Posts by doublelayer 10496 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Feb 2018
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.
Any job has the opportunity to impair the security or existence of your employer. If you don't work in security, but you have access to the corporate office and/or network, you could do damage. You could also do damage by either failing to do your job competently or deliberately doing it to sabotage your employer. I don't think that's a good argument for requiring a license, as if you do so, the result will be the same: your employer will fire you and consider suing you for the damage caused.
There have been efforts to license nearly every profession in existence. Would you favor mandatory licenses for IT workers, support staff, programmers, or whatever job you have? Are there any jobs you wouldn't want to use that on?
That's already a crime. Pentesting without permission is no different from regular crimes, just as if I broke into your house without permission, whether I meant to take your stuff or demonstrate that your lock isn't good makes no difference. You don't need a law to eliminate that defense; it's invalid and thoroughly rejected.
The theory is that, when you drop from five to four days, two things happen. First, workers get more rest and are therefore more alert and productive when they're working. Second, because there's less time to waste, the people who make long, unnecessary meetings see those meetings take up even more of a limited resource and trim them back. If you actually got both those to happen, I wouldn't be surprised if you saw productivity increase. However, everyone understands how meetings can impair productivity* and we still have a lot of them, so I am not as confident that the second one will happen.
*Yes, the organizers of meetings do understand that meetings can be a problem. It's just that the meetings they personally decided to organize are critical ones that can't be moved. They're perfectly willing to ascribe the problems to other people's meetings.
It can still be. It just means a different structure--if something breaks and you need to fix it now, for an hourly worker this may be an unpleasant task whose rewards will be delivered in cash, whereas for a salary worker it's just unpleasant. That is if you have a job that sticks to a normal level of effort when there isn't a crisis. There are many jobs like that, so it's not automatically a problem. The problem comes when a job decides not to go that way and assumes that workers on a salary can be abused for as much effort as can be burned out of them. That happens and a lot more often than it should, but it's not universal.
"In this day and age of computers for calculating wages and taxes, it really shouldn't be an issue."
That's not the only issue. Sure, the people who make the software that does that charge a lot for multiple countries and businesses don't really want to pay if they don't have to, but they also have additional regulatory requirements that get in the way. If you only employ people in one country, even if they're citizens of another, then you have to be familiar with and follow the one country's labor laws. If you employ people in multiple countries, then you have to deal with regulations in all of them, which undoubtedly includes additional paperwork and probably includes situations where some employees get one situation and some get a different one even though they work on the same things and close together geographically. Everything from worker's insurance to vacation policies has some legal restriction, and that's a lot of overhead. This is easier for countries that already employ people in that country, but for smaller places that don't, it's not work they're likely to want.
Separate volume, lots of people do that. Noexec, not as many people as you'd hope. Although in this case, /tmp is just a convenient place to store things because a lot of these things are embedded devices with little storage but /tmp in RAM. If a target wasn't allowing the chmod from there, the attacker could find somewhere else to put their binary as long as there was some writable storage. That binary could be a very small one that loaded instructions from another file in /tmp that wasn't executed.
The chance of doing it wrong by yourself is always there, but that's what the guides are there for. If you don't have confidence that you can do it properly, I'm sure you can find someone who will do it for you so long as you pay them (of course they may also fail). Google wouldn't mind if you failed and bought another one, but when they weren't providing parts, the result was the same. At least now, a lot of people who would try DIY repair will succeed. I think your second argument is incorrect.
Your first is probably correct, but I'm good with that. If they want to attract attention by doing the right thing in a way that actually works for me and all the others who want to repair, then I like that approach. It's much better than pretending to be interested while taking no real action. It's also better than hiring lobbyists to try to kill legislation. Basically, Google saw that people might require them to do it, so they found a way they could do it that worked for them. Unless something turns up that hampers the plan, this looks like a positive to me.
