Posts by Jimmy2Cows 2566 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Feb 2015
Don't forget this one... MS desperately needing to get a commercial return on AI investments, so forcing Even More CoPilot down everyone's throat, additional subscription requirements, ever more ingenius ways to make it reallly hard to opt out of subscription services.
Yeah, even if 99% of people didn't use cash 99% of the time, I expect the majority of them would want to be able to use cash as a fallback when (not if) some tech in the payment chain fails. As it does from time to time even under benign conditions.
Not sure what you're smoking, but there's no resistance here to taking stuff down. There is, however, resistance to having "IMMEDIATELY" applied in a legal context. Context where large companies will get away with skirting the boundaries, but a small outfit will be hauled over the coals if they're a nanosecond too slow.
Define the term. Is it the very instant an infringing post goes up? 5 minutes after posting? 10 minutes? 20? Careful now, because only the first one qualifies as "immediate" by every accepted definition of the word.
48 hours is far too long for a global org, but 5 minutes is far too short for a one-man-band forum that possibly falls under OSA scope because they don't properly define "small".
Nice idea in principle, but the sort of people that post these things aren't known for having filters, impulse control, or thinking it through.
Certainly fine the hell out of them, but it won't stop other stupid people doing what stupid people do.
Funny, I find most devs I've ever worked with way smarter than any LLM.
If you need an LLM help you code, how can you know how "smart" it is? And therein's part of the problem. LLMs aren't "smart" at all. They're probablistic character generators that sometimes get it right-enough to just about function, and at other times get it wildly wrong.
I appreciate it's bad form to reply to my own post, but it reminded me of a local problem.
Our council is putting in cycle routes everywhere, in the vain hope that more people will cycle instead of drive. Never mind the myriad reasons why this won't work, but here's the kicker...
They have cut down all the large, long-established trees along the route to do it. Dozens of trees, gone.
Hardly a good look for what is ostensibly about reducing pollution.
Meanwhile traffic has been heavily disrupted all around the area, causing vastly increased congestion and the associated pollution that goes with it. Excess wear on the surrounding roads. How much additional pollution has this exercise generated, that will never be negated by these cycle routes once they eventually finish them? Never mind reversing the pollution, which the trees would have helped with. All this extra pollution won't even be offset.
Again, bad optics for what they say is the goal.
They're doing it all over the city and these routes have maybe one or two cyclists per hour at best, in the summer. Rest of the year it's maybe a handul of people per day. In winter, forget it. Millions of taxpayer pounds wasted.
The best, cheapest, and fastest way to carbon capture is trees.
Plant. A lot. More. Trees.
Grow, manage, harvest, repeat. Pretty simple.
That's it. Also gives us a useable byproduct for construction. But that's a practical and pragmatic solution that doesn't create any climate-emergency fear factor.
All these technological solutions are scientifically interesting a great for our overall knowledge advancement, but they are all dancing at the edges and cannot make any realistic dent.
Liquid form could be piped/transported away to some centralised processing facility to bulk-recover and recycle the CO2. Solid form seems to imply recovery in-place is needed, which seems way, way less efficient.
Or is solid form more effective at capture? I guess the aforementioned functionalised beads could be a decent middle ground. Still transportable.
Most are, at least among those I've ever met or worked with. We don't set out to make bloated shite. What we need is to be given time to actually do it, rather than ridiculous deadlines to get shit out the door as fast as possible. Misunderstandings about "agile" and desperation to be first out the door with something shiny all work against doing a properly good job.
Except they (DCs) need all that juicy power now not in 10+ years it takes build one nuclear power plant, never mind a fleet. Which means gas and coal are king for the foreseeable future.
Funny how there's funding, incentives, tax breaks etc. and all the environmental concerns are overlooked when a DC wants power, but when the plebs need it just to keep the lights on and be able cook, clean, shower, heat their homes, charge their EVs when they want to (not when the power company says they can a.k.a "load shifting") there's no money available and the government torpedoes any suggestion of building more gas and coal power stations to meet the basic needs of the population.
Surely it's about where you draw the line.
Using it for training LLMs might be considered fair use, because the LLM owner isn't publishing anything, and at that point is't getting any commercial gain from what's been ingested. The training period is a money pit, not a profit generator.
I'd say that argument totally evaporates once the owner starts selling access to the LLM. At that point, anything it spits out that comprises copyrighted material is clearly happening for financial gain, and they should be smacked down hard for it, like anyone else would be.
I'm complaining about people who are too lazy to work, have never worked, made lift choices that put themselves in their situation, yet expect taxpayer handouts.
Don't really care about the super-rich since they tend to not be the ones claiming benefits.
Make it simple. You want benefits, do some work first. Don't just drop out of school and expect the state to cover your arse.
If the benefits bill is genuinely unsustainable, as we're being told it is by all sides, tie entitlement to how long a person has worked. Things can't continue as they are.
