Posts by Doctor Syntax 42414 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
So we either have to explicitly tell it what document the answer's in or tag the documents so it can find them and then it tells me what I could find out by reading the document.
I'm not sure this helps look for stuff in a laptop without any fancy accelerators but with a big pile of downloaded historical source document.s Text search and a bit of reading and thinking are going to save the day, as ever.
The offers are coming thick and fast, the urgency likely being driven by the desire to make a sale before there's any real indication about what an AI PC actually is.
... when I rage about it later.
Vendors trying to make an urgent sale? I'm surprised the BOFH would rage about an opportunity like that.
If trading of shares not held by trackers lowers the price sufficiently to take it out of the index then that would no longer apply. If the number of shares held in such funds is enough to prevent that happening then there's something very wrong with the market because it would be unable to make corrections as necessary
The company issuing shares and selling them dilutes the voting rights of the remaining shares. That's why a company raising money this way would tend to do it by a rights issue - unless an individual shareholder turns down the offer they retain the same share of voting rights. If the plan is to sell the shares to another party to buy into the company this should require existing shareholders approval.
Issuing new shares and giving them away dilutes the (other) shareholders' voting rights and their share of the value of the company. It should always have required the approval of the shareholders to do that. Given that the shareholders have effectively diminished their own interests it's strange decision - or did Musk effectively control something approaching the majority of the shares anyway?
"How much time did you spend, dear reader, learning an IT skill that lost its market value sooner and faster than you expected?"
A fair amount here and there. Ditto for skills that paid off. As a freelancer making speculative (to some degree) investments like that is part of the business - not that HMRC understand that.
"Please review this document and highlight any problems"
Does the document have any intrinsic value or does it just exist to be passed round for comment and to give management something to do reading it (or to give its original author something to do writing it).
Quite frankly, we're still not sure what Jedi-mind trick Smith thought he was pulling with that statement.
Why the surprise? Surely you read your own articles as much as I do and even as a non-Microsoft user I've read enough to realise that this is the Microsoft approach to QA. He just let it slip out.
The sequence was probably something like this:
1: Testin/QA miss the occasional corner case that slips out into the wild.
2. Users find the bug with sufficient publicity the Microsoft notice it.
3. Microsoft decides that users are more effective at catching bugs than Testing/QA
4. Microsoft realises that users are actually paying them rather then being paid
5. Microsoft acts accordingly
As we don't know the underlying situation I'd be reluctant to accept some of the assumptions here. As a student the case notes might be part of an exercise taken home to work write up there. Cross cut shreds wouldn't be much use there and suitable shredders aren't going to be part of student digs furnishings. It's the thought that they should be disposed on in this way that's worrying.
TFA did specifically say training was given. Experience is a dear teacher but there are those who will learn at no other. I hope we can take it that this student has finally learned.
"and customers don't take their custom somewhere else"
This is something that the deployers of this crap almost certainly don't measure.
"and soon there'll be nowhere else to go"
This is worrying. However sooner or later somebody might decide that winning the race to the bottom hasn't brought competitive advantage and start a race to the top. Imagine, for instance, how quickly a bank might conquer the banking marke by starting to open branches in towns and villages, staffed by helpful and empowered staff.
"and/or the lack of imagination"
A long time ago, back in the days when S/W was written without the assistance of CoPilot or ever StackOverflow we used to do this thing called error handling. Very old-fashioned, I know, but it involved thinking "what errors might be thrown up by this piece of code hitting a problem". It required using a degree of imagination and then adding code to handle the errors we could imagine happening. Those of us old enough to have done that are actually using that imagination and what we can see are a huge stack of likely bad consequences arising from nobody responsible (responsible? Ha!) for this idea having stopped to do that old-fashioned thing.
Those consequences include all manner of complications relating to legislation such as GDPR and also the neat packaging of all sorts of information for exfiltration by the bad guys.
To put it simply, this has FAIL written all over it.
Yes, I'm a curmudgeon and refute your comparison.
Maybe there is a better solution than Sys V but I found Upstart already a step in the wrong direction because it made a start-up problem impossible to diagnose. Possibly there was somewhere where some debugging could have been inserted but if so it was sufficiently obfuscated that I never found it. Clarity is a virtue to be valued.
With sudo you don't need to give anyone root password because their own password suffices if they're in the sudoers file. That means hat if their password has been obtained by somebody else - possibly because they reused it elsewhere - then there's no additional layer of protection. None. Whatever access they have through sudo is now open to that third person.
The only reason you should have to give out the root password is that you need to give someone access that can only be done by root. The original solution was that if someone's job was printer administration that was done by user lpadmin and they'd su to lpadmin using lpadmin's password, not root's. And you still needed a separate password to become root.
It was a poor solution to an already solved problem.
