Posts by diodesign 3533 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Sep 2011
Support for the crash-inducing key combination via PS/2 turned up in Win2K, etc, is what we meant, and what the article now more clearly says.
Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.com if you spot something wrong so we can get things fixed ASAP.
C.
FWIW I've added the Chinese New Year aspect. The Waymo car was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It drove right into the middle of people setting off fireworks in the street, and if you've ever been in SF during a CNY, you know it's loud, a little chaotic, and non-stop fireworks going off from the street level. And so it's no surprise, sadly, that someone decided to blow up a self-driving car in that moment.
It's delicate because, as someone who has lived in SF for 10 years next to Chinatown, I know the community isn't like this. This was morons taking advantage of the CNY weekend.
Edit: Also wanted to say - full disclosure - I've been in two driverless Waymo rides now, including one in miserable Bay Area February rain, and it felt as safe or safer than a random Lyft or Uber driver.
C.
They are on our radar and we will cover them more. One story lately we did about them:
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/28/cerebras_g42_china_refile/
C.
Steady on, I think that's a bit unfair. We accidentally missed off the hours in megawatt-hours. It's now fixed.
We're a small team that's trying to do a lot, and we're gonna sometimes slip up. We try our best not to, but it happens. And when we do mess up, we try to fix it ASAP. Dropping us a note directly helps us get an update out faster.
I think awful is a bit harsh.
C.
Yeah, we know, we know, we accidentally left off the hours in megawatt-hours. W is the rate of energy being transferred or transformed, and Wh is a quantity, we get it.
Sometimes articles have mistakes. We try to fix those ASAP. Please don't forget to email corrections@ to get our attention straight away - we check that constantly and comments only when we have time.
C.
Yes, we made an error. It happens. We try to avoid them. If software has bugs, articles have mistakes. We try to fix them as soon as we can, and prevent them in the first place.
It should be - and now is - MWh. It's now corrected. Don't forget please to email corrections@ if you spot anything wrong so we can sort stuff out ASAP.
C.
Hi - we can't reproduce the entire paper in an article, just take the more interesting bits from. We also always try to link through to papers and original sources so you can see more for yourself.
In this case, the methodology including full prompts etc are in the linked-to paper starting from section A (page 15) in its current version.
C.
With Google the supersoaraway search engine still, our article focuses on the Big G. If you want to see how Bing etc fared, it's a mixed bag - some good, some bad - see the linked-to report for the details.
It's why we link to reports and original sources wherever we can - not all publications do that - so that you can dive deeper beyond our take of a situation. Articles are like products: you have to make a decision to ship at some point, and we shipped this story with a focus on Google.
There's still scope for a followup that compares Google with others, and it's on the todo list.
C.
1. As someone who has been working on tech products since the late 1980s, Mark is a columnist for us, not a news reporter. We wanted his thoughts on CES, and he shared them. CES is so huge that it's impossible to report it all - instead, I appreciate his highlights.
2. Personal tech (as opposed to enterprise tech and software dev) isn't a core subject for us, though we cover it as much as we can because our readers use the stuff. So we're not going to have extensive CES coverage - mainly what caught our eye, and why, and those stories are on the site this week.
C.
And don't even realize it. You're talking about AI companies being able to rip off people at a fantastic scale. And they're able to do that with: machines.
If this was about some office somewhere with 500 people churning out counterfeit work, that's people v people. This latest copyright stuff is people versus machines, in my view.
Or I guess, if you like: people versus the makers of machines.
As I've said, don't over-think our analysis. We're just pointing out that these aren't just a set of copyright infringement claims. There's an underlying concern among artists over the ability for machines to flood the market with knock-offs, and no one gets a penny from it or can opt out, and that's coming through in these court cases, in our view.
If you're an artist, and there's like 5 or 6 people copying you, that's one thing. Now imagine a million people able to copy you, with the help of AI. That's the machine element.
C.
