Posts by doublelayer 10488 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Feb 2018
This is exactly what I was saying. The benefits to society of the new tech are usually greater than the costs to the person who was automated, so even if society has to fully pay for one of them, it's better to help the workers than artificially keep automatable jobs around. In addition, the automated worker can decide to do something they like to do more, which means even more reason to go with that option.
What I propose is that they switch to a different job that fits their skills or consider getting new skills, both approaches having worked well before. For the intervening time, we have systems to make it easier for them to do those things so they don't suffer while making the change. We already have some methods to encourage people to gain some in-demand skills and for protecting people whose jobs have just been lost, so in most cases, we can rely on those. Depending on the specific situation, we may need to expand one of these.
If you're referring to my last statement, that was only what would happen if we eliminated all unskilled work. I'm not sure that's feasible, but if we somehow managed it, our society would be very different. If we can eliminate the need for all unskilled work, we will also have eliminated a lot of skilled work and a lot of necessities would have decreased in cost. A basic income would, at those costs, be significantly easier to pay. Please don't misunderstand this statement; I am not proposing this for our current world. Only under a relatively utopian circumstance which I've already stated I don't think will happen do I think this solution would be needed.
"If we automate unskilled jobs out of existence, what will unskillable people do?"
That's always been and will always be a problem, but lots of jobs have been automated without causing massive problems and providing benefits to society, including those who had to switch jobs. We should definitely do what we can to ease the process, but it shouldn't stop us from improving our tech. If we truly eliminate all the things that unskilled people can do, we'll have created a drastically different world. In that case, it should be pretty easy to let those people do what they want instead of artificially keeping around jobs for wasting their time.
I thought exactly this when I read the article. Their ranking of how automatable a job could be could well be accurate, and at least a few of their rankings I think are correct, but their suggestion system for changing jobs is completely useless. Not only do they not factor in the economics of whether the not-automated jobs want to hire someone, they put very little effort checking what skills are needed for them.
It is not 57%. It's a scale with the value 0.57 on it. The numbers can be used to compare how automatable the job is, but not to set odds on when, how, or whether the job will be automated. If this makes it easier, I've rescaled their numbers from 1 (unlikely to be automated) to 36 (likely but not guaranteed to be automated). On this basis, system administrators are estimated at 15.
This doesn't mean their calculations are correct, and we can argue about each one if you want, but at least let's argue about the numbers as they were intended.
And those security updates would be? Yes, your app might use dependencies that have fixed security vulnerabilities, but it also might not. If you wrote all your functionality yourself, then there might not be any vulnerabilities you know about. In addition, Apple didn't say they were scanning for library usage and removing apps based on that, so it looks like you could change the version number in your about screen, make a new package, and publish that update to meet this time requirement.
"Instead, companies rely on the government, via mechanisms such as patent and copyright, to prohibit people from doing what they want with their private property."
In this case, that's not what's happening. If we eliminated every copyright and patent that Apple owns today, the problem of repair is exactly the same tomorrow. Apple's serial locking code and whatever keys they use to make it work aren't out there, so it doesn't much matter that it would be illegal to copy them. Eliminating protections on IP doesn't help you when they can get what they want by not releasing information. The only ways you could prevent them from doing it are forbidding it outright, increasing the cost to them so they choose not to do it anymore, or forcibly breaking into their systems, finding the internal code, leaking it, and continuing to do that every time they update it.
That does seem to be the question that resolved it eventually, but not the way I would have asked it. I would have started with "What is 'O' mode?" and, depending on the answer they came up with, I could have been thrown off course. Alternatively, another initial question I am likely to use when getting a report like this is to ask "What does it do when it doesn't work properly?", which could equally have given me a red herring.
You have three options:
1. Print the words in every language your users will need.
2. Make different cases for each market, each with only a few languages printed on it.
3. Use a universal symbol.
Is 3 really so hard? You also have the option of ignoring the symbol and simply understanding that, if the device is not in the on/off state you want, flipping the switch should put it in the other one. If it doesn't, your issue is something other than the switch setting.
Maybe the people being called weren't in the same place and couldn't do a desk visit. As someone who has done that, getting the user to answer questions just by sending emails or even talking on the phone involves a lot of explanations and walking them through steps. That's when you know what they need to do. When you're still trying to work out what the modes they're talking about really are, that requires more debugging work.
