Re: Wow. €26bn lost in two years
exactly what investors will pay for it is the price of a company, not the value.
791 posts • joined 12 Jun 2009
"Ping" could well be ignorance, not dishonesty. He probably heard the term - possibly from one of the maker of his privacy-and-security-disaster app - and has been using it incorrectly ever since. In this case to mean 'contacts a server, which contacts other phones.
In Hancock's defence he often displays astonishing ignorance, so this isn't too farfetched.
I am not a defence lawyer.
I don't think this will work.
The thing about loo roll is, over a long scale the overall demand is steady, so there is no incentive for the manufacturers to change how much they are making.
Food goes off, so the amount used in a year increases if it is panic bought. Hand sanitiser and masks get used more in a panic, but people don't fundamentally alter their bum output based on a respiratory disease.
So 4 times they have received a 'complaint or inquiry' from someone who had reason to suspect that someone is watching their Ring.
And 0 times has their internal auditing flagged up people accessing a user's Ring without permission.
I'm willing to bet that most unauthourised accesses couldn't possibly be detected by the end user (which is when the innuendo falls down), so their auditing processes must be terrible. (As most non-existent auditing processes are)
Ignoring that there are non-alcohol related sources of cirrhosis...
If you have 2 heavy drinkers with similar education levels, then you are comparing like with like. If one shows more impairment than the other there is a higher chance they need medical intervention.
Of course, if this does work out then we with be incentivising people to write long, ranty, meandering emails to their doctors.
"We are delighted to have been awarded this major contract to provide prisoner escort and custody services for living prisoners, dead prisoners, prisoners who are staying in prison, prisoners who are already at their destination, and prisoners who are nowhere near the country we are operating in"
"we will need a long period – at least a generation – where women are favoured over men for funding and promotion"
Straightforward positive discrimination a terrible idea. The best way to deal with people of one gender thinking people in another only got the job because they were in another gender person isn't to make the prejudiced people correct. And of course by rejecting talented members of the one gender for less talented members of another you are ensuring your company doesn't get the best talent and performs worse.
(I'm using "gender" in the middle english sense of "kind", "type", or "sort" here, because the same applies whatever group you are discriminating in favour of.)
There are ways to deal with inequality that don't have this drawback, or the problem of illegal discrimination
- employ the best people - if you do this the talent pool available to your company is bigger than the talent pool available to a hidebound competitor that still thinks that "those people aren't right for this type of work". Outcompete them, prove them wrong, and rejoice.
- remove identifying information from CVs/whatever before passing them to the potentially prejudiced person in charge of hiring. This has been shown to work in blind auditions for orchestras
- if you must mandate something, mandate interviews not outcomes - since the NFL mandated that at least one non-white candidate must be considered for a head coach job the diversity of head coaches has increased, but nobody got the job because of their race.
No, the problem is that the fact that an unauthorised person opened the device flies back in time, thus negating the warranty at the time the user first sent the device in for repair.
Or a lawyer thought they should throw all available shit at the wall hoping some would stick, I dunno.
"Members of the public would probably be alarmed to learn that some of their financial institutions are running on systems that are possibly 50 years old.. and often are not well understood by the people working with them. "
Only one of these 2 things is alarming. I rarely find myself thinking "Oh no, this thing has been working without causing problems for decades"
I listened to a Planet Money podcast about repatcha 3, where they interviewed someone from google about it
"Given that recaptcha will use data on if the user is behaving normally for a user of a given site, do you really need to know whether the user has a google account to verify that they are human"
"[Extremely long pause]"
"MDM gives a third party control and access over a device and its most sensitive information including user location, app use, email accounts, camera permissions, and browsing history."
So why do you give apps access to it? And how is disabling apps after they have been using it for months an acceptable fix?
"I've got a great idea for a stable door - it closes itself 2 hours after your horse chuffs off having stolen your car."
"just over half of Brits surveyed knew nothing about the plans. On the other hand, some 60 per cent thought it was a great idea."
So somewhere from 10 to 50% of those surveyed said "I have no idea what this is, but think it is a great idea"
This is why we end up with shit politicians.
"The introduction of mandatory age-verification is a world-first"
There is a reason for this, Margot. It's a terrible idea.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020