to do the bare minimum, there is just zero reasons why it shouldn't be secured.
who said it was internet facing?
If it's not then shut the fuck up as I already pointed out that entire case in the first comment.
the need for browser to do http is real and we don't need browser programmers trying to be everyone's nagging nanny
When the majority of folks using web browsers are morons, yes, yes we do. Your edge case can go to hell. No one took away your precious http, you still have, it just has a red icon now. That's because you and your fucking HVAC system, can't speak a pretty basic fucking protocol and apparently it was made to be completely unupdatable, which also sounds brilliant. So for your corner case, the the millions of other corner cases out there, you all get red icons. Compare that to the literal billions who will use it on the actual Internet, which is the thing I pointed out that you, I guess, didn't give two fucks about to read. So ya know what, I'll be sure to cry you a river for your red icon. Idiot.
plenty of sensors and controllers need http to configure
If a place has a bare Internet facing HVAC controller with no in-between, then there's a ton of problems that no level of "a green icon in the corner" is going to fix. I did said "Production Site" and if you have a brain cell left in you, you know exactly what that means. But yeah, go ahead and put a insecure HVAC directly on the Internet, I'm sure that will pan well for you.
Geez, this summary totally missed the entire point here and linked story only gets to it, well down on the page. If the connection is insecure, the browser is going to notify you of that with either a "insecure message" if there is no input controls (web forms) and a red icon and red text if there is a web form on the page.
The entire thing is that there's no need to highlight the default, and damn it if your site isn't using HTTPS by default now you should just resign from your damn job, which is HTTPS.
And yes, I'm sure I'll hear folks say, "well XYZ doesn't use HTTPS by default and my job requires it." Well then your company is full of idiots then. We're at a point that there's zero reasons to not have a production site HTTPS by default, full f'ing stop. It's literally insulting to your company if this isn't the case. /rant
I think its highly counter-productive.
I don't think it is and that might be something we just disagree on. Let us first agree, perhaps, on this: I don't think it wise for a government to punish a successfully company. I will say that I wish to reserve that there is an upper limit to that previous statement, though. Amazon isn't a successful company, they are about as damn near to a monopoly without completely shutting out the entire competition. They're exactly the thing that would set off warning bells and have the FTC keeping a sharp eye on their activities and acquisitions.
I don't have a fine line and I'm not going to pretend that there is one, that once you cross, you're in this danger zone that I speak of. And yes, Amazon isn't the only one, in fact a multitude of companies are these giant things that destroy everything in their path. In fact, a lot of American companies are these massive giants which is always why my "eye roll" triggers when I hear the DC critters talk about small job creators. But that's an entirely different, but somewhat related, topic. We have way too many of these monoliths in the US for it to be considered healthy. If the environment needs biodiversity, I would say an economy needs market diversity and the bank collapse in '07 was a good example of why a diverse number of corporations in an industry are a good thing. At least to me that makes sense, because look at how well Credit Unions weathered the storm.
But I digress, something being a good thing or a bad thing is mostly subjective and I won't linger on it. What I will posit, and I think it is the thing I'd like to debate but I ramble a lot so apologies ahead of time, is that even if we exclude good, bad, indifferent being a monolith is vastly different than being a business. I would say, that even if this is a thing we want to encourage, which again I don't think we should, but if it is something we want to encourage. There should be a premium for being it. I don't see a special tax on Amazon for being as "large" as it is, as being a bad thing. Want to be that massive? Okay, that's cool, here's a fee you have to pay for getting that large.
Now I hear you," well that would just encourage them to keep under whatever imaginary line your delusional brain conjures up." And I would say, "That's exactly the point." "Oh there would be so many missed things that a company would never get to do if we held them back," you might be so inclined to say (but I don't know what you would say, so I'll just stop that). But that is the point here. To keep small niches open for medium sized (not small, I'm not that crazy now) businesses to grow into, allow them to expand that niche and so on. But more importantly, to keep a diverse group of folks driving the boards of these companies. As opposed to a single board of directors governing over around 60% of US GAFO (link for the term GAFO and of course the figures.)
I just fail to see the logic that a single board of directors should command that much of the US market in that industry. It seems a lot like the eggs in one basket kind of deal, and those deals don't usually play out well when there is a misstep. And yes, the market is elastic and should Amazon fail we will bounce back, but it won't be without its hardships and for those "might be" hardships that "may" come I think it is best to have an insurance policy, "of sorts" and I won't pretend that I have a definition of that which is why I highlighted that there's a lot of "ifs" and "unknowns" there.
