PST files
When we do a discovery export, 365/Exchange spits out a PST file. So, unless MS are going to rewrite that or provide some other way to access PST files, classic Outlook is a necessity.
1653 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Jul 2011
I agree on the base of your point - that LLMs are not a good tool for decision making. But, the problem, again, isn't the LLM. Its the human sat in front of it thinking it is something it isn't.
At this point, I'm of the view that LLMs should have a big warning stuck at the top of the prompt window highlighting what they can't do, so people see it every time they try and get a jumped up speak and spell to decide if someone should get jail-time.
Of course its a useful distinction. Its a classic case of garbage in, garbage out. LLMs are trained using real-world data. The idea that we can somehow take that real world data and "de-bias" it in some way is naive. All that happens is a new bias is added - see Gemini. You can't force remove bias from such a large data-set.
Whether a question is "interesting" or not is irrelevant as well. The real question is "how can we solve this problem?" and the article (and you) seems to be implying that it can be solved at the LLM level, which is what I'm challenging as impossible.
Is this not simply a case of the LLM matching society? AAE will, for the most part, be spoken by African Americans. And statistically, African Americans do have less prestigious jobs (I'm not passing judgment on this, just a reflection of the USA as it stands today). In the US justice system, African Americans are more likely to be convicted, and more likely to get harsher sentences than white Americans.
So, yes, the LLMs are behaving in a biased way, but the issue, to me, isn't that the LLMs are biased but that society itself is biased. LLMs only produce outputs that come from their dataset.
The fix isn't to change the LLMs, but to fix the deep seated bias in the US society. If you start tweaking the LLM, you end up with the Gemini fiasco.
AI is being pushed within networking - in terms of monitoring, SDN etc...
And its HPE these days, not HP. Or, more specifically, HPE Aruba for their networking - which is an amalgamation of Aruba, Procurve, and 3Com stuff. They're just adding Juniper to that list to bulk up the AI networking offering.
They need to improve Aruba Cloud Central first though tbh. The entire solution is buggy, slow and a really weird UX.
Reducing competition from the US was not even slightly a consideration of GDPR. GDPR is about privacy and the rights of citizens.
US companies have to comply with the same law if they operate in the EU, so the playing field is level. Well, other than US law being incompatible of course.
If you have a signed contract that doesn't have a term saying the ISP reserves the right to make changes, then you have a truly unique contract.
UK ISP contracts have basically been the same for decades now - ISPs include a clause allowing them to make changes, with the condition that you have the right to cancel without cost.
I find it interesting how many people are in need of more than 1 IP to be honest.
I run a network with 2000 devices on it, including a nice cluster of servers, external facing services etc... And we use a grand total of 2 IP addresses. Why do so many people need lots of addresses for what will be small home networks?
But those contracts aren't relevant are they? If the contract terms have been altered since then (which the original contract would have included as being possible as part of the terms), and you continued to use their service, you agreed to those changes of terms. So, the current terms are the relevant ones.
"sharing is not needed because the need for mobile spectrum is much greater than the need for Wi-Fi spectrum"
Really? As they already said, most connectivity happens when someone is in their home. So, surely those devices should be defaulting to WiFi and not cellular connectivity when indoors?
I would say the demand for spectrum is considerably higher for WiFi than it is on cellular.
We should all copy the US and just give the entire 6Ghz range to WiFi.
I mean, who could possibly have seen this project being such a failure? With the govt making it a legal obligation that energy companies roll them out, but didn't give them any powers to actually do so. You can still refuse to have one installed. So, how exactly are companies supposed to roll them out when people say no?
And with 2G/3G being turned off, what happens more years down the line and 4G is turned off? Or whatever other tech they decide to move to? Future proofing wasn't part of the design...
Your lack of understanding that posting something like the OP said is part of the process of dealing with those emotions. Public outpourings of support are a critical part of dealing with these issues, both from an emotional and from a political point of view.
The idea that people should, from what you're saying, basically ignore it because they can't directly affect the outcome is just evidence that you are emotionally stunted.
Problem is, not only companies do those activities.
There's plenty of individual consultants out there who provide technical support services, or host a platform for a client.
That's part of the problem here - too many people consider commercial activity to only be done in the context of companies. Rather than by freelancers who are experts in their field etc...
Usually with services like this, the terms basically preclude claims like this as they say things like the information is not to be used for XYZ purposes, and is provided with no warranty/guarantee of accuracy etc...