At least with their names, after a bit of study I can understand them. Intel used to be similar, but starting with the 10th generation, someone there decided to put all model numbers through a blender before releasing them such that there's letters in the middle, they are different ones, and I no longer see a pattern. AMD has a few issues like that as well (processors end with a letter but unlike what Intel used to do, that doesn't mean that they have the same TDP). Still, I have to give the advantage to AMD for having model numbers that I can probably guess what kind of performance and power situation they're for.
I think the term millionaire makes a lot of comparisons difficult due to its history. When it was first used, a million currency units was such a large quantity of money that was unimaginable for most people in the general public. Nowadays, with the last century of inflation, that's not the case, but yet we still use the word. Take this guy as an example. I don't know how much wealth he has, but if he has €1M including property, it's less than it sounds. The median wealth in France is estimated at $134k (€123k), with the mean at $300k. A million still makes someone wealthy, but it's not the kind of carefree can-buy-anything wealth that used to be the meaning of millionaire.
This issue is stronger when other currencies are used. I'm not just talking about places like Japan (¥1M = €7393). Even when the currencies are the same scale, the values can be very different. Someone who has a million euros has 9% more than someone with a million U.S. dollars and 46% more than someone with a million Australian dollars. I'm afraid nothing short of complete devaluation will remove the word from general use, but I think we often give it a connotation that's above what it really means. This doesn't make it wrong to use it. Pointing out that a politician has eight times the median wealth is still a useful argument. I just think that more numerical representation might be clearer.
"who else would really have even thought about charging for this?"
I have a set of tiers. If you're a close friend or family member, I'll do it for free at two in the morning if it's urgent. I'll ask you if it's urgent first or if we could wait for the morning, but if for some reason it is, that's fine. These are the people that, if I have something urgent, I expect would act to help me even if it would be inconvenient.
If you're a less close friend, then I'll do it for free when it's convenient. They can bring over the machine and we'll have a crack at it. I'll not guarantee success, but I will try my hardest to do it for them. Once again, this is a friend with whom I have a real friendship, meaning we frequently do things because we like each other, not someone who mostly talks to me when they've got a task they want done.
If you are, as it sounds in this case, a person I've never met before, then maybe not. I have been asked to do free work by various people, often people who don't know me very well. It's often someone who doesn't understand the scale of what they want. Among the requests I've received are "Could you just write a quick phone app for me", "I just want my website to look different and you write programs, so you should be able to design a better one", and "Could you come fix my business's technology, because we stopped having any IT support eighteen months ago and the accumulated breakage is starting to be noticed". I could spend a lot of my time fulfilling these requests, but I don't want to. I have the abilities and my employer pays me to use them. People I don't know should be aware of this, and I first inform them of the time and effort it would cost me to do what they've asked.
This doesn't mean I'll charge unreasonably. Nor did this guy do so; £50 is relatively small and significantly less than the quote from a company. That the action was necessary because someone died doesn't much matter. He wasn't asking to recover something of sentimental value. He was asking for a business file that someone hadn't backed up. We don't even know how close the people were.
That's not always a problem. If the functions are designed properly, it still provides a system that's easier to update or modify. For the same reason that people write scripts that call system binaries instead of taking all the code for them and building a program with all of that included, there's a case for implementing a few basic functions and having a chain of calls in main.
If they're just doing it because they were told about the benefits of functions without understanding why, then I get your point. If they really did implement self-contained operations and then had a basic function to call each one, then I'm not sure it's an issue.
You can't count on a guaranteed job in any case, but in the situation described, it seems that the terms in the contract for termination weren't even followed. If you have contracted long enough that they give you a two-year contract, there's likely some restriction on how a termination might go (E.G. how long you get a notice or any early termination payments). Most long-term contracts don't allow the employer to terminate at will. Unless the person describing this situation was lying or failing to understand the contracts, the company did fail to meet those obligations.
In that specific case, you can see why someone wouldn't want to go back and would blacklist the company. If they don't follow the terms related to termination, it's easy for them to fail to follow other terms as well, such as the requirement to pay the contractor. Their violation of the contract is already a legal issue, but even if it doesn't seem worth it to bring a case, that's not a good sign for future connections. Therefore, in a case like this, I don't agree that people treated in this way should refrain from blacklisting or even suing those companies.