Don't get me wrong. Yes, the cases are primarily about copyright. Yet there's an underlying concern for the future of creative work over large-scale AI imitating people without recompense nor the ability to opt out of being pulled into the training process.
Don't over-think this analysis. We're just saying, in our opinion, this isn't a straight-forward, open-shut (c) claim. It's people upset that they're being or about to be displaced at a large scale, and they're using copyright to tackle it.
C.
That sounds like humans versus machines to me.
"AI companies simply took everyone's copyrighted works without permission and built something on top of that, that now displaces the original works and authors"
Again, labor versus machines IMHO.
I believe you're over-thinking this. Yes, the cases are about copyright allegations. The NYT is rather specific. But a lot of the cases have an undercurrent of something along the lines of: it's not fair that these widely used models learned how to imitate us and are now pushing us out of the market.
This isn't just purely over copyright, but copyright is how the plaintiffs hope to solve it. That's at least my impression of it all.
C.
Yeah, the article does say that the efficiency is about 1%. OTOH the first fission piles/reactors weren't that spectacular, so I see this as more baby steps to production.
BTW imploding hydrogen isotope fuel capsules with x-rays (and ablation) has been around since the 1940s/50s, though not with practical power generation in mind...
C.
We were talking about Docker. By 2019, the biz was not in a good place so I'm not surprised Microsoft was shifting its position.
C.
The KEX protocol will be on automatically, as I understand it, and thus thwart an MITM attacker when both client and server are using it. See the OpenSSH release notes linked to and also the PROTOCOL file.
I guess it will be up to the client and server to complain to the user that one end isn't using KEX when it's expected or desired.
C.
Yeah, we meant non-Russian airlines, regarding A380s. The first sentence in that paragraph read:
"...aircraft being pulled apart to repair others, a not-uncommon practice in the aviation industry."
And then the next sentence was: "Some used Airbus A380s, which commenced commercial operations in just 2007, have already been sold for parts."
As in, some other airlines in the aviation industry have sold A380s purely for parts, as an example of this practice in the industry, not specific to Russia. I've removed that sentence to avoid confusion.
C.
You don't have to reboot the machine into another OS - that's just one way to do it.
You can hotplug a MITM device while the laptop is still on to add a fingerprint and log in as the user. If you can keep the stolen PC powered up, you can log in using this method. That defeats any full disk encryption, including Bitlocker, we're told.
We're checking to what happens if you have Bitlocker and the machine is power cycled. Edit: comments from the researchers added.
C.
I highly doubt anyone involved with producing this article is of the opinion that Hamas, a blood-thirsty hive of terror bastards, is in any way good.
Also: as I've said before, we're not particularly left or right, this way or that on Trump or Musk, etc. We're just anti-dumb. If you're in a position of power or responsibility, and you're an idiot, we'll call you a moron.
Case in point: for all the criticism made by the left over Brett Kavanaugh's appointment, he's actually made some sound decisions on technology as a US Supreme Court justice. On a personal level, you could find him repulsive, but he ain't a moron and that's how we cover his decisions. We've also been sarcastic about the Biden White House.
And I don't think the article is disingenuous: we've not asserted Musk turned Twitter into a cesspool. We've reported that advertisers, funnily enough, are sensitive about the content around their ads. Happens here as well: people withdrawing ads from stories about hacking, crime, coronavirus, etc.
C.
Left the biz before El Reg was barely getting started, and went off to found Inq, which later imploded. I'm sure he's happy wherever he is.
I have no idea what you expect from us here. Musk said something dumb again as advertisers pull their ads because they don't like the content on a site. We're conveying what happened. You can decide whether Elon or IBM is in the right, I don't think we've glided in any particular direction about it in the piece.
C.
You're in the moderation queue because you appeared (in a few comments) to encourage support for a proscribed terror organization, which makes our UK staff at least uneasy given the legal regime in that country.
Stay on the lawful side, and your comments will make it through. Like your Hamlet.
C.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