An alternative suggestion is that some users really don't like being told to do something to prove a problem exists. I've had people refuse angrily when I say that I can't reproduce their stated behavior on my system, so could they run it again on theirs with the debug logging on and send me the log.
"All of what you wrote indicates a distinct lack of planning."
No, it really doesn't. Take a situation where I am working late at an office on some important project for my employer. The office may not have an available oven, and I'm unlikely to carry a toaster oven with me on the odd chance I choose to use it. The office kitchen won't happen to include all the ingredients for pizza. If I tried to bring all those ingredients with me, some of them would be damaged or spoil. And, if I'm working late at an office, I likely don't have the time to fully make a pizza. Even if I knew all this would happen, there's not a lot I could have done. Most often, when something like this happens, I didn't know I'd have to do that until I was already there, preventing me from planning anything before coming into the office. I could of course run down to a grocer, buy the ingredients, and make a sort of pizza with the office microwave, but it will take longer and produce an inferior result than going to a restaurant and bringing one back.
Your argument works great if you're in your own house or the house of someone who doesn't mind you using their stuff. I'm guessing that, like me, you're in that situation a lot these days. Now that I'm working from home most of the time, I get the chance to cook many of my meals using my own equipment and ingredients, and I enjoy doing so. There are times where you're not at home, and things are different then. On occasion, some of those situations also apply at home. This office example is not the only one where that applies, but as you appear to have an investment in not accepting this, I'm not sure listing others would help.
Laziness, really? Have you never been busy and eaten food cooked by someone else? Never used a restaurant?
Also, have you never used an ingredient and run out of it so you had to buy some more and couldn't make anything requiring it until you did? I tend to buy perishable things in quantities I expect will be fully used to avoid wasting it, which means that there are times where I used more than I predicted and have none left until I go to buy more.
And finally, have you ever been somewhere without a kitchen? Sometimes, when I'm not at home, I failed to take a toaster oven with me. I'm always forgetting it along with my laptop power cable.
"To us, it sounds like the computers in Star Trek, in which you describe an action to take, and the system figures out how to carry it out. It doesn't sound like too much of a stretch."
It does to me, because I've seen what GPT3, supposedly the better of the two and the ultimate in NLP text generators, prints when it doesn't have an answer to copy-paste. If whoever wrote that sentence doesn't know what I'm talking about, they should read the GPT articles in this very journal, because it's been covered a lot of times. GPT3 prints confusing, useless, and contradictory information all the time, and if we anthropomorphize it too much, it makes up junk whenever it doesn't know the answer. Now we expect something built the same way to understand how to interact with software that's designed for human users and probably has no programmatic interface. The best thing we can hope for is that it will at least figure out which keyboard shortcuts Microsoft has changed in Office, which would make it smarter than me, but actually carrying out instructions without flailing around is expecting too much.
I have a better idea: the pizza restaurants can have a web ordering tool that works. When they make it easy to order things quickly, they'll get customers. They don't need to use a massive language processing neural network in order to understand that they should make a pizza that's already on a menu and send it to an address. An address lookup field and optional cache of previously-used addresses and a menu that is easy to navigate costs a lot less. You can also easily modify that to support pick up or order ahead options as supported by the restaurant without having to re-teach the AI that they're available. There does not need to be any guesswork about whether your order worked.
"On the other hand i never understood why undisputed evidence can't be used when it was not obtained strictly following all rules."
It is an attempt to deter people from doing more illegal things. Your suggestion to lock up those who illegally obtained evidence is great, but law enforcement never does that to other members of law enforcement. They especially don't do that to someone who just successfully locked up what law enforcement sees as a "real criminal". Disallowing the evidence is a more successful way to prevent illegal collection under those conditions. Instead of having to wait for the police to arrest themselves, a lawyer can make the case and the judge enact a penalty that, while weaker than what would be optimal, actually has a chance of happening.
There is another reason it's done that way. If the precedent is that violations of the law means your evidence gets thrown out, then many similar things also get covered. Coercive confessions, slightly modified evidence, entrapment, and the like can lead to similar cases, whereas if the judges aren't strict about what you can do, someone will do more and more egregious stuff. This isn't to say that the rulings on unlawfully-obtained evidence have eliminated coerced confessions, but they do, along with rulings where those have happened, provide a stronger framework against them.