On one point, we absolutely agree though: "whatever you do don't build financial expectations on it without a fall-back fund". This is important for everyone, not just contractors. Even employees who have more employment rights can end up in a situation where they get fired at short notice without any more payments, and it's a situation where savings may be needed to cushion the consequences. Contractors are more likely to have that happen, but anyone can. After the economic chaos caused by the pandemic, I think a lot of people have learned this. Unfortunately, many learned firsthand by having it happen to them.
I think the suggestion was to sell only the information needed to find it. A directory path that, on the company's own systems, leads to what they could have found wouldn't be proprietary because it wouldn't work anywhere else.
That said, I wouldn't recommend doing it. From the sound of it, by that point they thought there was a chance of getting paid to work on the code again, and haggling over existing work wouldn't be likely to earn their approval. Even without that, I wouldn't pay someone for telling me where to find their docs when I could just search more to find them.
Most embedded devices run older versions of software. It took forever for XP to stop being used in such things. When they use Android, it's always something like Android 8.1 if they're modern. When they use Linux, prepare to see a 4 at the beginning of the version (if you're lucky). As such, using Windows 10 is entirely in character for this area. Probably, Microsoft would have liked to use whatever Windows 11 variant they have planned for this level but realized that they needed to use something established if they wanted any OEMs to use it.
I admit I didn't watch the video, but that would make the drone's travel less efficient. I assumed they would return to recharge and the products would be loaded as they did so, but if they have to land somewhere, recharge, fly to the pickup location, then fly to the customer, they will have to fly even longer distances to make a single delivery. This may be the only functional way to perform the small deliveries, but it won't scale as well as delivering to a launch location and only flying from there.
"As for snow, it doesn't really matter in the big picture, most big urban centers never experience 2 inches of snow (and snow is getting less and less common anyway)."
I'm assuming you live in a place that doesn't? A lot of cities do get snow. If your climate is a continental one, common in North America, eastern Europe, or Asia, you probably get snow during the winter. Unless the city is very good at clearing it from everywhere, there will be occasional places where it impedes travel. As the climate warms, we won't see snow vanishing. Temperatures aren't soaring, they're gradually sliding upward. In fact, some places may get additional snowfall as precipitation patterns change. There are large parts of the planet that won't have to deal with this, but just because you live in one doesn't make the issue disappear.
"Could this, in fact, be less polluting than road delivery?"
At this stage, I think the answer is no. There are several variables that go into the calculation, and I don't have numbers for each one, but here are the things that would contribute to the determination.
The drones here use batteries and presumably recharge from the grid. That's an advantage over trucks that burn fuel to move. That advantages the drones, but you still have to include the pollution used to generate the power to recharge them. It's likely less as grid power is more efficient than internal combustion engines. However, a vehicle can carry a lot of things on one trip, meaning that a car's emissions can be divided by the number of deliveries it makes in one go while the drone's emissions only cover one delivery. For each delivery they make, there's also the emissions of returning to the recharge point.
Another issue is the material cost of the drones. I'm guessing they don't last that long, especially the batteries (it's almost certainly lithium ion batteries and they'll be heavily stressed to keep a drone in frequent operation). Cars tend to last a while before large parts go to scrap.
Finally, there's the part of the operation before the drone gets involved. I don't know how their system works, but I doubt they have a drone launching facility at each location from which they ship. That means the items have to go to that place first, which probably still involves a car. Depending on how they do this, that could remove a lot of the environmental benefit they still had.
Many of those outposts don't have any people on them, as France enjoyed collecting islands that aren't really suitable for people to live on. One of their territories often doesn't count as land as it's underwater at high tide, but it gives them a massive patch of the Indian ocean that they can claim to own.
