Re: Loaded words replaced by euphemisms
Devoid space. Although that sounds depressing.
1043 posts • joined 9 Jan 2012
Was contacted by a Facebook Reality Labs (Oculus Research) person more than a year ago asking if I'd be interested in an opening they had. Said I didn't want to sully my reputation being associated with Facebook. If the employees really don't like the company's policies they should vote with their feet an go work for companies they are proud to be associated with.
Seriously? When I have to generate software that requires builds for both Windows and Mac, my code is littered with compiler metastatements all over the place. Anything that has to deal with the System Registry has to have Mac specific code to achieve some form of equivalent functionality. (And, no I'm not talking parameter storage which can obviously be handled by a common configuration file architecture.) Just about any Networking that isn't trivial requires API calls, etc. Yes, I do like maintaining one "code base", but even that statement is as much semantics as reality.
I downloaded the paper and I didn't see any info on the precision of the calculation.
So I wrote a little program in the oldest least maintained compiler I have access to, (PB which hasn't had a compiler update in a decade or so & only generates 32-bit executables). My version dimensions the three matrices 4096-by-4096 matrices, initializes the A & B with data of the appropriate precision (so they are not full of just a bunch of zeros), then times how long it takes to matrix multiply A & B and assign the result to C using FOR loops as they do in the paper (as opposed to PB's built in matrix operators). I wrote it as a single thread 32-bit application. I redid it with the matrices & math at single, double & extended precision. Ran it on a 7 year old laptop that sports an i7-3632QM @2.20GHz. Windows 10 Pro, 64-bit 1909 (18363 build).
Matrices declared as Single Precision: 732.2969 seconds ( = 12.2 minutes)
Matrices declared as Double Precision: 871.9297 seconds ( = 14.5 minutes )
Matrices declared as Extended Precision: 1076.062 seconds ( = 17.9 minutes)
The PB compiler does all floating point calcs in extended precision (10 bytes), so one would not expect huge speed differences between calculations where the matrices are declared as single (4 bytes), double (8 bytes) or extended (10 bytes) matrices, as the work difference is mostly all the type conversion overhead.
But it once again underscores that Python & Java suck at numerical calculations.
My company uses Teams, Skype and Webex due to the fact that we've made a boatload of acquisitions around the world in the last couple of years and the acquisitions, while almost entirely on Teams now, occasionally need to fall back on one of the others. My far flung extended family uses Zoom because it's free. I have to say I have not seen anything in it that makes it superior in any way compared to the others except it does a lousy job with time zone adjustments (or specifying the time zone) in invite emails, causing endless confusion. I think it's taken off mainly because Mac users seem to think it's the only thing out there and they can use it for free. Ironically, in my extended family, the most problems with Zoom have been with the Mac users. It appears Firefox for Mac doesn't play well with Zoom. It took weeks to convince some familial Mac users to just launch the stand alone Zoom app and type in the meeting number & password rather than click the meeting URL in their AOL account in Firefox (Yes, AOL. Like most Mac users, "tech savvy" they ain't).
I've noticed a trend of film and TV appealing to younger audiences by making the younger person's decision be right,
The Resident is a perfect example. The least educated, least experienced and youngest level of MD magically out diagnoses everyone else, who are always wrong.
"Whatever you do, don't try sealing ducts with duc[k,t] tape!"
Yup. It will peel itself off over time. The warmer the duct gets, the faster. My brother in-law once tried to tape insulation over ductwork with duck tape (cloth, not the real thing) from Home Depot and within a month or so it had all fallen off. Then he talked to someone who actually knew what they were doing, used the aluminum foil tape made for ductwork, and (miracle!) it worked. And is still working years later.
Yea, "...Downloadable written articles in the field of technology, business and digital transformation", caught my eye. Pretty much covers every academic article ever published in those fields, even ones originally published before the Internet that have since been scanned by their respective journals & put online.