So, I doubt this will go anywhere.
Surely they should be suing whoever is in charge of maintaining that road for not putting up barriers?
So, yes, Microsoft are big, and they still have 69% of the desktop OS market share, but does calling them a monopoly any more work?
They're not a monopoly in the consumer OS space. They're not a monopoly in the web browser space. Nor the server space.
If someone were to try and claim they abuse a monopoly position, I suspect they'd have a lot more wiggle room these days.
But yes, this obsession with upsell/marketing in their OS is just going to annoy people.
Blaming it on a nebulous "administration" is silly. The issue is with how government agencies are funded - and this is determined by the US Constitution to be Congress who decides that.
As it is a purely political body, the people in control are always going to choose things that get them good PR, and get things for their own states over good management and administration.
Without a change to the way the USA works in its entirety (from the very basis of it being a federal state, to its constitution), you aren't going to fix this.
It is pointless blaming "administration".
You're just showing your lack of understanding of how NASA is funded with that misguided comment.
NASA doesn't just get given a giant pot of money by Congress and get told "here you go, spend as you want".
The budget is prepared and presented to Congress, and they adjust and send back what they will actually fund. So, you know when NASA asks for money to sort out buildings, and money to fly to the moon, and Congress is looking to make cuts but not reduce the PR opportunities? The buildings get cut, the moon doesn't.
You are mixing up "works" with "supported".
You can install Windows 95 still. It will work (depending on the hardware), but it won't be supported. And no, you can't install newer versions of MacOS on old hardware. They changed the entire CPU type three times over the years. You gonna install current MacOS on a Mac Classic?
And you can't install ChromeOS at all. You can reflash an existing Chromebook with it supported OS (just like an iPad). So, saying you can't install modern ChromeOS after the end date seems like a weird thing to state.
Google announced that ALL chromebooks manufactured after 2020 would get an 8 year support period from date of release. Not just high end. I have 1400 of the things here, all of which have their 8 year life span, each priced between £125 and £200 each. So all low end devices.
So, simply put you are wrong.
You are incorrect. All Chromebooks released after 2020 now have an 8 year support life from the release date. Even the £150 ones. I know this as I manage 1400 of the things. So, not an incorrect assumption there at all. The key is "from release date". If you buy a 3 year old model, you only get 5 years... Google have a very simple website which is easy to find the support life for all Chromebooks in their documentation titled "Auto Update policy". Has them all listed there. Simple.
The second problem you list "no technical reason for the end of support". There isn't for Microsoft stopping providing Windows updates either. Or Apple providing MacOS or iPadOS updates. Yet, they both do? The device doesn't cease to work at the end of support date either. It simply receives no more updates. Just like an iPad.
Your entire post is, frankly, nonsense.
I keep seeing people decrying the limited lifespan of Chromebooks but, honestly, I don't get it?
The majority of Chromebooks sold are low cost devices with low power CPUs. At release, they are given an 8 year support life.
Are people really wanting to be able to run low end hardware for more than 8 years?
What use case is there for 8 year old, slow portable devices? After 8 years, a lot of laptops are physically in bad shape anyway!
Fancy shops are great and all, but they're still a shop - with expensive real estate costs, operating costs etc...
Surely the next big step is fully automated grocery shopping? Your house learns what you eat/drink, and orders a shop weekly with everything you are missing/need. With or without a human confirming the list is OK.
That'll be the next big marketing opportunity.
"The WFH movement seems to be faltering across the IT industry"
So, an industry that has seen massive growth in "work at home" technologies is pulling back on their own staff working from home? Companies like Google etc, all sing their own praise about how their services can be accessed anywhere (indeed, that's one of the ways cloud companies promote themselves), yet they want their own workers in their cubicles.
If they themselves don't think it works, why would people buy their products/services?
This case will backfire horribly if it ends up in court. Discovery will reveal the real statistics of hate speech, and we all know they aren't lower than ever as Musk tries to make out. We also will know that Musk happily takes payment from people who post hate speech and don't get banned. And, we'll know just how much of a mess the company is in with regards its advertisers...
So, all that will do is drive even more advertisers away.
The issue isn't people reporting on the hate speech, Musk, it is the hate speech itself. Companies aren't scared by reports of it. They're scared off by the hate speech... Shooting the messenger is just bad business.