Re: those beans don't count
The original manglers had probably been reorganised elsewhere and a new lot reorganised in with different criteria and no knowledge that they had a customer complaints problem. That's the way it works there.
40557 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Some FOSS organisations do monetise support. But that was only one half of the OP. The other was support being a cost for closed source. It's not if they monetise support. That's why as a system manager I had support contracts with HP & Informix and why, when I was freelance at some of my clients had support contracts with their vendors.
TFA says "low temperature" with the implication that 30 Celsius is low. It's probably not as low as the wild-type bacteria were experiencing. Something doesn't quite hang together here. Were they planning to extract the enzyme to use on its own from the bacteria and discovered that it doesn't work as well as it does in vivo? I can see the attraction of using purified enzyme: it will leave the product of the breakdown to become a potentially useful industrial substrate instead of letting the bacteria respire it all the way to CO2.
But why AI? What's wrong with the traditional approach of seeding a substrate with a weak suspension, incubating and selecting the colonies that grow best? Not eye-catching enough?
"Actually my reply would be a) and yes, it does raise the question of who they [criminals] are.
See my previous post about terminology and the way it can lead you away from clear thinking. You're in danger of equating "suspect" or "defendant" with "culprit".
In my post above i said "undisputed" evidence as i do perfectly understand that evidence should not be considered if there is reasonable cause to think it was made up or tampered with or even a coerced "confession".
If there is other, undisputed, evidence then that should surely be allowed to stand and there can be a conviction.
OTOH if evidence is improperly obtained than what it tells you should be regarded as suspect. It could, for instance, be missing context. Lets say $ProminentPerson has been killed by shooting. Someone trawls through some sort of harvested social media posts and comes up with somebody saying "I once tried to shoot $ProminentPerson but missed out. I'll try again sometime." Does missing context make a difference?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What if the context was that of photographers trying to grab pictures of celebrities?
There have been a number of cases where evidence from mobiles has been presented out of context and the case overturned when the defence finally got there hands on the complete data.
"Suspect = as yet unpunished perpetrator"
Yup, that's one that really gets my goat. "Culprit" is the word for whoever dunnit. Sloppy use of language leads to sloppy thinking - or perhaps is the consequence of it. I'm not sure it was used as much back then. Perhaps it's become more common as a result of more sloppily thought out TV crime series. Or sloppy thinking journalists.
"I do not understand why a criminal should get an out of jail free card when an investigator doesn't follow the rules."
Let's take that apart. What do you mean by "criminal"?
(a) Somebody who's committed a crime or
(b) Somebody who's been convicted of committing a crime?
If you reply (a) this raises the question of how do you know who they are? Because they've been convicted? So really your only option is (b) unless, of course, it was yourself, then you'd know for certain.
Having established that, let's say you're going about your innocent way (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) when some investigator who can't be arsed with following the rules thinks you might have committed the crime he's investigating and manufactures some evidence against you.
You're duly convicted and, by the standards I hope we've agreed on, you're a (b); a criminal. You know you're innocent but we all have to call you a criminal because you've been convicted.
You appeal about the investigator having made up evidence and your appeal is upheld. What happens to you?
Your statement which I quoted seems to disassociate "criminal" from investigator not following the rules. By that thinking you're still a criminal because you were convicted so you don't get a get out of jail free card.
Do you now see why the strict rules of evidence aren't to protect criminals, they're to protect the innocent.
I should point out that for a considerable chunk of my working life my job was, essentially, one of the investigators. My ongoing dread was the risk of finding myself part of a miscarriage of justice if I were not ultra careful.
It seems to be a viewpoint the courts never consider when a big "content provider" sues someone for "stealing" their valuable IP.
Citation needed. Are there any precedents for treating this as theft? Just because it's loosely bandied about as theft in media or on forums that doesn't mean it's the word that appears in the pleadings.
TFA specifically say 2023 but I did wonder if the actual words were "next year". That would just be an acceleration of "in the next ten years" or "in the next five years". It's always ten years, or five years, every year.
If they're going to achieve anything their employee churn is going to have to be less than Infosys's.
It might be better from a management point of view (IT and dealing with the "why can't I get a new one now" issue) to replace the lot at one go. We don't, of course, know how old the existing batch of PCs is nor the spread of ages.
Thinking about the OP it seems as if the boss might be prepared to go out & out Mac on the desks. If I were the A/C, however, instead of just putting W10 on the laptop I'd have tried a dual boot, W10 & Linux, so that the boss could compare W10, Linux & Mac as desktops.
"every software tool and API in the world."
That's a problem, right there. It will spend all its time training as the rest of the software world adds new tools & APIs and makes breaking changes to existing ones.
"carry out someone's commands on its own initiative"
I'm not sure "someone's commands" and "its own initiative" aren't two separate and conflicting things.
I see it listed by synaptic which at first sight looks odd as this is Devuan but, of course, Devuan falls back to Debian (11 in this case) repositories for what it doesn't maintain itself. So although you might not be running you would be able to see it listed there.
"the team doesn't really know what it is analyzing when it makes its predictions."
This is a big problem and common to so much of this ML stuff. It would probably be more useful in the long run to understand exactly what the significant features are in biological terms. That way there might be scope for preventative measure.
It's not helped by the fact that the fact that the sample is small.
And it will still deliver ads for the wrong thing:
1. Pick out some key word and throw up anything that has the same word in the description (example, try searching for a DPDT toggle switch and count the hits that are SPDT,DPST, centre-off, i.e. triple throw or not toggle swtiches).
2. People who bought this also bought...something completely irrelevant; it was a small sample but we don't care.
Are bugs in the contract code even the main problem? The Beanstalk heist, for instance, was accomplished by gaming the system. If the code is bug-free but the system can be subverted simply by throwing a large amount of virtual money at it by way of a flash loan then the system has no security.
It's not just a matter of doing things right, you also have to do the right things.
"is the amount of effort that goes into creating a new language significantly less than working out how to overcome the shortcoming in the original language?"
The same applies to the effort of everyone else in learning the new language.
"More than 300 programming languages have existed at one time or another. Hare aims to serve as an alternative to C"
Sometimes it seems that there have been more than 300 programming languages just in the "alternative to C" category or even in the "alternative to alternative to C" category.
Oh, look! Another!
"there are no serious regulatory hurdles to overcome"
Given Musk's previous history with US financial regulators over his use of Twitter I can't imagine them being enthused by this. Whether they have cause to act, other than take a long time to review it, I don't know. Apart from that, non-US countries are increasingly reacting to the behaviour of multinational online businesses, e.g.the EU's Digital Services Act. I think a good few of them are going to want to take an interest.