Some of the ones with people won't have a problem because the small populations mean that a small amount of connectivity goes a long way. For example, Réunion is one of the most connected parts of France despite its remoteness because the existing fiber connections cover the local area well already. French Polynesia isn't as advanced, but they've already completed the project of connecting fiber lines to each of the smaller islands (the big ones already have links). Each of the small islands is small enough that they don't need a lot of connections in order to have satisfactory bandwidth. Many other overseas French territories are in the Caribbean, where there are a lot of islands that are building networks.
This isn't to say that satellite is never needed, but just that remoteness doesn't always mean it is relevant.
That's for Mac OS two versions old. If we consider Big Sur, there are machines stuck with it that are only six years old. Let's consider the MacBook Pro 13-inch from 2014 (discontinued May 2015, so a little under seven years ago). It has a Haswell-series CPU. Now let's consider the MacBook Air that was released in 2020 (the last with an Intel processor). It's a newer chip. Memory-wise, they have the same amount. Storage-wise, the disk interfaces are the same speed and the disk capacity is the same. Processing-wise, the chip has the same number of cores and they benchmark similarly (the single-threaded benchmark is almost exactly equal, whereas the Air gets a slightly higher multithreaded score). True, the older machine does that with a 28W processor and the newer with a 9W one, but that only affects the battery life. In short, there's no technical problem with the older one's performance that prevents it from running the newer OS.
That's not the newest machine that's getting cut off. I used that one to have a valid comparison (had I used the 15-inch laptop that uses a 47W quad-core chip, I could have given you even better proof about the performance issue). The latest machine not to get the update is the MacBook Retina from 2015 (discontinued April 2016), narrowly beating out an iMac. This means that they're only keeping support up for six years before they allow security vulnerabilities to remain deliberately unpatched.
Contrary to your claims, it isn't just now that you would expect someone to use a computer longer than six years. I know people who are still using computers from 2010, and I'm talking about people who run Windows on them and never upgraded any of the internals. For that matter, I also know people using Macs from that long ago, though unlike the Windows people, they're stuck without patches. We all know that, if you make certain updates like installing an SSD and run efficient software, you can exceed that length easily.
WebKit can be used as a component for displaying HTML content inside other applications. Not all applications that do so will use it. There's also the possibility that Mac OS would open Safari instead of your preferred browser for certain types of resources, meaning that someone could tailor a link to make it open Safari. Your risk is still lower from someone trying an untargeted infection.
It's been done already. Dictators have quite often obtained their power by violence or stealth, but although it's less common, history includes dictators who got into power by winning a fair, democratic election. The countries usually didn't stay democracies much longer, because history has even more examples of aspiring dictators who didn't figure out how to subvert the democracy and got voted out before they could entrench themselves.
"Is there no space for a more nuanced conversation?"
Literally everywhere? Here, for example? It's not our fault that some of the people who choose to post aren't at all nuanced, and some people are pretending to be when they're clearly not. The Register hasn't banned anyone. And if they did, it's still not a problem, because there are lots of other places that don't and you are entirely within your rights to go over there for whatever kind of conversation you want. I participate on multiple online forums, each with different rules. Find the ones you like and go talk there.
I think that's probably right, but knowing that regime change is needed to end a serious crisis and mustering the power and resolve to invade a massive country with nuclear weapons are two different things. I don't think any country will be willing to use military force to force Putin out, and therefore, if the regime does change, it will be to someone who is already somewhat powerful there. That person is less likely to submit to all the U.S.'s requests.
What they have so far is:
1. Servers seized, possible source of more evidence.
2. Market is shut down. To move it, the admins will have to generate a new address and migrate users, and some users won't switch because it could always be an operation by law enforcement to find them.
3. If the summary is correct, some cryptocurrency previously controlled by the operators is now unavailable to them.
4. One person connected to it has been publicly identified. He's probably not going to court, but he would prefer to have remained anonymous.
The article and comments have mostly focused on the workers' rights issues with this system, which is the most important aspect, but when I read the list of banned terms, I couldn't help but think of a less important technical issue. Specifically, if they ever implemented this and blocked on that list of words, their false positive rate would be so bad that nobody could practically use it. So many typical turns of phrase could set off those filters.