And I will admit, I'm not outright correct. There's tons of holes in my argument and I'll admit that. But I think it is worthwhile to discuss that, to say, "Should we let companies get this big?" and "Are we sure that this is healthy for the economy?". And if you are saying "yes" to those, then "Shouldn't we hedge our be
If your "data scientist" is using Excel, fire him, immediately.
I think that's a bit harsh. I've got a friend that, that is their job and it wasn't until a lot of crying and begging did they approve Python and R for install on the laptops. You've got to remember that sometimes you just have to work with the tools that upper management will allow.
I'm not suggesting that, that justifies anything, just that sometimes it's hard to get non-data folks to agree to thing, even free things.
serious work done making sure that all phases of the workflows creating systems "that have the potential to cause human casualty or death" are secure and error free.
Well some companies are indeed building tracks to begin neural net training live. Additionally, there's been enough failures and near misses from other car companies to begin edge testing as well.
Additionally, map makers are now refocusing on a new emerging market of maps for self driving cars. These maps differ from the typical on-line map in that they need typical pattern usage of a given intersection or piece of road that initial algorithms create too many edge cases for. Good example might be the 65/440 split in Nashville where I've seen map cars out there going over and over the exact same spot. Apparently it's confusing to self driving cars.
I think some companies are nearing the peek of the Dunning-Kruger chart and realizing that this problem is a lot harder than they expected. However, there is a lot of money if someone gets the self driving car right and so where in other ventures that peak would mean the end of research, the potential profits are driving some past the peak into the long valley.
I definitely echo your sentiment in that more testing to harden the product is needed and I think a few folks early on knew that (BMW, Ford, etc...). I think that Uber and Tesla might be going too fast, too soon on their implementations.
Well it's not just a matter of temperature. A more pressing matter about the measurements and the recent change is the temperature in relation to time. Typically a shift in global temperature average is on a scale of thousands of years. However, the most recent event of warming is occurring at a pace of only a few hundred years. In the slower process, living creatures have time to adapt to the change. It is feared that if the change is too rapid, living creatures will not be able to adapt fast enough via natural processes.
So obviously, what happened 800,000 years ago when the average CO2 levels were presumably higher than they are now?
Actually, that's just the end point of the dataset they used. So CO2 levels are higher than what their entire dataset tells them. No particular event, just ran out of data that they had at the ready. So I guess a more accurate headline might be, "CO2 levels higher than all 800,000 years of data that a group of scientist have access to." It's a bit wordy though.
ICANN now has a little over a month to come up with a replacement
After having been given almost three years of notice to do something about it. Look, it was never a point about if ICANN could or could not fix it. ICANN made it quite clear from their actions that they were not ever going to fix it. This whole thing shows that the most recent round of directors at ICANN are commercial focused buffoons that lack any real understanding of law or technology. It's a shit show right now at ICANN so this entire thing like, "Oh No! WHOIS will break!" is crap. Have idiots running an organization, watch idiotic results flow from that organization. It's that simple.
At issue is the ability for local utility to provide means to connect sources that reduce CO2 emissions. While some companies do indeed generate on-site power, they also rely on local utility to also provide any additional energy. Some locations provide the means to determine the source of power delivered to the site. Now obviously the local utility doesn't come out and hook Apple up to a wind farm or anything, but it is more along the lines of, "You used x kWh of power, so we generated x kWh of power from a clean source."
At any rate, since that's totally getting off rails here, the entire point is that cities and what-not have an administration cost to maintain those kinds of services and delivery. With the plan being rolled back, the fear (be it a real one or one that doesn't materialize) is that cities will offer less of these services and in turn Apple or Google will have to generate 100% power on-site (not possible) or have questionable sources (which was sort of questionable to begin with but less so questionable with the plan in place, I don't know it seems like a lot of marketing grey area here) to their energy needs.
There's other things at stake here like investment credits and regulation on CO2 emissions, but reading the statement it seems (to me at least, but take my word with a grain of salt) that availability is the thing that they're trying to hammer home here.
Getting cheaper isn't the only factor in choosing energy. Reliability also goes a long way. Something can be super cheap, but if it only delivers power for 40% of the day, then there's extra cost in having a setup that switches seamlessly from one to the other.
I honestly think the plan to begin with was good intentions but poorly executed since it totally circumvented Congressional approval. I grow tired of Presidents acting like they're kings of the nation and that rings true for our current and former Presidents. But at the same time I can't act surprised, Congress has slowly gifted large tracts of power to the executive so that they can play the blame game come reelection...