If you put thousands of people together in one factory, you aren't going to achieve a viable quarantine. I don't think they're going to get that by making people stay at home either, but at least in that case, the virus has only a few people to infect before it runs out of targets. A factory where people are constantly interacting allows spread with some ease and it will need to frequently exchange people and items with the outside, so there's also plenty of ways for the virus to get into that system. The at-home quarantines are at least plausible, though impractical and unethical. The factory ones are just stupid.
I believe the delivery drivers they're using, as well as many of the people enforcing the restrictions and administering tests, were brought in from other cities. This makes it easier for the government to monitor those people authorized to move in districts that have the strictest lockdowns and to test those people more often. It does not prevent them from adding to the problem, but as Shanghai is larger than a lot of countries, the problem already is in an untenable state and none of the patches the government is going to use will do much.
This is not the first time you've said that, and like that time (and any others I haven't noticed), you're wrong. It loads from my connection, through my VPN, and through a couple endpoints I've tried. Some of the endpoints I've tried are in other countries. Just like last time, people in countries I didn't tried verified that it works for them too. If you're intent on lying, you can lie better. Or you could stop, because it's annoying.
It works like this. I'm going to grant you the right to own a URL on my server. You give me a public key and I'll sign a document in a prearranged form indicating that you own it. If you want to sell it later, you can sign a similar document. Nobody without your private key can sign that, so you're the only person who can sell it unless, as in this case, someone steals a copy of your private key and uses it to sign away your receipts. Meanwhile, anyone can load the URL, anyone can download the file at the other end, and I can shut down the server without you. I might also have signed some chunk of data that I can't take down as easily, but even then, everyone who wants a copy of the data you "own" can get that copy for free. That's how an NFT works.
How much for this bitstream? You will be the official owner of such a nice big number. You can sell it again at any time, assuming you can find someone else stupid enough to think it means something.
It is illegal to steal them*, so whether owning them is illegal or not, the people who have them can be targeted by law enforcement, assuming that law enforcement has run out of important things they're planning to do first. I'm with the original poster: stealing art doesn't make much sense to me, but at least the thief can put it on the wall and look at it or sell it to someone who wants to do that and never tell anyone. You can already do that with the images in these NFTs legally and easily, so stealing is only useful for reselling on the open market, which isn't very easy.
* There are two crimes with which the thieves can be charged. By attacking the users directly, they can be charged with computer intrusion. By taking something, which they have clearly done as the original "owners" can no longer transact with it, ordinary theft charges would also stick.
People have always valued useless things and convinced others to do so as well. It's just that this time, the things have a technical-sounding system. Before, people still valued many things that either didn't exist or held little value. People have repeatedly valued stock in companies because they didn't check what the company was doing or whether it did anything, and while they keep switching which kind of companies they're doing it with, it's been happening since stock markets were a thing. It also has been done with lots of ordinary goods during that time and probably happened before there were stock markets. NFTs don't indicate a loss of intelligence. We've been here before and we will see it again after this wave breaks and leaves a lot of people with useless bits.
I'm not the right person to clear up your confusion, because I not only agree about the complete uselessness of NFTs, but also of most physical collectable things. If you have a baseball card, it's a piece of cardboard with writing on it that I could duplicate with some ease. Somehow the scarcity of cardboard printed by whoever manufactures such things makes them valuable, but I don't get why. At least with art there's a chance that you like how it looks and can't find a reproduction that is as faithful (though that won't last), and the art market doesn't appear to work on the appreciation of the aesthetics for establishing value. I was already confused by people who collected things like that, and when people started collecting things that didn't exist, it did not clear it up.
I don't think it's intelligence, as you don't have to know anything to tell someone what you think with no diplomacy. In fact, intelligence probably makes it easier to determine when diplomacy is most needed and how to encode what you need to say in a diplomatic manner. Honesty is closer, but I think there's another element, namely risk tolerance. I feel more comfortable telling a friend that their idea sounds unworkable because I trust they'll listen and not be offended, whereas if it's a stranger, especially a stranger I need something from, it's harder to be honest when there's a reasonable chance they will react badly to hearing it. This probably also relates to experience--I've said things people didn't like to hear when I was younger, felt the consequences, and became more cautious when thinking such things. I still have such thoughts regularly, but now I don't say them very often.
"The only thing that seems likely to change is that fewer people will be prevented from participating in online discourse because of so-called wrongthink,"
Others can and have argued the accuracy of that statement. There's only one thing I want to say about it. Nobody says "wrongthink". Really nobody. It can't be so-called if nobody calls it so.
