Re: Offer it at a loss
Of course, this being Google there's a risk that after you start paying for it it'll be withdrawn soon anyway.
1807 posts • joined 22 Dec 2014
Can confirm. Landed in some place I was told was Australia but after several hours driving through a large zoo called The Outback I saw only their kangaroos, wallabies and goats*. Left again entirely alive, unpoisoned by spiders or snakes, and not eaten by crocodiles or the mythical koala.
I even saw what was described as 'the sea' and survived the alleged jellyfish, sharks and colourful octopuses.
The only place I've seen wild crocodile is Panama. Which came as a surprise..
*and lizards and a gorgeous four foot lace monitor and emus and various other avian life forms and some weird beings that called themselves Australians.
On the flipside, my energy costs are quadrupling in a year, fuel for my car is 50% higher and my pay rise was less than 5%.
I can't afford to pay BT enough to give their staff a pay rise twice as high, and don't want to, and think it'll cause an inflationary spiral that'll destroy my meagre savings and leave the whole economy devastated.
Anybody whose mortgage has gone up by £150/m from just the tiny interest rate rises we've had this year has a £250k mortgage, so I'm really not sure that's going to be a problem for BT's lowest wage staff.
The inflation is due to the Government spending half a trillion on the Pandemic, along with short term energy issues. Giving people more money isn't going to fix any of that.
At the time many people pointed out its overly broad applicability, which the Government assured us would not be the case.
As just one example, see the comments by Mr Cohen and the false assurances provided by Charles Clarke in Parliament: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2000-07-26/debates/02d133e1-f824-4a39-8e1b-7d295414ebad/RegulationOfInvestigatoryPowersBill
A script that tracks your mouse as it moves across the web page provides information that helps site creators understand how you view, interact with and use that page.
That information can be used to improve the readability and usability of the page, so that more profit can be made. I mean, so that the user experience can be improved.
You can't do that server-side.
That's changed then. India developers used to be great at churning out code but being good at their job means going beyond the basic spec and doing a professional job.
You don't tell your plumber to leave no leaks when installing your bathroom, so why would you need to tell your developers not to leave gaping security holes and inevitable service failures when developing code?
Professional software engineers don't write to the spec. Don't tell me that someone that only does that is as good at the job as the people that do the job properly.
Well, your cost of living is substantially lower too. I have to pay more than the cited annual Nigerian salary just on housing costs, energy costs and broadband each year, because that's how expensive stuff is here. I knew a few Infosec people that hated working on-site in the UK because they couldn't afford the multiple staff members their households in India enjoyed, and the other costs were compromising their ability to invest in their property portfolios.
You may be doing the same work but that's why you're an option. Your lower salary if why you get the work, not us.
But that was obvious back in the late 90s, which is one reason I made career choices that moved me into roles that don't get outsourced.
To host a server on my own I'd be paying higher business broadband costs alone than the entire annual cost of a resilient cloud based set up.
So the cloud is cheaper - for my use case.
It's more expensive for others. It's also not a company based calculation, as even for large corporations, some systems suit cloud deployment and others on-premise. Which is why hybrid is so popular.
Reducing cloud to cost is of course also ignoring all of the other opportunities and risks involved, but even cost needs proper analysis.
Under an hour? To be able to continue a journey in a serious fire hazard that weighs too much and damages the road and its tyres as a result?
Hydrogen keeps you moving, and causes less pollution, and doesn't need more electricity than the current national supply, and lets us use so-called 'green' energy when the supply exceeds demand, and lets us more easily transport solar energy from sunny regions.
Electric cars do not scale to the whole population. Anybody promoting them is either ignorant or actively seeking to curtail freedom of movement. We don't all live in a city centre with our jobs next door and easy access to a range of cultural and entertainment options.
Normally Google roll over and comply with unreasonable authoritarian governments - e.g. removing mentions of Tiananmen Square from Chinese search results, or suppressing videos highlighting Hunter Biden's laptop.
Nice to see them refusing to give in for once, although perhaps this merely reflects their continued support for US Government policy.
Her name is Badenoch.
I've seen nothing saying she's anti-ECHR. Braverman was the candidate that said she'd withdraw from that, Badenoch (and the others) have not.
I'm also confused that you think she's anti-Green, although if you mean the Green Party then as a member of a different Party I think that's understandable.
What I'm most bewildered by though is why you think Sunak is credible. He's a high tax socialist with the fiscal control of a Labour chancellor, being supported by people that still want to overturn the democratic will of the people of the UK.
