Re: time travel
AMD also just changed their part numbers. Intel built a 2.6 GHz chip, AMD built a 2 GHz chip and named it “AMS 2600”.
2106 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Oct 2014
I think the proposed pay package was about 50 times higher than that of Tim Cook, who has during his career increased the market capps of Apple by about 3 trillion dollars. So I think we can say with rather good conscience that Elon Musk wasn't anywhere near worth the sucggested pay package.
Getting it right is easy. Figuring out what you need to get right is hard. Someone reported their software calculated “average revenue for the last 5 years” and failed on Feb 29th in leap years because “5 years before today” didn’t exist.
Now imagine they wanted “average revenue for the last four years”. The difference is that the date “four years before today” will always exist until Feb 29th 2104. That’s the first time when “for years before a leap year” is not a leap year.
The 25 microseconds is the precision with which we can determine “highest position of sun above Greenwich”. In that time the Earth at Greenwich moves about 1cm below the sun. What actually is measured is the position of some quasars in the middle of the night.
Earth rotation speed is off by 0 to 4 or do milliseconds every day; that determines how the difference between UTC and UT1 changes. That can be 100 times more in a day. Plus the 25 microseconds are not cumulative. They don’t add up. Every day we get the exact UT1 date with an error of +/- 25 microseconds.
So if you really want Earth rotation as the basis, ut1 gives you that within 25 microseconds, UTC is off up to 0.9 seconds.
Removing leap seconds is actually reasonable.
There are two reasonable time systems: Solar time where the sun is at its highest above Greenwich exactly at noon every single day. Which can be measured within 25 microseconds. And atomic time, where each second lasts exactly one SI second, within a few nanoseconds every year. Currently 37 seconds ahead of solar time.
UTC is a perversion that tries to match up atomic time and solar time. Every time atomic time goes too far ahead of solar time they insert a leap seconds. So you get a mix of solar time before the decimal point and atomic time to the right of the decimal point. With solar time you get the time within 25 microseconds without problems. Atomic time gives you the time within nanoseconds. With UTC getting the time within a second is hard.
That was interesting. Stupid worked. Clever worked. The halfwits in between failed. In 2100 the halfwits will be fine, only stupid will fail.
And my prediction is we will get rid of utc. Only solar time to keep things working, and atomic time with 37 seconds offset for precision. Posix time will be solar time.
There are some more differences: One is hardware compression. If you run out of memory, memory first gets compressed with basically zero cost. That lets you work without swapping to disk until you use much more than the available RAM. Say 10 instead of 8 GB. This also makes swapping a bit faster, because you write and read caressed data.
Then the fact that you are swapping to a very fast SSD so a few GB swspping doesn’t slow you down. And last because the processors are fast you can be much more aggressive removing say decompressed images.
My iPhone battery is easily replaceable. I take the phone to the nearest Apple Store, pay my money, and get my phone back with a new battery. And a good chance the old one doesn’t end up in the landfill.
If you meant “user replaceable”: That has several problems. First it means “user damageable”. Second it means huge problems keeping the phone waterproof. Third huge risk of users buying Chinese rubbish (note that China builds both very fine 4TB SSD drives and fake “4TB” drives with a 64 Mbyte chip inside, and I expect the same for batteries). Next, a user replaceable battery needs more free space around it and therefore has less capacity. Fifth, all friends and relatives will come and ask _me_ to replace their iPhone batteries. Thanks, but no thanks.
If Apple said “We did the maths. Making PWAs working securely with all browsers will cost us X dollars and doesn’t benefit Apple in any way. Stopping PWAs from working completely will annoy some customers, who may stop buying iPhones in the future, costing as Y dollar. Making PWAs work with Safari only is no effort but will get us a Z dollar fine.
We pick the choice with the smallest number. No PWAs for anyone.
There must be something in this EU ruling that says exactly what phones it applies to. Could be phones sold in the eu. Could be phones used in the eu so the GPS check would be correct. Could be phones owned by eu residents. Could be phones using a EU App Store. There could be a switch in Settings that must be set on phones sold in the eu and can be changed by the user.
And I would assume that all changes are made in the exact same circumstances.
The required change is equal playing field for all browsers.
These apps worked with safari and were secure. Part of the security came from apple controlling safari so they know it doesn’t anything dodgy. Any other browser, apple would obviously not be secure.
So apple has two choices: move security from browser to api which is difficult and costly. Or stop the api. Apple did the latter. Fully compliant and in the spirit of the judgement. Inconvenient for users.
