Posts by Cuddles

Re: "whether the Taiwanese giant was lured with the promise of financial incentives"

"Are these guys new to the concept of capitalism or what ?

When a supermarket chain eyes a spot of land it wants it not only gets the local authorities to exempt it from taxes for ten years, but also gets roads and infrastructure made on its behalf then takes off after nine and a half because, all of a sudden, it remembers that it won't be making money soon.

And now these senators are wondering about a $12 billion plant ? Were they born yesterday ?"

See the reply to the post a couple above yours. Of course they're not new to this and they know exactly what's going on here. They're not surprised there might have been various incentives to get this deal, they're annoyed that none of the pork is coming to their constituencies. It's entirely standard behaviour. When I offer tax incentives to a business, it's an important economic stimulus supporting local jobs and the country's wellbeing. When you do it, it's blatant corruption and must be investigated.

"That wouldn't surprise me. Unfortunately, it's not just Apple doing this. Amazon and Google were both caught keeping databases of this stuff and they're almost certainly still doing it."

The main difference is that Amazon and Google are pretty open about the fact that they're constantly spying on everything and selling all the data to anyone who offers to pay enough. Perhaps not everyone realises the full extent of what they do, but by this point there's really no excuse for not understanding what you're letting yourself in for if you buy into their ecosystems.

Apple, on the other hand, is usually seen as the much more privacy-focussed alternative, which doesn't do all the advertising crap and is therefore much less intrusive about personal data. The choice is always seen as the more open systems which include your personal stuff in that openness, or the walled garden that also keeps your personal stuff walled off. So to see Apple doing exactly the same as everyone else is much more surprising and disappointing.

As for Microsoft, no-one uses Cortana on purpose, but it's essentially impossible to actually disable it so you can be sure there's plenty of spying going on there too. Just look at the mess of their "telemetry" nonsense, and ask yourself if they'd behave any differently with their voice recording.

Re: Well there's the problem

"At 1.5x the cost which is the rough ballpark used to account for tax, pensions, office space, equipment etc that'd cost 22.5k p/a per employee so for 40 million you'd get ~1,777 people doing the job for around 0.1% of the companies yearly profit so it's not really even a case of the business model not being profitable."

Sure, but if you're going to look at the entire company's global profit, you also have to think about the cost of doing the moderation globally. Maybe you could handle the work in the UK with 2000-odd people. Then you need another 2000 or so for each other country in Europe, and for each similarly-sized one around the world. Probably 10 times that for a bigger country like the US. That means it's easily 1% of profits just moderating a single country, and probably at least 20-30% in total. And that's assuming minimum wage is enough to cut it, when they're (certainly Facebook at least, I think Google as well) already having issues with lawsuits and claims for psychological treatment even with the minimal amount of people involved. Could they do it and still be profitable? Maybe, I don't think we have anywhere near enough information here to do a real calculation. But it would certainly be a significant hit to profits even if it's not enough to kill things off entirely.

It's also worth noting that the Google/Alphabet thing isn't really worth worrying about. Google accounts for 99.4% of Alphabet's revenue. Alphabet isn't a real company, it's just a shell to collect Google's stuff together under a different name and funnel some of the money to speculative projects (like self-driving cars). Any distinction between the two names is completely meaningless; it's all either just Google, or Google wearing a false nose.

"Am I missing something, but doesn't the ESA video show the magnetic north pole has moved CLOSER to the geographic north pole between 1840 and 2019, something I would struggle to describe as "moving south"?"

It moved closer to the geographic pole until about 2017, and has now passed it and is moving south again, but on the opposite side. So it would be a bit misleading to say it has moved south since it's currently further north than it has been for most of recent history, but it's correct to say it is currently moving south.

Re: What the fucketty-fuck?

"They are using AI systems to alter images? AI is barely capable of recognising images (actually isn’t...), and some idiots are proposing using AI to “touch up” images that peoples’ lives depend on?"

Doing it in a healthcare setting seems particularly stupid, but the whole idea is just bizarre no matter where it's used. The plan is to take images that need to be analysed for any small variations or anomalies, and first put them through software that will edit out any small variations or anomlies. It's just nuts. There's no such thing as "enhancing" an image. The only things you can do are either remove information that is already in it, or add extra information that is not in it. That's fine if all you want to do is mess around with things to make it subjectively more pleasing to the human eye, but it can only ever be actively harmful when it's the raw information content of the image that is of interest.

Machine learning and image recognition may well have a place in the world, although for the most part they're not really ready for prime time just yet. But the idea of using machine learning to edit images that are then passed on to a completely different system (whether human or otherwise) to actually anaylse is just utterly insane.

Re: Putting the Cart before the Horse

You can read about the UK's app right here on El Reg - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/05/05/uk_coronavirus_app/

In summary, it's full of security holes, is not in any way anonymised (despite lies from those involved claiming otherwise), and is run by the usual old boys' network of Tory associates including some of those involved with Cambridge Analytica and the Leave campaign. But probably most importantly of all, it is fundamentally incapable of actually functioning on both iOS and Android because neither OS actually allows bluetooth to be used the way the app needs.

