Re: Duh!
True, but what's this got to do with an article about Meta and Zuck?
42030 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
There are strange things around pensions in the higher paid levels of public service. It seems some doctors can be better off retiring early rather than working on. The Treasury and HMRC are responsible for that.
It also works out better, or at least used to, for a police officer to retire rather that die in service. One of our SOCOs died of cancer; they just managed to get the paper work done in time to retire him as it would have been better for the widow's pension. I'm not sure what the outcomes were for the widows of one of our other ex-SOCOs who was murdered, the other murdered officer I knew and all those I didn't know but some of whose cases I worked on.
I don't think AI was involved in the death of Charles de Menezes.
"Or do we have proof that it was Guildford who literally sat at the keyboard instead of doing his job and having subordinates gathering data?"
I don't think anyone believes that to have been the case. His problem was in not ensuring what he said was correct and accepting the blame for that. It's been sadly lacking in public life. I can think of at least one other instance where much more drastic failure didn't lead to resignation; even to eventual promotion.
Given that Microsoft is almost universal on work desktops and that Microsoft are pushing Copilot into all aspects of it as hard as possible it might require a good deal more than a miniscule amount of effort to keep it from being used. Perhaps double up staff with a monitor peering over every user's shoulder to ensure they don't use it, even accidentally.
This is only part of it. He'd retired earlier and been rehired. This seems to have been due to some quirk of the pension scheme that would have made it disadvantageous to keep working but "retirement" sealed that off and he could then have been rehired without disadvantage to himself.
He seems to have had a good record in turning the force's effectiveness round but also had complaints about bullying upheld against him. Things are seldom black and white.
There was a period a few weeks ago where visiting the Guardian with the usual blocking in place caused the browser to crash. If blocking is turned off then we really do have enshittification of the web.
We currently seem to have an arms race between those browser features and addons that attempt to protect the user and web sites, or maybe frameworks, that attempt to overcome that. The user is caught in the middle.
So, to some extent, are developers who need to use the frameworks; even my own instances of Nextcloud can't run with my preferred browser because of what looks like the attitude of PHP developers. I seriously doubt that NC developers wish to restrict access but, quite wisely, they're not going to jump ship because of PHP limitations.
We got rid of that (basically, remote applications by Windows developers) a long time ago and had a time and when sites did a good job across multiple platforms (real developers). We then had sites which were extremely fancy, displayed text in dark grey over black but only worked with very few browsers (graphic designers and beancounters). What we seem to have now is sites that depend heavily on particular frameworks and if the framework developers (I'm looking at you, PHP) can't be arsed to test against a particular browser, check for that and if it isn't on their list of the blessed they just display a message telling the user their browser isn't up to date even when it is.
I don't see much chance of escaping from the present situation. There was a brief golden age and now it's all gone to shit.
Two problems with that.
I can and do, as far as possible, do that but I doubt that being voted against in that way is a metric that the site's owners see and will, therefore, react to. It does not have the desired effect. Example: over the weekend the logo at noai.duckduckgo.com stopped scaling and now fills most of the screen. The non non AI version still scales properly. In this case, there is a substitute, Startpage but I doubt either site will have noticed my switch of allegiance.
The other is that it closes off useful options to which there are few alternatives. Example: I've always used streetmap.co.uk for UK mapping. Unlike many sites which are no more than street maps* it actually fielded OS maps which are much more than street maps although it could zoom in to become a street map.. It seems to have disappeared. I've found another site which also has OS maps but doesn't work in my preferred browser.
* i.e. they show and name the geometry of streets, possibly buildings but nothing else. OpenStreetMap is pretty good but still not a replacement for the OS.
"For this reason, EU would be utterly stupid to invest heavily in FOSS and give the IP away."
They don't need to invest heavily. They need to use it. There's stacks there with the IP already given away - not given away to the US or China but to the world. Only if there are some specific things they need to address would they need to invest - lightly - in developing then, yes, they give away the IP because that's you it works, it's how that bonanza of FOSS exists in the first place.