The 1984-ishness of it means that, even if someone thinks it exists and wants to talk about it, they'd never use that term. The people who think others are accusing them of it don't use the word; they've made up other words. It's not even the word used for that in 1984 itself. That is thoughtcrime, later updated to crimethink.
"Why would common Wifi/Zigbee/RF devices require gobs of wiring everywhere?"
They won't, but they might also not work. Depending on the area the devices are in, RF communication isn't always a feasible option. This can be the case for many types of environment.
Perhaps the device and the central controller are spaced widely apart if you have a large house. In order for a signal to make it across, you may need to create a mesh network out of the stuff in between. Since that's not going to happen unless you already have the skill to DIY a lot of this, it becomes a problem. Maybe you've got a house that doesn't allow signals to penetrate the walls. Some kinds of buildings really attenuate signals such that even using WiFi through a wall doesn't work consistently.
If you live in a more densely-inhabited area, you may also have interference problems. Every area where people live closely together has a ton of 2.4 GHz networks that are clashing to the extent that 5 GHz or the new band on WiFi 6 that not many people have yet are the only feasible options. IoT gear using WiFi tends to only support 2.4 GHz frequencies using low-powered WiFi chips that already don't have great range. Put them in a place where your neighbor's network is stronger than yours and they're likely to have spotty connection.
There's a reason that a wired connection can often be more reliable. Adding more frequency area can help, but not in all situations.
Some planes have had WiFi for some time. This just switches which satellites eventually connect the service. This has been approved for quite a while. There's also no problem using phones on planes (to the plane, actually getting the phone to do something you want is harder). The only part of their recommendation that makes any sense is asking people to put laptops away on takeoff, as it's more likely you'll drop it or get into a situation where the table causes a problem. When you're in stable flight, it's fine.
Although it's a comedy series, I must repeat this joke from Cabin Pressure that explains the situation:
Carolyn: Finally, please keep your mobile phone switched off for the duration of the flight. Obviously they have no effect whatsoever on our navigational equipment, or we wouldn't let you have them, but they drive me up the wall. Thank you and enjoy your flight.
An app that sneakily records your calls is one problem, but if any app asks you to enable an accessibility service, a four-step process with security warnings, and you don't know why, you should already be worried about it. An app that has that as its purpose is a tool that people understand and may want to use.
I don't see why you don't count Germany; they chose Nazism and were, in many cases, willing to fight for it even after seeing what that party was willing to do to Germany and its neighbors. The Nazis didn't have a 100% approval rating, and that dramatically dropped when citizens realized that war isn't fun, but the regime change had to be imposed by force. Japan was the same. Italy might have an argument for doing it themselves as they eventually deposed Mussolini, but even there it's not clear.
I don't usually support regime change. I don't support it here. Many attempts have been unjust and unsuccessful. However, in many cases, the U.S. is given a lot more credit for changing the regime than they deserve and blamed for problems of that country they had nothing to do with. Your list of a dozen attempted regime changes probably includes ones with less involvement. I can only think of a few active military engagements you could argue had that goal. Many did fail, but the problems that happened there aren't always the fault of the Americans' actions.
I agree that most regime change has been ineffective. However, I must disagree with a lot of what you've said.
"we in the West tend to think of our culture as civilization and imposed it on others where we could but many of those others objected to this. We then reacted by a program of open hostility and subversion with ongoing economic warfare which often broke out as open warfare."
No, that's not what happened. Democracy is not a uniquely western thing. Democracy has been done in various forms in a lot of places, including eastern Asia. I'm not just talking about modern democracies there; I'm talking about areas that have been ruled with the consent of their populations. Of course, if you include most of history, this has been rare compared with the number of military dictators, but this is equally true with Europe. Similarly, the local populations tend not to object to the "imposition" of democracy. The imposition of military control, yes, but not democracy. When the local population has had the power to set their own governments, the dictators have been replaced by democracy. For example, when South Korea's dictator (supported by the U.S.) was removed from office due to public protests and a strong democracy replaced him, the people chose that model and the U.S. continued to support the country. They don't deserve any credit for creating it as they were willing to support a dictator, but neither did they impede it or act to control the resultant democracy, even as it took actions of which the U.S. disapproved.
"People seem to forget that, in 1945, the Red Army reached Berlin before we did."