It's certainly possible the UK government has been more competent than the Australian one here, but only in the sense that they've been better at generating kickbacks for their mates.

Re: In other news....

If you keep incrementing, it will cycle back around to Password-32767! by itself.

"Is it worth paying £45 for a wired keyboard?"

In general, yes. People can be a bit funny about things like keyboards just because it's possible to get very cheap ones, but it's important to remember that your keyboard is one of the few ways you actually interact with your computer (mouse, display and maybe speakers being the others). If you use your keyboard 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, all year, for many years, buying the cheapest thing available simply because it is available doesn't make a lot of sense. You might be spending several thousand pounds on the gubbins inside the box, but then begrudge £50 or so for the part you actually use the most, and which has by far the most bearing on your comfort and even health?

Of course this is not restricted to just computers. With cars, for example, people almost always go for cheap tyres because why bother with something expensive that does the same job, right? Except that your tyres are your only point of contact with the world and therefore pretty much the most important part of the car. Again, there's no point spending thousands on advanced safety systems, but then skimping on a few quid in tyres that actually make you less safe overall.

So yes, not only is it worth spending a bit more on a keyboard, but it's always worth having a good think about what parts of things are actually important. If you use a keyboard as a daily tool, you want something that is good quality and comfortable. That doesn't necessarily mean an expensive mechanical keyboard, but it probably means spending more than the cheapest thing you can find. Even if you think you're happy with whatever basic thing came with your PC, you might find big benefits from trying out a variety of others.

Re: Electric planes?

"Do you also believe that we are currently proving that we don't need restaurants, pubs or sporting events?"

Well yes. They may be nice to have available, but there's obviously no actual need fo them to exist. If you can't go out for a meal, you can still very easily avoid dying of starvation. And if you're not able to fly from the UK to Australia, you can very easily simply avoid doing so, no matter how much family might be at the other end.

The difference is that pubs have very little environmental impact compared to eating at home, so there's no reason to worry about them opening back up once this lockdown is over. We absolutely have proven that we don't need them, but we want them and have little reason to oppose that want. Planes, on the other hand, do have some serious downsides to their use. And since we've proven that we don't need them anywhere near as much as some people liked to use them, maybe we should think a bit harder about going back to previous levels of use as soon as we can.

While that's a lovely idea, are there actually any such applications that actually allow you to do this? When even Skype and Skype For Business don't work together, how likely is it for programs made by completely different companies to do so? And whatever your views on the competence of the UK government, expecting them to produce and implement a global videoconferencing standard and get all of MS, Apple, Facebook and others to start using it on a timescale of a couple of weeks during a global crisis would be a little unreasonable. However you think the internet and videocalls should work, right now people have to deal with how they actually do work. Zoom may or may not be the best choice, but picking a single system to run things on was certainly the only sensible choice.

Re: Oh great!

"And let me guess, these special apps will remain live long after the threat of COVID-19, just in case, much in the same way as all the draconian powers associated with the US Patriot Act are still with us, because terrorism."

Indeed, this is the real worry. Even if you're naive enough to believe government's claims that they'll totally give up the powers they've always dreamed of having once this particular crisis is over, we already have Apple and Google planning on permanently embedding tracking at the OS level on every phone on the planet.

Even in a worst case scenario where Covid19 become endemic worldwide and kills a million or so people every year, that's still not as bad as plenty of other diseases we've lived with for hundreds or thousand of years, and overall disease deaths would still be lower than they were just a few decades ago. That's not great, but we'd cope. Having an extreme surveillance culture become blindly accepted as the result of that would actually be the much greater threat.

Re: Business models

"It would be hard to pick a worse company to invest in."

But if there is one, you can be sure Softbank will manage to find it.

Re: When will they learn?

"'Those developers go to your competition' Again, Chrome is very popular."

How quickly people forget. Netscape was very popular. Internet explorer was very popular. Firefox was very popular. Chrome is currently popular. But this time it will stick and nothing Chrome does could possibly drive people away? Chrome will continue to be popular right up until it suddenly isn't. No single small change will be the cause all on its own, but things like this will certainly be among the contributing factors when it inevitably happens.

"Then I saw it has 6.5" screen. I don't really want to walk around with a small television in my pocket"

Screen size doesn't actually mean anything. People seem to like mocking any mention of bezels and screen-to-body ratio, but they're really quit important. A Moto G8 with a 6.5" screen is about the same size as a Moto G5 with a 5.2" screen. Other brands also available in similar sizes.

