Not AUD
It's in USD, direct from Samsung. You can get it cheaper elsewhere of course.
C.
3493 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Sep 2011
Hiya --- FWIW $450 (as in USD) is Samsung's direct price but you can find it discounted elsewhere or part of a plan.
Also we've added in a few more specs for those asking for them. Our 'first look' pieces are more hands-on comment articles about using stuff for the first time as opposed to a detailed review.
C.
Quick look from 2023 YTD, number of unique readers in that time:
Chrome = 52%, Safari = 24%, Firefox and Edge = 6% each. Rest a mix of mobile view on Android, in-app Safari, Opera, etc.
StatCounter has, for June 2023, global browser usage: Chrome = 63%, Safari = 21%, Edge = 5%, Opera = 3%, and Firefox = 3%.
C.
Yeah, don't worry, we'll get to it -- this article was just to quickly flag up that Google has formally gone to the FTC. We've covered Microsoft's licensing pain previously (see the links in the piece) and we hope to uncover all of it eventually.
One of our editors Paul has been writing about this a lot: feel free to drop him an email <pkunert@theregister.com> and let him know more. Cheers!
C.
Yeah, the end of those cookies will be like that moment in the Titanic movie when the boat splits in half and tips up. There's those who manage to hang on and those who fall.
It's gonna be like that for publications IMHO. We'll see who prepared for it and who didn't. It's something we've been working on for a while.
C.
One interesting aspect of this - speaking generally about the online publishing world - is that no one believes each other.
If a vendor goes direct to a B2B publication, books an ad campaign, pays $20,000 for 300,000 ad impressions, and then after a few days or weeks, the publication says, 'ta-da, all done, thanks for the money,' that vendor may be skeptical the ads were actually all served to real humans. Especially when the ads are targeted and we're in an era of ad-blocking.
So the advertiser wants in on the analytics to verify the campaign was truly fulfilled and/or to see it progress in real time. The ads in that case end up being served by or involve a third-party both the advertiser and the publication trust / willing to use.
I'm simplifying here to avoid talking about specific operations, and we're happy with our ad clients, and our ad clients are happy with us, of course. My point is, the industry is a very very long way from placing a banner ad on a page and letting it run its course. It's more complex than most may think.
C.
You can boil down most news to pithy one-liners. Home burgled. Man shot. Research published. Software updated.
You could look at it that way. Or you could look at it like this: we've provided you all the context you need to make a personal judgement.
We think it's news because it's a new technology, it's supposed to be a trusted technology, it caused a death, and so here are all the details we have so you can weigh up whether it was an unfortunate accident or something else.
We always encourage readers to think for themselves. I suspect what you really mean by "this isn't news" is that you were hoping the dog was killed in darker circumstances.
It reminds me of George Carlin's bit about the news:
"I watch television news for one thing and one thing only: entertainment. That's all I want from the news; entertainment. You know my favorite thing on television? Bad news. Bad news and disasters and accidents and catastrophes. I want to see some explosions and fires, I want to see shit blowing up and bodies flying around!
"I'm not interested in the budget. I don't care about tax negotiations. I don't want to know what country the fucking pope is in. But you show me a hospital that's on fire and people on crutches are jumping off the roof and I'm a happy guy! I'm a happy guy!"
As a journalist of 20+ years, it's something I think about a lot, every day.
C.
It's a bit messy but it goes back to 2016 when Enigma sued a blog for posting a negative review of Enigma's Spyhunter. Enigma then, in a lawsuit against Malwarebytes, claimed the blog was affiliated with Malwarebytes, and the classification of its Spyhunter as a PUP was in part a retaliatory move.
MB said at the time Spyhunter simply met its criteria of a PUP. Enigma says its tools aren't PUPs.
C.
OK, OK – crumbs, we didn't intend to lump 7-zip in with the paid-for others, though we can see how people read it that way. We've made the wording clearer and linked to the project.
Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.com if you spot something odd. Us humans will get onto it and fix it.
C.
If you can't see the connection between Dyson complaining about the neglect of sci-tech biz and the UK not being part of Horizon, then this whole article will not make sense to you, I guess. Similarly, if you can't see the link between funding science in the UK and that parlaying into more interest in STEM and teaching STEM, then again, this article isn't for you.
In our vulture's opinion - and it's an opinion article, it's our writer's view - the two are related. And so far you're doing a really terrible job at changing our minds.
BTW the stuff about corporation tax etc is just included because, well, he brought it up. Science is the main thrust of the piece.
C.
They want to boost the telescope and clear from its new orbit any debris that might be there. Well, OK, what the press release says exactly is:
"Removal of surrounding and threatening space debris in Hubble’s new orbit using the Vigoride and Astroscale’s RPOD capabilities will be prioritized after the completion of the primary reboost mission."
You could read "will be prioritized" as "will now happen" or as "will do more of what already was happening". A basic reading of it leans toward a reboost then debris clean up of the new orbit, but you could read it as doing some clean up pre-boost and then much more cleanup after boost. We kept the sentence in our article open ended; I've made it more declarative.
Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.com BTW if you think you've spotted something wrong. As much as folks want to discuss it here, I'd like to make articles clear and correct, and we check that inbox all the time.
C.