Some examples:
"Please [pay] close attention to the [raised] floor to avoid interfering with the work going on there."
"The [rate] of warnings from the [robots] in area 3 means we'll need to call an engineer to fix them."
Yes, if they built it, it would be concerning and unfair (oh no, another keyword), but it would also be completely broken.
"When you are already that rich you don't need to resort to get-rich-quick schemes to make bank."
When you're already that rich, you don't need any more money to do almost anything you want to do. Yet, rich people frequently decide that they do want more money after all. Rich investors gamble their billions of savings to try to get even more billions, taking the risk that they lose it all. Rich people sometimes run criminal operations to get even more cash, when they could just retire and let someone else take the risk. Rich people run many schemes, both legal and illegal, to try to increase their wealth.
"So, we know who they are"
No, we know things about them which indicate with reasonable certainty who they work for. Tying that back to the programmer's names, office location inside Russia, or who instructed them to do something is difficult and nobody has announced information that would get us there.
"We have their IPs."
Yes, we do. Which have now been reported publicly, so those will become stale in short order. They'll have to buy some new domain names.
"And we still can't do anything about it ?"
Your suggestion is? We can block these domains and IPs. That's why they were listed in the article. If we do that immediately, that might block an attempt by a gullible person to access the phishing system if they have received a message but haven't acted yet. It will do nothing for the phishing attack they launch next week, because those domains will be different. Security is a journey, not a destination.
"(As an aside, I find it it astounding copyright doesn't impose any responsibilities or duties at all, in return for granting an insanely valuable privilege. For example, an obligation to supply in a timely fashion.)"
Because you appear not to understand why it exists. Copyright exists to protect the effort someone has gone through to create the copyrighted work. If you have gone to a lot of effort to make something but you choose not to sell it to me, that's normal. The same is true of something that's easier to mass-produce. It's designed to make information that has been created property (temporarily), and therefore ideally encourage the creation of more and prevent those who have created it from spending all their time hiding it from those they don't want to have it.
Ah, IPFS. The system that will work great, with only massive overhead, as long as nothing big ever goes down. The system that would be perfect for interplanetary communication, uniting a galaxy on one internet, provided you also have free unlimited instantaneous communication (even if you had light-speed comms, it would still fail). There are decentralized things that are better examples than that.
The various cryptocurrency systems are generally decentralized, but not particularly diffuse. You can have a network that is not centrally controlled but has a lot of powerful people capable of doing things. It's like the difference between a single dictator who can tell a country to do anything and a country ruled by a group of warlords, none of whom have absolute power. As the example demonstrates, while either can function, both are generally less desirable than a more democratic system where smaller participants have more power. NFT systems, on the other hand, are more often quite centralized and include arbitrary terms, backed up by legal agreements or untested code. So I think the complaint that decentralization has not been achieved is accurate.
The problem is which terms were additional. The license appears to have been written with the assumption that someone would use the unmodified AGPL, then someone else would apply new terms to it. Instead, this company just bolted their stuff on from the start, so they can argue the terms weren't additional, but part of the original license.
Whenever I see licenses like this, customized from the established ones, I generally understand them to mean basically the following:
We like open source to the extent it allows us to get free work, but don't particularly want to deal with the downsides, so we think we've made something that means you have to pay us. Whether we did or not, you're going to find out in a court case. Look elsewhere; someone who really understands why free and open helps everyone has made something that can be used instead.
I definitely agree about the false advertising. The case this is dealing with is whether they were allowed to put in and enforce the terms they did, whether they advertised it correctly or not. They have lied, and hopefully they won't again, but they still need to clear up what they're allowed to do with their non-open proprietary version with part of the GPL in the terms.
When they decided to knit together a frankenlicense, they created a lot of really unclear stuff. Unfortunately, I don't think the court interpreted it incorrectly, and perhaps though I don't write contracts, the FSF could have written it better.
The problem is with relative terms. The clause that says you can remove restrictions starts like this:
"Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.