Absolutely go after them too, but remember that wealthy individuals usually already pay a huge amount of tax. Do you think going after the ones who don't will really move the needle much?
Besides this isn't a debate about whether people who live off trust funds are worthless layabouts (arguably some are, some are not, I don't know any so can't assess either way). This is a debate about bringing down the benefits bill for the taxpayer. Maligning people who don't claim benefits is irrelevant.
How about, instead of attacking the genuinely disabled and making their lives even harder than they are already, how about they go after the much larger component of welfare which is all the people who've never worked because they know they can get benefits for doing bugger all. That'll save many 10s of billions overnight, but the government is too spineless to make it happen.
Such benefits should be a privilege for those who've paid into the system, to support them if things go wrong.
Never worked and not disabled? No benefits for you.
Made poor life choices and now you can't get a job you want? Tough shit. You were warned about your poor life choices at school. If you went. If you didn't, well, there you are with another poor life choice that the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for.
Don't want to a job that's "beneath you" like care? Too bad. Care sector is crying out for workers and they'll provide all the training needed. You basically just need to turn up (yes ok and pass the background checks, which might be hard for some, but again... poor life choices). My wife spent years working as a carer so I know how tough it can be, but it's still work. They should pay better, because it is really a profession that needs skills (interpersonal, understanding of regs, safety, first aid etc.). Not an unskilled profession at all.
Does seem quite a stretch to believe he has detailed technical knowledge of the kind that would somehow get Intel up to TSMC standards.
It's also not a stretch to believe that as a counsel to chaiman / CEO on corporate strategy matters, he might need to know what various R&D teams are up to and thereby understand how their efforts could feed into those strategic choices. Saying "he wasn't a tech guy so had no reason to talk to anyone in R&D" is naive at best, deliberate misdirection and falsehood at worst.
The lawsuit isn't objecting to the tool itself. It's not complaining about valid uses of ALPR.
It is objecting to the more than 200,000 warrentless searches of the database behind that tool. Without access safegaurds, it's ripe for misuse and abuse like searches for personal reasons, stalking, political or racially biased fishing trips.
"Microsoft today announced that they've stopped work on Windows 11 version 26H1 because they watched the news and just didn't see any point in continuing."
And that is worse how? Even if the world ends, at least we won't have an even shitter version of Windows forced on us.
Grok seems a tad combative.
But Grok is as entitled to its opinion as you or I.
Assuming it can give the same opinion to the same query in two different prompt sessions, that is. If not, it doesn't have an "opinion" and is just making stuff up on the spot, based on internet statistics for gluing various words together in some context.
Isn't that hideously disruptive and expensive?
Usually best to build the infrastructure for district heating, then build the district on top of it.
This is just green-washed virtue signalling, trying to appear to be doing something for the "greater good", while really they'll brown-out the locals when grid demand gets too high.
Bingo.
We can barely generate enough power to keep the lights on, certainly not enough to for everyone to have an electric car and an electric heat pump, and charge/use them when they like. Hence brain-farts like requiring EVs to support battery-to-grid, and paying people to delay their normal routines until off-peak times, for when the grid can't keep up.
Yet somehow they can find another 97MW for a data centre, in a population- and infrastructure-dense part of the country that will make building the thing way more complex and slower than necessary. And this is just one DC, with several more in the pipe.
That's alright, they don't need any more time off. They're clearly not "working people" under the government's own salary-based definition of what a working person is, which means they must already have plenty of time off.
Wonder if Reeves has twigged yet that she's just described herself, the PM, the entire government, all MPs in fact, as a bunch of non-working freeloaders. As own-goals go, it's pretty spectacular.
Neither is a plane crash, yet we still use air travel and statistically it's a very safe way to travel. Of course air travel has lots of regulations that (in theory, looking at you Boeing) make it this safe.
It's all just a risk/benefit analysis. Ultra-high-speed rail would need similar safety precautions to minimise risk. Whether or not that happens is a different question.
Came here to say eaxctly the same thing. Suspect Masimo's patent is one of those "on a mobile device" derivations that no sane patent office would actually grant, and that Masimo made the mistake of making the claim too specific - i.e. just on the wearable - rather than keeping it to the vague "on a mobile device" that somehow seems to qualify mundane shit as patent-worthy unique invention.
Thus allowing Apple to do an obvious workaround to a dumb patent that should never have been granted in the first place.
Might want to tone down the hyperbole. Exactly how much nuclear material do you expect will be there? The moon is huge (compared to a reactor), and still orbiting just fine, still tugging our tides just fine, despite billions of years getting repreatedly whacked by meteors that would make an exploding nuclear reactor seem like a firecracker.
[Icon for what won't happen. And even if it did, it won't cause the problem you feverishly imagine.]
In that case, why don't they build a fucking API for it? Improving productivity can't be that important to them if they can't or won't do what's been possible for the last 40+ years.
Far more cost-effective and reliable than a $500/month/user AI.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2026