Only if you suspect the hardware.
I worked at a place where one day every wax in panic because continuous builds didn’t build. It took two hours trying to get it working until someone decided to go to the server room.
They found a window broken open, and no server.
“Big IR35 fail” - wouldn’t that affect both the company and the contractor? In one case the client pays salary minus taxes minus ni to the contractors company, and tax plus twice the ni to the inland revenue. So whatever the contractor would have received is income minus tax minus ni, so the real salary was much higher and the company needs to pay it?
“ Careful with that, UK law considers passwords to be the same as physical keys, so they remain the property of your employer. What you are suggesting can land you in the dock for extortion.”
There is the sad, sad story of Nissan motors, Uzi Nissan, and the lawyers.
Uzi Nissan had a small computer shop and registered www.nissan.com. A year later Nissan motors figured out the wanted that url. I would have offered mr Nissan a free Nissan car every four years for the rest of his life. Nissan motors called their lawyers instead.
They f***** it up so much that Mr. Nissan couldn’t use his own URL, Nissan motors couldn’t, and they managed to make it impossible for Mr Nissan to ever sell the URL to Nissan motors. Right now, www.nissan.com is dead.
(Apple was in the same situation once where some small shop had registered a URL that Apple would have lied, totally innocent. Apple sent a cheque for $25,000 and paid all the cost for a new URL and making all IT changes needed. $25,000 unexpected profit for the shop, and much cheaper than getting any lawyers. Or apple had a very good lawyer who charged them one hour for advice and they just followed it).
Now this company needs good lawyers. Not aggressive lawyers who want to bury the opponent, but good lawyers who will find the best way to get the password.
One of my better mishaps was a paper map showing me clearly that i should turn to the left, but I couldn’t see any road there! Got out of the car, looked around, and figured out I was on an overpass, lots of trees on both sides so you didn’t notice, and the road turning to the left was 10 meters below me :-)
Is there actually any evidence of black German soldiers in 1943? Considering that all black people in Germany had their citizenship removed systematically since 1933, and there were not that many black people in the first place?
If you asked for “British voter 1780”, there are zero women and as far as I know exactly one black man. So what kind of drawing do you expect? There were maybe one million voters of which one was black.
That was not AI, that was just facial recognition. And with photography based facial recognition it’s a fact that black faces have less contrast and are harder to recognise. Of course it is embarrassing if you demonstrate your facial recognition to the public and it not only doesn’t recognise black faces, it doesn’t even recognise the presence of the face.
Apples faceID doesn’t use photography but analyses the surface of a face. So it has no problem with dark (low contrast) faces or with makeup / camouflage/ warpaint that makes a face unrecognisable to a human.
"I can't believe they took this case to court instead of just paying the $1000 or so difference, esp. considering their pathetic justification that the chatbot was its own entity. What idiots."
The people asking for money fall into three categories: Idiots who are just trying it on, people you damaged and that you legally have to compensate, and people that you damaged but for some reason you don't have to compensate them. Appearing in small claims court sorts out the first category. And that is important, because if you pay them, there will be more and more appearing. The other two categories, you just pay because that is cheaper than a defense with a real lawyer, and it's the right thing to do. You might actually turn them back into happy customers.
I think in your example there would be no legally binding contract formed. But if I took a taxi to the airport to get my first one-dollar flight and get turned down, they might very well be liable for the cost of the taxi both ways.
But not if I tried it again, because I now would know there is no contract.
No contract was created. Their website provided misinformation which led to damages, and they are responsible for the damages. If you approach a bridge in your car, and ask me if the bridge is safe, and I lie to you and your car ends up in the water, I’m responsible for the damages. I didn’t enter a contract to make the bridge safe.
I don’t think it has anything to do with LLMs making promises. It’s all about what appeared on their website. How it got there (as long as the company is responsible and not done hackers) doesn’t matter.
And I don’t think anything was “legally binding”. They just had to pay for damages that their website caused. So they had to pay for giving the wrong information.
I cannot see that at all. An uncle giving a nephew a chance to stop whatever he was doing and do an honest job instead, that’s highly commendable. It’s not as if the nephew was taking anyone’s job away. And then, companies hire people, and sometimes these people are idiots, including idiots committing idiotic crimes.
The weak-minded nephew is gone, most likely for some jail time because the uncles protection would have instantly ended, the receiver was a drugs dealer and not some corporate spy, so little harm done. The owner of the other company will most likely feel sorry for the uncle.