It may be happening out of sight, but somehow, the UK government seems to be very "compliant" with regards to the US behaviour, although it may say "stuff" to the contrary.
Churchill said you could trust the Americans to do the right thing when they've tried everything else. The same is probably true of the UK government and the time may well be near when that becomes inevitable.
"Abuse of software, whether free (as in beer or unencumbered), paid for, self-written or vibe coded is purely determined by how it is used and by whom."
In terms of abuse by the origin of the software is irrelevance. However as soon as you compare origins of S/W there is a new scope for abuse, that of the user. As we're talking about abuse of S/W depending on its origin which do you think is the relevant type of abuse?
"I have worked for many large companies whose main driver for what software they use is indemnity." Do you get indemnity against force majeure? That would be the defence if you were to claim for data being abstracted on the instructions of the vendor's government or a service being cut off on the same basis? You're not going to gain indemnity against that, you're going to have to avoid it and that's what you achieve with FOSS*.
If you're in a situation where you're in, say, a government department and there is now a strategy of achieving sovereignty over the govt's IT operations what would happen if you say you can't do that because there are no options where you can't get indemnity? You would be told to go away and come back with solutions, not problems or replaced by someone who could.
* If you wanted, given that source code is available, if there's a problem with the FOSS option, you could still find a six-figure executive who would pay a professional developer to fix it for you. You may not have been following things back closely but there are companies who will give you support contracts for FOSS - what you describe is their exact business.
It's also fixable with the clout of buying power combined with a political will or, at the moment, political necessity. All governments have to do to favour FOSS is use it. Many of us do, it really isn't rocket science. If, in using it, they perceive gaps they can offer bounties for fixes.
Governments should be buying PCs with either no OS and installing it themselves or with Linux already loaded. They should also be switching - urgently - to replace any dependency on somebody else's computers run by US corporations because that just exposes them to bullying.
Right now anyone in government in any of the EU countries and the UK is a fool if they're using any such infrastructure to develop and discuss plans for dealing with Trump's Greenland whims. (Sadly there are many such fools around but we can at least hope they've been briefed and will be dragged into compliance.)
That should be a starting point and scarcely less urgent would be to prepare for Trump telling service providers to turn the lights off - they really need to plan for that happening, irrespective of whether a service is rubber-stamped "sovereign" or not. Anyone objecting with the usual "But it doesn't do xyz yadda, yadda yadda" would have to be told to bring solutions, not problems and that if they couldn't they'd be replaced by someone who could. A response of "LibreOffice isn't consistent with Office" etc would need to be corrected "You mean Office isn't consistent with LibreOffice and that's Office's problem".
"Ugly and small start button on the bottom left corner, ugly and small pinned Icons, ugly and huge icons for runnig applications, icons do not resemble Windows in the slightless, bunch of confusing extras in the task bar."
If KDE is an option you could try that. There's a lot of downloadable themes, icon sets etc. for all manner of of Windows UIs.
I'm not sure about that. It affects us all. It's not likely* to be the DC owners who'll be paying. They're just the channel through which the payments run. It'll be their customers' customers: us.
* Except for those who go broke in which case their investors will be paying. That may also be us if part of our pension funds are in there.
"they may not even be paying [extra] for it,"
Oh yes they will.
"I have another 20 years to monetize that customer,"
Assume much?
Just a thought. We keep saying Europe needs its sovereign data centres and the nay-sayers saying it would be impossible to compete with the US incumbents. If they have tied themselves up with the expense of AI it should make it easier to compete simply by just keeping the operation clean. Even better if there's a fire sale of facilities to clear debts.
"It's already being used very successfully for many purposes."
Replacing disempowered, untrained staff in many customer disservice centres with equally useless but cheaper website chat apps.
Cobbling up justifications to ban fans atending football matches by hallucinating incidents that didn't happen.
Inventing case citations in court pleadings.