I knew it was well borked back when Windows Update told me it was "Installing update 17 of 3..."
1991 posts • joined 16 Jul 2011
There's no identifying data to retain in the case of the Google and Apple apps. There is data, in the form of fully anonymized contact records, which would be useful to epidemiologists and anthropologists, but not to marketeers.
Read and understand the open documentation regarding the underlying technology.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
No, Halloween Edition was definitely last year's Fall Update.
(ref. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/16/windows_10_update/, for starters.)
...Wait, what? I though Google was all about the algorithm?
Shurely they just need to point their excellent YouTube content moderation algorithm at their internal forums and it'll clean everything up perfectly.
The engineer didn't say "the same": he said "the same or similar names."
All it takes to end up with similar names for programming structures is similar naming conventions and similar goals. We already know that the goal is PRECISELY the same: processing binaries of a specific format to a specific result. And while there is some variety in naming conventions, there is also a lot of standardization, specifically within individual languages. In fact, I'd bet someone at least as clever as the two of us could come up with a test which does a fair job identifying a programmer's most frequently used or favorite language just by having them name some identifiers.
"It shows a general trend of improving AFR numbers with several points clustered along a high left to low right diagonal line."
That's an OK general conclusion, but if you look brand-by-brand, it's not quite so simple:
1. First, WD has only one drive model in the study, so we can't really tell how well they're doing.
2. Second, Toshiba has gone from 0% AFR (4TB) to 0% AFR (5TB) to 0.33% AFR (14TB). This is mitigated by the fact that that 0.33% is caused by 1 drive failure -- the only failure at all for Toshiba in the entire study. So it's possibly an artifact of the sampling rather than an actual decrease in quality.
3. Third, HGST does indeed have a 2.6% AFR for their LE600 models, but that's due to 1 drive failure as well -- that might, like with Toshiba, be an artifact of the sample. Setting that aside, HGST has 0.23% and 0.34% AFR for their two 4TB models, 1.17% for their 8TB model, and 0.56% for their LN604 12 TB model. This is not a high-left to low-right diagonal line, but a hill, indicating a decrease in quality for HGST around the time they were producing their 8TB models which was (mostly but not fully) resolved with the LN604 model.
4. Finally, Seagate starts high in the high-left (1.96% AFR for their 4TB model), improves for their 8TB model (0.27% and 1.64%) and 10TB model (1.01% AFR), and then totally implodes with their 12TB model (2.22% AFR). They are the closest to a high-left to low-right line, but they lose it at the end.
So the only reason the high-left to low-right line exists is because models from different brands (Seagate, WD, HGST, and Toshiba) are clustering near that line. But since the brands have their own production facilities, this is most likely a coincidence and not representative of a meaningful trend.
Looking brand-by-brand, we see:
Toshiba holding near-perfect but possibly having a bit of trouble with their 14TB drives;
HGST starting strong but having problems starting with their 8TB models possibly through to the 12TB LE600 model, then improving again with their LN604 model; and
Seagate steadily improving quality from their 4TB models through to their 10TB model, then getting worse with their 12TB model -- all the while maintaining the worst overall record (yes, the HGST LE600 model has a higher AFR, but that's due to a single drive failure as mentioned above, so is likely inflated.)
We had a "nothing changed" but things broke event with our last software release.
Turns out what had changed was that the QA tester actually looked at the error log this time. What "broke" had been broken for at least a year and nobody had noticed.
Have you thought it through?
The primary purpose of the military is not, actually, to kill people. It is to stop people from killing (hurting, stealing from, etc.) you. Note for example, the justification for the US military in the Constitution: "to provide for the common defense".
The best military technology prevents conflict by either allowing you to avoid it or by convincing your enemy to avoid you. So there is real justification for wanting to support your military by providing that type of technology, while not wanting to work on projects with specific goals of "lethality".
Now, fair play to anyone who wants to respond with "that's not how the US (or the UK or any even slightly Imperialist power) have used their military", but I see that more as a failure of command (i.e, the governments involved) rather than an argument for a different definition of the ideal purpose of a military.
...whose friends and admirers can spare the time (off work? not working?) to attend the hearing and make obscene comments, but not to sit down with Mr. Love and advise him to seek legal counsel.
What does the nature of his friends have to do with the merits of his case?
"Guilt by association" seems an all-too-relevant description of your argument here...
"Users need to have greater control over the data their extensions can access,"
It's SUPER-simple to give users full control over the data their extensions can access without changing your API.
Just add a new page to settings with a dropdown of extensions and a list of every class of data, with checkboxes. Have the API fail gracefully for any unchecked combination of extension/data. Problem solved.
Or do you really mean "Chrome needs to be able to restrict the data extensions can access 'on behalf of' users, making their decisions for them in a way which is, of course completely impartial and has no ulterior motive whatsoever."
Normal people won't cope with asymmetric ciphers. But they understand the concept of key sharing.
You don't spend much time with normal people, do you? Normal people don't really get the concept of encryption keys, period, let alone key sharing. It's not because they're incapable, mind. It's because they couldn't give a flying fuck.
Encryption, for normal people, is stuff the techies are supposed to sort out.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020