The problem, which is repeated frequently throughout this section, is the phrase "this license". Someone can argue that "this license" always refers to the AGPL3 in its original form, but it's also somewhat easy to argue that it instead refers to the license you are looking at that contains this clause. And in that case, the restrictive clauses in the license would have been an original part of "this license", and therefore could not be removed. For an analogy that's not direct, it's like saying "You may take any object that wasn't in this room" and letting people sort out whether you meant "wasn't in this room when you came in", or "wasn't in this room when it was constructed, meaning every object that wasn't built in place". I think the FSF could have made this work by replacing "this license" with the specific name of their license, but if they had, that part would probably have been deleted.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't like the sneaky way they've manipulated the license to mislead users of the software. However, I think the court is probably correct in its decision that they can write new terms into a contract and apply it to code they've written.
"What is also surprising is that people in the US do not seem able to join a union without consent of Amazon - maybe it is just the recognition of a union by Amazon ?"
The different parts of the country have different rules, but in most cases, it's whether the union has legal power or just the power of its members. If you and I work at Amazon and say we're a union, that's allowed and we can plan or act together, but we don't get to make our union the one that Amazon has to negotiate with. If we want them to have a requirement to negotiate, that takes a vote. In some cases, it can also make the union cover all the workers in the area, but this is not always the case.
From anecdotes I assume are correct, I get the idea that the sense of duty is most of the reason government still gets employees. I haven't worked for the government, and I'm not that inclined to do so because, whenever someone talks about having done it, they always have a story of the difficulties that taking on the responsibility has given them. The money point raised by the original poster is one of them, but it's not the whole story. The private sector appears to have learned that, even though they don't like it, there are types of labor that are necessary and that they need to support more, even if that is done by those lowly workers and not fellow executives.
Government work appears to be busy, ill-resourced, inefficient, and poorly compensated, at least for technical people. Even if I was confident that my work was for the benefit of society or ethical goals I approve of, that could get frustrating. The NSA has the additional problem that there are some people with ethics who, having seen what the NSA is willing to do, are not that happy to work on anything, even the many innocuous things going on there. I know there are intelligent people working at the NSA, especially in cryptography, but I bet they are all working on the most technical projects (from least to most ethical, on surveillance, espionage, and making new cryptographic algorithms). That leaves a lot of other things for less skilled people to do. It's not surprising that they have some things that aren't done properly.
Right, you have a strange idea of how students and these scams work.
"The mark is greedy for something: a fancy posting to add to their cv, more money, something that has not been earned.": No, they want those things, just like you would like to be paid. You earned your paycheck, didn't you? They think they're going to earn theirs.
"Why would someone just out of university expect to be hired into an executive position at UNICEF? And at a market wage or better, no less, when it's well known that NGOs pay significantly less than private-sector employers?"
They don't. Did you read the article? The job title on offer was "Executive Personal Assistant", as in assisting someone else who has an executive position. That's an entry level job, requiring little educational experience.
"Yes, someone will be willing to hire them, but it's going to be an entry-level position paying an entry-level wage with an entry-level title. Because that's the career stage they're at! Expecting more and believing anyone is going to offer more is greedy, or at best vanity and pride"
They are expecting an entry-level job with all the stuff that comes with that, and if they were not, it's not greedy. I had a nice job as a programmer when I had my degree. Does it make me greedy to have applied for and gotten a better-paid job?
"Greed needn't be for cash, it can as well be the desire to avoid putting in the time and paying one's dues, or for someone to cater to vanity, or for anything else unearned."
You just made up the whole "unearned" business. The students didn't expect to get something without doing work. It's a job offer, and those who accepted it expected to be asked to work for their wages.
"As for "blaming the victim", I am assigning exclusive and total blame to each party for its own actions. The victim is guilty of greed. That isn't a crime, but we shouldn't be excusing or rewarding it, either."
Who is rewarding anyone for this? And you are blaming the victim by assigning them a motive that clearly isn't supported by the situation.