Obviously if you already thought a 5" phone was too big then you may struggle these days. But if you're just assuming the phone must be massive because screens are bigger than they used to be, you're way off. A 6.5" screen today comes in a phone the same size as a 5" screen did three or four years ago, and a 4" screen a couple of years before that. A Nokia Lumia with a 5" screen is only a few mm smaller than a Moto G8.

Re: Android doesn't allow an app to search for wireless devices without location being on

I think it was Android 8 that introduced it.

Re: Lower and upper limits

"And if I slap a mass of equations over that, label everything with magic keywords, this is the state of physics today."

Said equations being rather fundamental to the whole thing. Anyone can throw together a description of how they think things work that may or may not sound silly to other people. Putting together a consistent mathematical description that is able to accurately describe actual observations is a little trickier. You're free to argue with and/or complain about the maths all you like, but you're unlikely to be able to convince it to agree with you.

Re: Still not a patch on a Garmin.

Indeed, I remain confused exactly why Fitbit exist at all. From this article, I understand that they were previously selling a fitness tracking device that was completely unable to actually track fitness and required you to carry a far more capable phone with you anyway. This new upgraded version finally adds the ability to actually track things for about 3 hours. Meanwhile something like a Garmin Forerunner has been around for ages, is far better for both sporty stuff and for working as an actual watch, and is actually cheaper.

That last point being the most important. I thought they were basically cheap tat for people who wanted to pretend to be doing fitness related stuff without actually wanting to spend money or do it properly. But who the hell pays extra for a crappy Fitbit when it's actually cheaper to get something that's better in pretty much every way?

*Disclaimer - I don't actually own a Garmin, I have a Suunto watch. Suunto are a terrible. If you actually want a GPS watch, get a Garmin.

Re: To be clear ...

"Everyone else is doing it" isn't even a good excuse for 6 year olds.

Re: Scratch Marriott off the list

"Depending on how much you travel, where you travel... you may be limiting yourself."

Well yes, that's how boycotts work. You can't avoid using something you weren't going to use anyway. But if you're not willing to deal with the inconvenience, however big or small it may be, of avoiding something you dislike, you have no right to complain when you subsequently get shafted.

Re: I just loved "the nuclear charge is slightly potato-shaped"

African or European?

Re: Range & Time for a FULL charge

"You must have a bladder like a camel, I can't drive for 7hrs non stop."

For some reason it always seems to need pointing out in these discussions, but there's a very big different between stopping occasionally for a five minute toilet break, and being forced to stop for an hour or more just so the car doesn't grind to a halt. That's especially true when the former doesn't need any more facilities than a layby with a convenient bush any time you fancy it, while the latter requires scheduling your stop only at a place with the required chargers at a time the car demands.

Electric cars have a lot going for them, but they are simply not yet equal to traditional engines when it comes to long journeys, and it really doesn't make sense to argue otherwise. Yes, a lot of people don't need to make such journeys so electric cars may be more suitable for many people than they might think. But for those who do, trying to equate occasional short toilet breaks with regular lengthy fuelling stops is just ridiculous.

Re: Puzzled!

Because that's not what "tidally locked" means. It's certainly possible for a planet (or other body) to do that, but it wouldn't be tidally locked if it did. The planet you're thinking of is Uranus, which is tipped over at nearly 90 degrees compared to pretty much everything else. But it's not tidally locked to the Sun, so different parts of it still get different amounts of light at different times of its year.

As for how it happened, the most recent thinking is that it probably couldn't have been a simple collision with another large body, since a big enough hit to cause the tilt should have outright destroyed it. Something pretty major must have happened to it, but it was likely rather more complicated than previously thought.

Re: "the C&C [command-and-control] server replies with a piece of JavaScript code"

Because no-one in the Pentagon would ever click on a picture of a scantily-clad Flash update?

Re: Actually.... most of the time XP crashes before the ramsomware can encrypt the drive

Indeed, it seems weird keep repeating that the NHS was vulnerable because of XP, when in fact almost the exact opposite was true. Obviously XP is vulnerable in general so not a good idea to use it, but in that specific case even the hackers considered it too obsolete to bother targetting.

Oddly enough, I actually had a phone directory posted through the door last month. Hadn't seen one for years, and I thought they'd died out entirely, but apparently BT still do them on a somewhat erratic schedule. I'm in it twice; once for a house I haven't lived in for 6 years, and once for the current house which has never had a phone plugged into the landline. So still around, but probably not terribly useful.

All science is based on earlier science. If we had to reinvent everything from scratch all the time, we'd never get anywhere. Remember that thing about standing on the shoulders of giants? It actually dates back to at least the 12th century, and was repeated many times before Newton made the quote that is best known today. Arguing about who was the greatest scientist based on whether later work relies on them or not is completely pointless. It always does, and that has been well understood by the scientists themselves for centuries (and most likely much longer). A statement that more recent science is based on older science is at best a banal tautology, and unfortunately more commonly a sad attempt to denigrate those who have had the sense to learn from others just because someone wants to play Top Trumps with famous scientists.