Re: The Yellow Advertiser
Multi-tasking would be a good thing.
40558 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Great zoological name.
In no time at all, however, some lumper* will come along and insist it's part of some other genus.
*The group taxonimsts is divided into two subgroups, lumpers and splitters who respectively lump multiple genera, families etc. into fewer, larger ones and split general, families etc into multiple smaller ones. This taxonomy of taxonomists is meta-taxonomy.
Having failed to find any appropriate options on the website you try phoning only to be told by recorded message, after finding no useful options on the ACD, that it might be quicker to go to the website.
I can only assume that every CEO has a nephew who's good at games on a console and therefore knows so much about computers that they can be put in charge of the company's entire IT operation.
"Scams represent a huge barrier to successful cryptocurrency adoption"
I'm sure there are a few people out there who think the complete opposite.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are people sufficiently astute to amass large wodges of cash who are then insufficiently astute to fail to spot these scams.
Probably true in terms of intention but not very well implementd. A competent psyops job would have completely squashed conspiracy theories by undermining them rather than just trying to contradict them. Just launch counter conspiracies that the original conspiracy theory was the work of deep state/Zionists/Islamists/white supremacists/whatever else triggers the group being aimed at.
Because it's a matter of managing probabilities. Vaccination very substantially reduces the probability of catching a serious infection. It does not eliminate it. This is true of all the measures, all the social distancing, all the mask wearing, all the closure of premises. The lot.
My daughter, double vaccinated, still got an infection from her son, at that stage under the vaccination age here. It wasn't as bad as it might have been and will undoubtedly have increased her future immunity. She has still had a booster. Why? Because there's a new, more readily spread variant going about, resisting which needs all the strength the immune system can muster. And because, like me and SWMBO she's a bilogist, in her case a neuroscientist now working in clinical trials AND SHE UNDERSTANDS THIS STUFF.
"Having a coherent national cyber strategy will be essential if UK wants to be recognised as a science and tech superpower for scientific research, innovation, and leading edge in critical areas such as artificial intelligence."
Having some achievements might do that but the usual tub-thumping strategies never seem to produce those.
OK, I get that. What they seem to be doing is cleaning up real world logs to present their system's best guess of what the logs should look like to train another system to spot discrepancies in real world logs.
What could possibly go wrong?
Scenario 1: Say they get 90% of the input doing one thing, 5% doing something else and 5 off 1% doing individual other things. They decide that the 90% is what's right, clean up the remaining 10% to look similar and train the second system on those. The second system gets more examples of the 5% & starts flagging them as errors. In fact that was a legitimate outcome but because the imputation system fudged the data the second system was mistrained. Note that in order to do its thing the imputation system must have noted these variations and could usefully have flagged these as something to be reviewed by an actual real live expert.
Scenario 2: Same sort of results but all the discrepancies are simply failures in the logging system. The second system starts throwing errors looking at real world data because the logging system is making similar errors. The logging system is not fit for purpose and no amount of cleaning of the training data is going to fix it.
The application area seems to be logistics. Any time I've been on the (non-)receiving end of a logistics error it's been fairly clear to me that something hasn't been scanned in or out when expected. What's missing is Real Intelligence when designing and implementing the system to raise and alarm in real time when the expected has failed to happen. No amount of Artificial Intelligence applied after the event is going to fix the problems in anything like an effective manner.
It's still no clearer exactly what they're doing because it's just a pile of jargon. It's the "recurrent event imputation" that concerns me. The nearest I can make of it is "There's usually an event of type X here but there isn't in this case so let's add one." Possibly it means something different and got lost in translation from the Korean.
I think a phone is more likely to be lost and picked up or stolen than the phone company being socially engineered unless the victim is being specifically targeted.
I really don't like the idea of a phone being used as personal ID irrespective of whether it's via mobile number or IP address - there seems to be too much opportunity for stuff to go wrong. Even something simple such as a flat battery at an inopportune moment could stuff up your urgent 2FA driven transaction.
Whenever your device's IP address changes, it sends a message to each of your friends saying, "Hey, my IP address has changed.
Depending on the rate at which IP addresses change the whole thing falls apart as such messages cross each other in the net.
You cease to become you if you lose your devicephone and somebody else becomes you if the phone gets stolen.
If they rely on DECT phones then the phone will fail. That's why it pays to have a POTS phone in the circuit. If they have, then all they have to do is pick up the handset & they'll hear the dial-tone. Using a mobile in an extended power cut - assuming the base stations are working - is likely to mean starting the car to recharge it.
Does that Act move the task of actually doing the work from the manufacturers' employees to the FAA? Does it fund the FAA sufficiently to enable it to have the appropriately qualified staff to do that work? Protecting whistle-blowers is solving the wrong problem. The right problem would be ensuring that they're not needed.
"It would probably be good to make sure the non-managers responsible for anything safety-related have a good handle of statistics."
It would also be good to make them personally legally responsible. The American way seems to be that the company can buy its way out with the addition of paying someone rather handsomly to be one scapegoat and throwing the other under a bus.
"Corporations have a budget and are willing to spend, but it takes too much time,...Finding projects that need help and maintainers willing to help in exchange for money is hard."
No harder than finding the projects they want to use. Check which projects you use. Find the maintainers from GitHub or wherever the project lives. Offer them money.
"But sure, businesses don't put enough back into the open source that they rely on."
In this case, a feature added for big business according to TFA, perhaps one of those businesses should have written and tested it themselves and then submitted it to the maintainers for incorporation.