We live in a world of lots of random and at times stupid things. Raw intelligence, assuming that's what you find in every university student, doesn't teach you all of those things. No matter how many complex mathematical theories you can correctly use, prove, and expand upon, you still might not know how to spot someone taking advantage of you. They're separate sets of knowledge, and you'll only learn each by experience and attention to that one specifically. We don't even have to go that far--we all know people who can be incredibly skilled at one thing that's taught at a school and terrible at another, like someone who can write a bulletproof compiler in a week and couldn't write a readme for it that anyone could understand.
And of course, not every university student is a genius. There are a lot of people there who won't score top of the class and many of them aren't planning to. This doesn't mean they're idiots. It means they don't have the same goals as we probably did while there. They're there to gain experience, and falling for this will be a very painful but educational experience indeed. Of course, it would be nicer if they could learn about the scam without falling for it, but that happens too.
That's a very easy and wrong explanation. No, it doesn't come down to greed, any more than you wanting to be paid does. Students want job experience, and in many cases, it's hard to get because they don't yet have the ability to write a lot on their CV. Getting a job offer is something they're trying for all the time, so the scam starts by playing on that emotion. In these cases, the students aren't expecting free money; they're expecting that a company or organization wants work done and thinks they're qualified to do it. The student, at this point, is perfectly willing to provide value and expects to do so in return for this paycheck.
As I've established, greed isn't required to fall for the fake job offer. How about the fake check that comes later? It's still not greed. A greedy student would want to cash the check and either not give the company anything or find out how to get more checks. A student who doesn't know how these things work would want to follow instructions, assuming their weirdness sensor hasn't gone off yet. We know that a company won't start off this way, but a student with no real job experience except basic jobs doesn't. After all, while we wouldn't expect to be given a check then asked to send money on, there are companies that ask people to pay for expenses and submit an expense report to have the money returned to them, and that's perfectly normal. It takes a bit of credulity and a lack of experience. Greed would only hamper the process. I think you're jumping to blame the victim is not only needlessly disparaging to them but also gets the facts wrong.
Maybe a day, though if it has to run its GPS and mobile connection, probably not so well. At least the screen wouldn't have to be on. The real problem is with the elements. Even if the acceleration didn't damage it, and it probably would, that thing would be very close to the ground and moving rather fast. A stone hitting it at speed could cause serious damage. Driving through a puddle could also do so (they're supposedly waterproof, but not against pressurized water or with contaminants).
I'm now considering finding something I don't need that's basically watch shaped and testing this out. I probably won't do it though because I'm guessing it will become dislodged quickly and I don't want my experiment to turn into littering.
I doubt that it will be. While there probably are people who have 8K screens for watching stuff, most of it will be people who record 8K video so they have lots of room to edit. The final product will be 4K, but edits will be less obvious. Editing and converting will still require a bunch of graphics processing. Similarly, I don't think it will be "the last generation of non commodity graphics cards" because game designers and players constantly find new ways to need even more graphics processing. They have 144 Hz screens and so, even if that rate isn't necessary (and I wouldn't know), they have a target to aim for that can stress a GPU.
"We also know using GPUs fot AI is too difficult for most,,": Not really. It depends what you're doing, but the people building big models tend to want GPUs to do it with. There's a good market in GPU-intensive servers from cloud providers, and I doubt they're being used to play games.
"The question is, how do people think Google is going to pay for Google Search without this revenue?"
That is not my problem. If they choose to violate the law in order to make enough money and they can't find a legal way to do it, then it's time for them to die. We never ask how the extortion gang can continue to afford their nice houses when their schemes get shut down, do we?
There are some things they could try, though. The first is ads. Not data collection to tailor the ads. Not identifying the user to advertisers who then send ads. Just ads, based on the search terms and not recorded afterward. Or they can ask for donations. Or they can charge for use. Lots of options. If none of them work, too bad for them and it's time to see if someone who isn't evil can make it work. There are places that have succeeded in making a profitable business without breaking the law.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