You say this as if it means the Soviet military was stronger than the others'. Berlin is in the eastern part of Germany. By the time the Soviet troops had entered or taken Berlin, a lot of similarly important cities in western Germany had been taken by British, American, and aligned forces. I don't know what would have happened had an invasion of the USSR been attempted. I do know it would have been very unpleasant for everybody involved. It was a possibility, however.
And as one of those security folks, this is the problem with non-security folks. They assume they're safe because this box they're looking at isn't very important. They don't think about all the methods an attacker would use, including getting a beachhead in something unimportant and infrequently managed so they can attack the network from within. Since you're posting here, I think it's more likely that you really know what you mean when you say the box is on a network that never will be available to the internet, but many people also say that and find that someone did connect a cable, long ago, forgot about it, and someone has found it and used it to install malware or extract data.
I've worked with those people before. One colleague I've had was of the opinion that no security mattered because, as long as it could defeat the average five-year-old (basically as long as there was a password on any administrative or root accounts), we would be fine. His frequent explanation of this was that, as hard as we worked, we would never get a system the Russian government (for some reason, it was always them in the example) couldn't break into. This despite having several networks compromised with malware, including ransomware, during his tenure. When malware is involved, it doesn't matter that your system is more secure than someone's. It doesn't matter that it doesn't contain particularly interesting data compared to others. While being interesting can make you a bigger target, there are enough attackers attacking indiscriminately that you will always be targetable. If you set up a server with SSH access, even if the disks are otherwise blank and the machine has never sent out a packet, bots will find it and attempt to gain access within hours. Lots of other protocols are also attacked in that manner.
The average attacker might not do anything other than encrypt it and drop a ransom note, but someone who wanted to could attach malware to any executable files and hope that you'll eventually execute them. There are also code execution vulnerabilities in SMB1 that could be tried, but it would depend whose implementation and which OS they're using. Everyone has some services that really don't matter if an attacker gets access, but many people have things they think are like that but turn out to be more sensitive. I secure everything I have because I don't want to find out at short notice the problems I didn't anticipate.
At will just means the people can be fired more easily, but it doesn't particularly restrict union activities. Firing people because they've conducted a union-related activity is still not allowed, and they can still be sued for it. The union members still have the power to use the value of their experience and rarity to their advantage, so unless there's a large supply of people willing and able to do the work needed in an Apple store in this area, they have the ability to cause Apple pain. If there are a lot of people who want to work there and don't want to join a union, then they could have more trouble with it as their members are replaced, but that's when a union can attempt to convince non-members that they can benefit by joining. If they can't do that, then they're probably not doing enough for the workers and need to change the plan.
That's from eBay's statement, not the journalist's summary of the situation. They had to cooperate with law enforcement to some extent by that point because not doing so is a crime. We also don't know what, if anything, they did to help law enforcement. My guess is they provided data for which the police had a warrant, which they're required to do. It's like saying I cooperated with the police after they arrested me by not trying to escape the cell I was put in.
A better statement would be that they undertook an investigation of who knew what exactly when, made it public, and informed law enforcement. They haven't done that.
"So how about a way to transfer purchases between platforms?"
That's up to the app developers. Those who planned for this store your purchases in a platform-independent way, which could either mean using an account on their system or with a license key they've given to you. Activating it on a different platform just means using that mechanism to prove you purchased. When a developer doesn't plan for this, it's hardly the fault of the store operator. If the store operators acted to ban the practice, that would be an issue for the regulators, but so far, they have focused on getting a cut instead (a different issue for regulators but not blocking this request).
That's not really unique to Windows, and not Microsoft's fault. Lots of programs only bother to write for one OS and didn't create compatible cross-platform versions. This works for Linux too; I've seen lots of open source software where porting to Windows or Mac OS wasn't in the plans. If you've invested in software, migrating to a system that can't run it is always at least a little painful, regardless of which systems you're using. Fortunately, we have VMs and emulation layers (Wine/Proton, WSL, etc) to try to make that easier.
I don't know where these numbers came from, but they can still be true. The other 97% would just see ads that are poorly directed because the others were targeted. I certainly have gotten this because advertisers don't know what I want to buy, so they throw random things in my path in hopes of finding out. That said, the numbers could also be anecdotal estimates or made up.