I worked at a Silicon Valley startup in the 1990's where we had a small pass-through government R&D subcontract from a huge multi-billion dollar government contractor where the government contractor didn't have a single employee with expertise in our technology area. They had zero IP rights to any of our work under the terms of the contract. Yet a huge photo (with our logo photoshopped out) of one of our devices under test taken in our lab graced the cover of their annual shareholder report as an example of their cutting edge technology.
Who constitutes an inventor isn't "who worked on it" nor "who implemented the idea". In the US it was supposed to be limited only to "who came up with the idea in complete form first". Very few companies really limit the listed inventors to that, and the "complete form" is critical. If all you had was a vague idea, you are SOL.
Since 2013, the US changed it's patent law to match the rest of the world. Now, it's only "who filed first". So now, if you tell me your idea and I rush to file a patent & get my application to the patent office first, I get the patent. You can have a video of yourself telling me of your idea, and it's worthless to you.
Some of these fly-by-night patent companies that milk backyard "inventors" still tell their
marks customers that the US is first to invent, but if that just shows how shady some of them are.
“This is a really good idea and something we have on our list to consider.”
This implies that the idea already existed within Apple prior to Mr. Eastman's email to Mr. Cue.
But the idea had been around long before Apple got into the phone business, so the bigger question is how Apple got a patent on it in the first place. Computrace, Homing Pigeon and Blue Bite, for example, were software that all existed in the 1990's for doing exactly this with laptops. Extending it to handheld computers like phones was obvious. Blue Bite even offered a full service laptop recovery service, as it was founded by former RCMP computer crime folks who even in the 90's knew the ins & outs of both IT and police departments.
Business process patents are even worse. Thank God Halliburton filed a patent application for the business process of patent trolling & then abandoned it, just so no one else could patent it. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20080270152.pdf
If you reside at any major University pretty much anywhere in the US, the University handed it all over to Gmail to run for them "for free" years ago. That's how the US government ended up going after people like Prof Xi Xiaoxing. Most involved believe the government was scanning University email en mass (via Gmail) and simply didn't understand what they were seeing.
Facebook can collect by having a US court order any funds destined to or from NSO be seized that come under the control of any bank that does business in the US. It's exactly the same lever the US uses to enforce sanctions against foreign regimes even by, say, Chinese banks. The bank can comply or find it cannot do business with petty much any other bank in the world.
"NSO's technology exists. I have seen no evidence to suggest it is unique."
Agreed, but irrelevant. As are the motives of Facebook. The real legal issues are (1) does NSO violate US Law, and (2) if so, whether NSO can use a defense that is denied to hackers (e.g. Marcus Hutchins) charged with violating US Law when they create & sell tools to others who commit crimes (under US Law) with those tools.
NSO is the desperate one. Should the court rule in Facebook's favor, NSO could quickly find it can't deal with any banks & it's people can't travel outside of Israel, except direct flights to authoritarian regimes. It's hard to see how it can get out of this scott free given how US Law treats "willful blindness" which is the foundation of most of it's arguments, although it's far from certain Facebook will get what it wants either. Should the court rule in NSO's favor, it gives free license for Facebook and anyone else to target NSO software for exploitation that NSO cleared the way for.
If the bean counter bought a resistor with a lower power rating than the one on the BOM, then they didn't do their job properly. If the component on the BOM had a lower power rating than was proper for the circuit to have proper margins, then that is an Engineering screw up.
Anyone who knows how to write a technical document correctly knows you either expand every acronym the first time it is used, or you have an acronym table in the document. Anything less is incompetent technical writing. The goal in any type of professional writing is to be as unambiguous as possible so the document can be read & understood years later without the reader needing to know what fad long past you were were talking about. This is true for papers (I bounce a lot for this first round when I referee journal articles), technical documents (we send back before signoff a lot of new hires writing because they never learned to write properly in college), and news articles (if they have competent copy editors).
Your comment makes me wonder if you know how to write properly commented code...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020