However you're criticising Badenoch for being pro-Brexit, and at the same time recommending electoral fraud to achieve the outcome you want. Sorry but we left the EU and we aren't going to adopt their corrupt manipulation of democracy.
All of which is off topic, but since you made an unwarranted unsubstantiated personal attack it felt appropriate to provide a different viewpoint.
The people telling the former software engineer that she doesn't understand the bill, while continually breaching what would be the very provision she's pointing out is horrific...
Oh, and I haven't gone onto Twitter to check but I suspect many people have pointed Damian Collins at Sections 12 and 13 of his own bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137
It absolutely demands the removal of legal speech.
May 16th was when he highlighted the need to validate the public information Twitter provided, as it was not holding up to scrutiny. That wasn't 'trying to back out', that was 'hang on, those SEC filings have no supporting data'.
The 7 days to which you refer is the time it took to respond to a request for the rate limit to be removed. After those seven days completed there were still rate limits in force.
Those rate limits mean that using the API to properly validate the number of 'bot accounts' would take an "unreasonable time", which is where that phrase comes into play.
The position is thus that Musk inquired about information given to the SEC that materially impacts company value, Twitter were unable to demonstrate that this information could be relied on, and told Musk he could try and validate himself - then failed to give him the tools that would let him.
So no, to answer your question, I'm sure he does not imagine that a judge 'would buy' that seven days was unreasonable, because that's not what he's saying.
Yeah, they'll be able to pursue their Europhile agenda without having to disguise it from the elected Government they've so intent on subverting.
Case in point: The Home Office staff plotting in public to derail the provision of security and safety to refugees in Rwanda.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
The de-identified data is very much subject to section 171 of the DPA 2018 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/171?view=plain
So the Trusts would have to approve any reversal of the de-identification for it to be legal, which then brings into question their lawful reasons for permitting that.
I find on-the-ear headphone crush my ear against the arms of my spectacles, so over-the-ear is much more comfortable.
Although for work I do just use an Anker S3 speakerphonethingy - does the job beautifully, although not an option unless you're willing to share your calls with everybody in the room.
re: "states rights behind the decision to uphold bans on abortion, states rights ignored over firearms legislation" it's almost as though the US Constitution mentions one of those things and not the other.
How dare the US Supreme Court uphold the US Constitution.
re: "The data grab is illegal under existing data protection law and the UK and EU countries should be doing everything in their power to stop it."
This I do agree with, but good luck holding the current UK Government to account :(
Clarification: The US Supreme Court did not remove any rights. It clarified them, based on an improved reading of the law.
The US Constitution supports States choosing their own laws, and that's exactly what the Supreme Court has said should happen. Instead of boycotting the US, you should research the law in the individual State(s) to which you might travel.
Also avoid Ireland, who ban abortion outright.
Is France on your 'do not travel' list too?
Just that.. France has stricter abortion laws than 90% of US States.
Also, Ireland, Malta.. I could continue.
I'm pro-abortion and even I find some of the demands in the US unsettling. Abortion until the day of birth, for instance..
If the people running the NHS dealt with the absenteeism, the bureaucracy and the incompetence then there wouldn't be 'shortfalls' in the NHS.
Look how easily the army organised and established testing once it was taken off the incapable NHS.
I support nationalised healthcare, but I don't support nurses prioritising tiktok video recording over patient care. Meanwhile NHS funding does keep going up, and up, and up, and.. wait, where exactly are the GPs?
£2 each? PCR tests were nearer £200 each.
100 million tests? They handed out over 1.7 billion 'rapid' tests.
You don't need a very high cost-per-test (which has to include distribution costs) for 1.7bn tests to start eating into £37bn.
It's ok, I entirely accept that there was terrible waste during the pandemic period. The furlough scheme (and its associated fraud), the economic damage caused by unnecessary lockdowns, the selfish behaviour of the public sector, the horrifically bad modelling by SAGE causing poor decisions and unnecessary costs.
I just get fed up with people bleating on about £37bn without acknowledging where the bulk of that money actually went.
I'm fascinated that every time someone uses the term 'the Tories' it's part of some unsubstantiated fearmongering.
In this instance, 'dismantle the NHS'.
I seem to recall NHS funding growing significantly over the past few years, with no cuts in budget at any point. That's a curious way to dismantle something.
The Conservative Party manifesto thoroughly supports the NHS.
The actions of the current Government have been to throw vast sums of money at the NHS.
There's an entirely new tax (the NI uplift) that's explicitly to fund the NHS.
Meanwhile, the one clear shift towards privatisation of the NHS - the disastrous PFI initiative - was heavily embraced by the last Labour Government.
Still, it could be worse. We could live in Scotland.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022