Re: Could they pick a better example than Firefox?
I'm not sure how much notice it takes of those settings. I just tried changing the search engine order - including trying commenting out the lot in hope it would stop it - with no effect at all.
42400 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Not to any great extent. It appears from the article that they looked at the versions of Firefox from Mint were visiting Yahoo. That means that the options were limited to browsers. It raises the question of whether Yahoo constitutes a representative sample of Mint users.
I avoid the mental strength to tackle Firfox updates by seldom using Firefox because of their interface; I only use it when I start to wonder how Firefox handles some problem site - or the problem site simply refuses to work without some named browser (not a good sign anyway).
I mostly use Seamonkey, which has relatively few updates and did roll back their latest version almost immediately as it had knackered the address groups interface.
"Given that sentences are only counted in days, how exactly does recalculating them multiple times per day help?"
It doesn't. All it means is that either (a) they run batch processes a couple of times a day (that counts as multiple) to process any changes that might have come in since the last batch or (b) they they process changes as they come in and there are normally two or more per day. Either way they're recalculating several times a day even if they're not recalculating them all. Presentation is everything.
Either that or they get a different answer every time they run the program.
"That's how black and white politics has become"
Are you allowed to say that?
In reality what's at the root of this issue goes back some way beyond Trump. Society is going through one of its puritan phases. It happens.
Reactions happen too. At some point everyone will start pointing and laughing at the PC/Woke mob.
"why is HMRC so keen on wiping out the individual independent consultants?"
Because their tax system is modelled on their world, a world of what the Japanese call the salaryman. It's a system devised by salaried employees for salaried employees. The notion that anyone would work - and prefer to work - on their own as a business, accepting the risks of trading as a business other than buying and selling things is beyond their comprehension. They can probably grasp that the solo plumber or sparky etc. who comes to fix things for them at home is doing that, otherwise they'd have to accept all the complications of being employers themselves but that's an exception.
Years ago the IR as they then were, predecessors of HMRC, obviously decided that they weren't going to let that game be played on them and inserted a "key man" clause in a standard contract for provision of services (note the plural - a contract of service, singular, is an employment contract, for services in the plural is a commercial B2B contract). This allowed them to specify that the supplier could not substitute part of the team without agreement from themselves as client. A sample contract was posted on their site. Under IR35, of course, such a clause is deemed to make the contract one of service. Somewhere along the line that standard contract get quietly removed from the site.
"And if Rupert's girlfriend had been willing to wait for a month for the next container ship to dock at Felixstowe"
The whole promotion of this sort of thing is based on scarcity. If you let slip an indication that they're common as muck nobody wants one. The choice of being willing to wait for the next container to arrive to buy one doesn't exist. Either they're rare and therefore wanted RIGHT NOW!!!! or there are plenty here or on the way in which case nobody cares.
"It's not really about the links, but about the rich snippet that gets displayed alongside it on FB/Google News."
They have a trade-off. They can simply forbid indexing, then nothing gets seen. Obviously they reckon they have more to lose that way. Cake and eat it comes to mind.
I started reading your post thinking you were describing newspaper owners in general and Murdoch in particular. Although in general I'm not a fan of Facebook or Zuckerberg I think the greater threat comes form monopoly control of newspapers. The more important aspect of this row, however, isn't about monopolies, it's about the attempt to undermine the principle on which the web works: it links material together so if you put something out there expect it to be linked to. If you don't want links to it don't put it there. It's as simple as that. If you don't want it indexed there's a mechanism to prevent that, robots.txt, If people are copying and pasting material that is a different matter but AIUI it's about links and, frankly, if you don't want to have stuff linked to, don't put it there in the first place.
"30,000 installs out of how many millions?"
I don't know but from the Red Canary article; "According to data provided by Malwarebytes, Silver Sparrow had infected 29,139 macOS endpoints" so the answer is however millions are running Malwarebytes AV on Macs which is presumably just a subset of the overall millions of Macs.
"I cannot second that with enough vigor."
Seconded. We lost my wife's brother last summer and, things being what they are, there was no way we could go over to NI for the funeral.
I'd ignored a couple but after a bit of a scare in the autumn got a check which fortunately was -ve. Won't ignore the next.
AIUI - and I'm no Facebook fan either - the own goal is the govts. in failing to work out how to specify what it means by a news site. It's not an unusual situation - user fails to define requirements clearly.
Also not an unusual situation - govt. wants X and passes legislation that they think will result in that. The targets of that legislation who do not want X react in entirely predictable ways to avoid X and all that's left is the downside.
"Other way round, the asked those with generators to switch over and those without to shut down."
To be fair the quote in the article was a bit obscure: "Those of our customers who have backup generation, we curtailed them." Just what does "curtailed" mean? In the context it seems to have meant that they excused them from a cut but without taking context into account it reads as if they were given short shrift.
"The same address box that's sending every keystroke to Google?"
You let it do that, do you? What browser are you using? That can have an effect.
Seamonkey - can choose search engine or turn it off completely.
Waterfox - can choose search engine but don't see a quick way to turn it off completely even when a separate search engine is set. Can be set to forget history
Palemoon - similar to Waterfox
Firefox - As per Waterfox & but all sorts of Pocket stuff as well
If you remember, there was a similar argument about Google News in Spain, where Google said "fuck you" and shut down Google News entirely in Spain.
Didn't this also happen in Germany & that didn't go well for the German publishers? Maybe it depends on national characteristics - amount of information in the snippets on the publisher's side and willingness to click through by the users.
Reactions such as Intel's are for too common. Courts should react by reopening the cases, demand an explanation and, if not satisfied, double the award and add a matching fine for contempt of court. Repeat as needed if they still complain until either they're bankrupt or somebody catches on to the consequences of repeated doubling.
"Yes they do, and it's a _vicarious_ liability (which means they're liable even if they weren't aware of it)
Don't forward it to the nurseries"
The nurseries are the people to forward it to in the first instance, pointing out that they're using a product which opens them up to GDPR complaints from the parents. If they don't react then forward it to the parents. The probably non-technical but responsible nurseries will realise their problem and tackle it at stage one. It's the ones who don't who deserve a GDPR case against them at stage 2.
I wonder what they'd do if someone took "legacy non-functional codes" [sic] that were "there to distract hackers" literally and twiddled a few of these non-functional codes to not change the user IDs and passwords - which they obviously can't change if they're non-functional. At a guess scream that they've been hacked.
Anything - absolutely anything - to avoid doing the right thing:. going to the staff who actually do the work and talking to them. Why should any MBA expect staff on such lowly pay-grades to know how the business really works?
The usual process is to get a consultant to do that; he will charge a fee large enough to make the whole thing reassuringly expensive. Now, of course, it's got to be the fad de jour, AI.
"Hopefully these antics may be raising a few eyebrows in government as well."
What part of government?
Companies House is the regulator as far as company matters goes. It's an agency, i.e. a body enabling HMG to stay at arm's length. I'm not sure they have the right to take an interest until there's a complaint made to them about the board.
But who authorises Nominet to run the registry? Does govt grant them this? If so do they come under Ofcom for regulatory purposes?
Are they authorised by ICANN? If so then it sounds like a case of birds of a feather. Even if that's the case there should still be a case for making them answerable to Ofcom. They're just too significant a part of infrastructure to be left alone.