Did you miss how it got compared to a different laptop doing the same thing, I.E. also in a VM? It's a test of performance of a demanding task under Linux in a VM under Windows running on the machine, and the Huawei did worse than the Asus. That's a comparison. Why that is is not the reviewer's job to explain, but there are various possible reasons that virtualization might be slower on one machine versus another.
Yes, and a lot of people have learned to use Excel macros and have done a lot with them. Trying to sell them on dumping and reimplementing it all goes down about as well as the people who tell existing projects written in C that they should use a more modern language. Each argument might have some correct aspects, but it both ignores the user's valid points and completely ignores their preferences and the reasons they have for choosing one tool over another.
They don't need to enumerate patches. If you have used Linux, you know that everything gets patched. There's a reason that there's usually something for your package manager to update quite often. This is good, because I want all my machines to have their vulnerabilities fixed. I'm quite happy to see that the code I'm using is being improved actively. However, you cannot deny that patches are needed on Linux just as they are needed on Windows.
"Is it really so difficult to work out that you follow the tutorial for what's in front of you?"
For the average user, yes. I've recently had to tell someone that no, they can't run that application on their Windows computer because that's a Mac application. They'll need to find the Windows version if it exists. Do you really expect that a user like that will understand which package manager they've got?
This also of course assumes that the tutorial does offer a bunch of versions. There's probably only one, and if there are multiple provided, they won't cover things. A knowledgeable person understands that, if they're using Mint, they can probably do most of the stuff that is in the Debian or Ubuntu tutorials, but probably not the OpenSUSE one. They also know how to interpret an error message and can usually take a reasonable guess at what they need to do in order to make a slightly inapplicable command work. Many Linux tutorials are written for that kind of knowledge level, which is just fine for me. There are people for whom it is not fine, so we either have to make it better or patch situations in which an average user will need that kind of thing.
"As other have mentioned though the Pi running Linux is meant as a device for tinkering around with so you kind of expect there to be more teething troubles than connecting a consumer device such as your average desktop PC."
Don't give me that. I'm mostly on the Linux side of this argument, but not when people react like that. If we're to succeed in arguing that Linux is suitable for general use, we can't react every time a bug is found by inventing a reason why it's not a problem there's a bug there. And by the way, I'm not yet convinced this is a software problem (explanation below), but your argument applies whether this is or not, so I'll deal with it first.
The Raspberry Pi is designed for education, has OS integration directly with the hardware, and has a decade of hardware and software experience. It can get away with many problems, but it can't get away with failure to function. I'm not expecting that it will repair itself after you mess around with it, but if it can't power on and use its basic peripherals, that's a critical bug requiring a patch. In my use of the Pi, I haven't encountered many of these and fortunately, the Raspbian developers appear to take my view on it more than yours. If we can confirm that it is a software issue causing this failure, it requires an immediate fix and should not be an accepted "teething trouble".
All that said, I think this might be a hardware issue, specifically an issue with the HDMI ports on the failing Pi. This can be tested; swap the SD cards between the Pis. If the same card is failing, then it's a problem with the system on that card, and a reimage could fix it and is worth a try. If the Pi continues to fail with the card that formerly worked, then it's probably a hardware issue, though you could always try replacing the embedded firmware if it's a Pi 4. The hardware issue could be in the HDMI port or controller, which would exhibit the same behavior no matter what cable or display was used.
"Still no voice dictation. Still no talking to my computer."
I'm confused by this. We have dictation. In my experience, it works rather well when using it to type, though like everything else you have to check it for mistakes it will make eventually. Of course, I know some people who the software seems to hate and frequently misunderstand, but there's a reasonable chance you're not one of them. We have had dictation software for some time now. If you meant conversational dictation where the computer talks back, we don't really have that. The problem with that is that the computer doesn't understand and construct responses, but it can listen and write down what you said just fine.
"One of my greatest bugbears. For all the local power available, Google, apple and amazon* insist on transmitting audio to their servers, where it is not only processed but also harvested and stored**."
I don't know about storage, but most of those places offer offline dictation and have for some time:
Apple: On Mac OS, go to the dictation settings and select the offline option. Download each language file you are interested in. On IOS, it's less clear, but they claim that if you select languages under Settings -> General -> Keyboard, that the processing will be offline. It works when I set my phone to airplane mode.
Google: On Android, go to Settings -> System -> Language and Input -> Google keyboard and select offline languages to download.
Amazon: I don't know about their tablets, but for Alexa devices, you're out of luck.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