I'm going off on a tangent here. My apologies. At any rate, it seems availability is the issue here. They wish to secure the option to purchase green energy from local utilities. For where they're at, I don't think that they'll ever have to worry about not having the option, but whatever.
Yeah the name autopilot is one of the things that kills me about what they are truly selling. Tesla's cars are at best a level two self driving car, that is hands off only. You have to have eyes on and you have to give continual input to the system. It is adaptive cruse control, lane keeping, and auto parking. It has some guidance from GPS and on-board software, but the production car that you buy is nowhere near this crap. That video is clearly showing a level three car and the car is handling cleared intersections easily, something the current level twos would be suicide if you tried.
The autopilot is anything but. I'm totally pro-self driving cars, but folks need to know what they are buying and not have a hyped up product sold to them and they think it will do something it won't. Tesla cars are a hands off only car, period, the end. You have to keep eyes up, no matter what. Additionally, you need to know the absolute limits of camera/radar combos, that's right Teslas do not have LiDAR. Radar requires a calculation between differences in order to work. If traffic is stopping up ahead and the car in front of you that your Tesla is tracking suddenly pulls out of the lane to expose a car up ahead at a complete stop, your Tesla is going to ram full speed into that stopped car if you don't do something. That's because radar was tracking something and now it's not there. So the machine needs to recalculate everything, which if you're going highway speeds, you're going to end up dead before the car figures it out.
The cars need to see lines on the road. If the lines are iffy, you're going to end up dead. Traffic needs to follow a pace, it doesn't matter if it is start and stop, or if cars gracefully merge in and out of your lane. It just needs to follow a smooth flow to things and you slowly build up a feel for what's gradual enough and what isn't. If you don't pay attention to that, you're going to end up dead. If you are coming up on a change in the road's shape, like where two highways split off and you're in the lane closest to the split, you need to turn off autopilot and handle it yourself. Most of these kinds of things have really crappy indicators on the road that a split is happening and if you don't, you are going to end up like that dude. Dead.
Now if you think that level two automation is a half baked idea, that's cool. It sort of is, which is why everyone is aiming for that holy grail of level five. So perhaps maybe sit the sidelines till we get there? If what you are comparing to is level five, you're right, this shit is beta-level crap on crap. If you're talking about actual level two automation, the Tesla and all the other cars that offer level two are pretty solid. But people need to understand what they are getting themselves into and if that's not what you were expecting, then yeah, you shouldn't buy one. However, I also fault Tesla, since they post up videos like that one I linked and people buy their cars thinking, that's what they are getting which it isn't.
There is a reason we cannot have nice things. It's called "spam".
Oh yeah, I totally agree with that. Blah, talking about people ruining it for everyone. But do remember that even email suffers from that problem but we've seen email still stay strong. I think those who owned the platforms just weren't up for policing the platforms they created nor tossing their weight into a solution that would have helped filter out the spam. It's definitely one of those moments where the "innovators" were not taking a strong stance with the software and platform that they had created.
Well you do have to remember we're talking way back in 2006-2010. It wasn't unusual to think of these social platforms being about as open as say DNS. That changed really quickly obviously. But yeah, I get your point, it was a lot of idealism that wasn't taking reality into consideration. The big rush was "open" everything, hell I remember the IBM ads with the "linux" child and Apple banging the "open" gong with Facetime, so it seemed that everyone was going to go "open" and perhaps even "standards" level there for a bit, but yeah all that didn't happen and things became way more closed off.
I have to disagree. In the early days Twitter's open API was the big boon to the entire platform. It really made the platform feel really open to have such a rich API at your finger tips that could push a notification out to a large group of folks and get feedback from the group in record time. It also worked with SMS and that was just crazy awesome at the time.
Time went by and we've basically seen every social platform turn into a walled garden. I think at that point devs should have jumped shipped, maybe rework what their ends goal were. Some stuck through it and on that I'll agree with you, was just plain dumb.
But there was once a point where these platforms and most notability Twitter, were very welcoming to outside devs putting together very imaginative clients. Hell, I remember in KDE there was a client that you could just from the desktop, send out a tweet and drop in a file from the file manager into the tweet and it would handle tweeting and posting the file to a file share. You could configure what file share to go to, what group you were tweeting to, and so on. The level of configurability was pretty amazing compared to Twitter today.
But I guess I'm just being nostalgic about the early days. But yeah, after a certain point it was just plain dumb to keep on going.