Yeah, it didn't make it into our stories but I'm told this happened:
A Google exec said: "We hope every mobile operating system gets the message and adopts RCS," and the crowd cheered.
Everyone wants Apple to join, and Apple continues to say no. There'll be 1bn people using RCS by the end of the year, it's estimated.
C.
The list of browsers wasn't explicitly ordered, FWIW. This website lists in order of Chrome, Safari, Edge, Firefox, and Opera, contrary to yours. So it's kinda open ended.
But generally Chrome leads, Safari's next, and then the rest. Kinda like AWS, then Azure, and then the rest fight over third place. I've tweaked the sentence as people seem to be taking it as an ordered list.
C.
We write hundreds of headlines a month, not all of them will be perfect. But when we realize where we can do better, we fix 'em up as soon as we can, learn for the future, and continue. If a correction note is warranted, we'll add it. Drop us a note to corrections@theregister.com if you think we've fallen short somewhere.
As for removing posts, see my other comment above.
C.
Hi, can't remember exactly when things changed but yeah, if we remove a comment it also removes the child posts. Previously, you'd end up with a thread with gaps in it - removed posts - which would just confuse folks and look messy, so we tidied it up.
We rarely remove posts: mainly if they are legally dodgy, misinformation, or if they point out an error that we've fixed. Those sorts of posts just add noise and reduce signal. We thus sometimes trim out threads that distract the discussion from the meat of an article.
If you spot any problems with stories, drop us a note to corrections@theregister.com and we'll fix it up as soon as we can. Much faster than reading through every comment, which takes us away from writing and editing.
C.
I think you're thinking of the O-1 visa, which is for exceptionally talented people. H-1B is a tier below that, and it's not the only option for immigrant workers (E-2, L-1, EB-1C, etc etc)
But yes, IT agencies are flooding the system and it does not result in an equal, flat playing field IMHO. H-1B and EB-1C are incredibly problematic.
C.
Rene's not really a nobody. Not only is he running Arm these days -- taking over from long-time boss Simon Segars when that Nvidia deal collapsed -- and has been there for a few years, but he was one of Jensen Huang's right-hand men at Nvidia for a while.
Dunno, we just thought it would be interesting to cover what's going on at the top of Arm and within Softbank while there's a lot of attention and interest in it pre-IPO.
C.
You know we're reporting what was said in a hearing? The headline reflects what was said - it summarizes what was said. That's like the opposite of clickbait.
I've added some quote marks to make clear to those at the back that we're reporting on what was said in Parliament. All regular Reg readers know we're not keen on this latest AI hype.
C.
We thought that would be obvious - if we haven't detected any water then there isn't any to our mind - but we've made that clearer.
You could add 'that we've detected' to anything. There's no more coffee left in the pot that we've detected. There's no patch yet from Microsoft that we've detected. And so on.
C.
Who says we always have to be neutral? Look around - we report the facts straight, sure, but we also chip in our own views. That's kinda the point of El Reg. Headlines, sub-heads, comment and opinion pieces, analysis, columns, features, that's where we try to stand out from the rest of the IT media.
You don't have to agree with us. We've never set ourselves up as the Associated Press or Press Association of the IT world. We have opinions, which we hope are informed and help further the interests of our readers, and we'll share them.
If we think company or government X does something bad, we'll say it's bad. And though The Reg was around in 2002 - would have been about four years old - it may or may not have had an opinion on the Iraq war back then. Doesn't bother me, I was just a regular reader at the time.
A wider point can be made here. Sometimes some people think we here at El Reg are lychee martini liberals or Daily Mail demagogues. I don't think we're fixed on a particular political side. We're just against stupidity. If your side does something stupid, we'll call it stupid - it's not a left or right, west or east, rich or poor thing.
C.
"This undertaking is non-trivial and likely requires a substantial time investment"
Nah, there's no way that takes 5-10 people several days to do what's described. Maybe if they all stood around arguing it would take that long. The code would take an hour or three to write, depending on how newb you are, and maybe an afternoon of fiddling to obfuscate it. A day tops.
Think about what's happening here. You're basically making a program that finds two files, merges them, and uploads them to cloud storage. The only malicious part is that someone might use it on another's computer without permission.
And then you take this borderline malicious program and obfuscate it so that VT definitely doesn't flag it up.
C.
From the letter to drivers, the firm said it got the data because it was representing Uber in some matters:
"In connection with this legal representation, we received data regarding certain drivers on the Uber platform, which included information about you."
We'll add that to the piece.
C.
No, like pretty much everyone we write about, they'll still have PR humans who'll let us know almost immediately if they think we've overstepped the mark.
Not that we can complain much: we pick holes in what they do, PR teams quibble the words we use. Fair's fair. It's a wonderful post-publication dance.
C.
Cos having mysterious 'removed by moderator' messages in place of deleted posts, and with child replies that make no sense without the context, is just a confusing mess all round.
When we remove parts of threads, it's not done lightly. If there's a decent discussion going then we'll leave it there. But if it's just noise on noise, that's going to be tidied out of sight.
C.
The FTC does this every so often, it reminds people that the New Shiny Thing is still subject to today's laws and regulations.
In fact, there's no new regulation or rules here, it's just a reminder from the watchdog. Or a clarification. Depends how you look at it.
C.