Posts by doublelayer 10570 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Feb 2018
Why are three choices needed here? Yes initiates the cancellation. No returns you to the previous page without cancelling. What does the cancel button do here? Although the labels could have been clearer, the options in Microsoft's save box were required and made sense: you had asked to close, it asked you about saving and allowed you to cancel the previous command to close.
And this would be why people manufactured weights in multiple increments. For example, when people wanted to start dividing things by 3, they didn't tend to try to make a simple one-weight balance do it for them, but found something that weighed a third of a pound and used that. Anyone with a balance could even do that on their own: collect a large number of smallish rocks, see how they affect the balance, put them in useful clusters and label what weight they represented. This wasn't necessary even in early history, because if you could get someone to cut chunks of metal, you could manufacture more convenient weights. Of course, that's not too much of a problem today. A lot of things that might have caused a problem for our centuries-old ancestors no longer cause one for us today, so we can have the luxury of something that's more convenient even if it would add some relatively minor inconvenience if we were teleported back to the 6th century. If we ever get teleported back, we'll probably die of disease anyway, so even the possibility of time travel doesn't require us to use old units.
Sure, I'll accept that, as long as you also start using hexadecimal or another power of two as your base for every numerical thing. As long as you're comfortable expressing a price as £1F3 and a distance as 67 kibifeet (approximately 20 miles), then we can also divide by the same base. I think the people who complain about switched units are going to have more complaints about new units, even if the names are similar, and a new numerical system.
As for foot and cubit, one obvious problem with them is that they're not at all standardized. Nearly all humans at least started out with ten fingers. Those that did not due to genetic differences are aware that others did. And of course, basically every society that developed a system of mathematics used base 10, on multiple continents, without having it imposed on them. The length of a foot is very person-specific and changes over their life as well. Of course, we did standardize the foot as a specific length, but it doesn't have a connection to the feet at the end of our legs. Had we been deciding to make a new unit system from scratch, there is no reason to prefer a new unit of length to a standardized foot, as long as we started using a common base (maybe that one we've used for millennia) with it. Basically any arbitrary length you want could have been the base unit of length as long as we agreed to use it. And we have an arbitrary base unit which is accepted nearly everywhere in the world, so let's just use that. Other than the theoretical benefit of "The base unit is sort of near the length of your foot if you happen to be an adult male with somewhat larger feet than normal*", what reason do we have to prefer it? You still can't use your feet as a ruler unless you've measured them.
* The average length of a foot of an adult American male was 26.3 cm (approximately 10.3 inches). I don't have the full distribution, but the standard deviation suggests that feet measuring 30.48 cm or larger would be about 10% of the set. If it's supposed to be connected to part of the body, they did it wrong.
Admittedly, that would mean a lot of people signing up for free trials all the time, because it's much easier to make new email addresses than new payment methods. Unless they start collecting some other deduplication method, they're likely to have a problem with increased use of free trials by the same people, and if they have a problem with that, only time will tell how they decide to react to it, likely to the user's detriment.
However, you could have the rest of this without having to break anything. You sign up for a free trial, and they can collect a payment method if they want, but they can't make renewal automatic. You have to opt in to that when the trial is ending. All signing up to such things when you're buying something else must also be opt in. Canceling must also be easy, though if they're so concerned about one-click, I'm willing to let it be one click on a prominently located cancel link which leads to a confirmation page where they can put any information they want, as long as the cancel button is located on the top, they show it on the first screen that appears when the page loads and they don't move it later*, and immediately cancels the subscription when pressed without needing to do any other actions.
* And anything else we need to add to prevent them from hiding it. Two clicks is acceptable if both are extremely obvious to the uninformed user. If they find themselves confused by this concept, I'm willing to act as a UI consultant for a reasonable subscription charge which will be no easier to cancel than theirs is.
I have a website. It's basically just a way for me to send files to people that have a URL, because file transfer is still bad (XKCD). It offers next to nothing to a public user. I also have a few other websites that do have something for the general public to read. The browser statistics on each of these sites are pretty different, since the personal website is heavily biased toward the browsers used by friends and family to whom I've transferred data recently. One of the other sites even has an interesting bias because it appeals to a specific hobbyist group who tend to use an unusual browser.
One site's traffic is an unreliable way to determine the frequency of browsers, and if your site is small, it's even more likely to have unrepresentative results. That's not entirely true, as I imagine microsoft.com gets more visitors using Edge and apple.com more users of Safari, but at least if you're getting millions of requests, there is some scale which gives more useful data.
Read the numbers again. Skew away from Chrome, yes, we appear to. Skew toward Firefox, maybe if we're being charitable, at least it is much higher, but trying to paint 6% instead of 3% as a major change is not so easy. Skew away from Safari? Did you see that the Reg statistics have it as 24% and StatCounter has it as 21%? In fact, we would appear to skew toward Safari at the same level (3 percentage points) as we do with Firefox.
I don't doubt that they exist, but I do doubt how economical they are if you're not buying thousands at once. The benefit of other boxes is that you can buy them a few at a time and, if necessary, from the retail market (though that should only be done if it's really urgent). If I am mistaken, I'd like to know what machines you have in mind and where I could buy one or two of them (not at a ridiculous price from someone trying to resell them to someone who got locked in).
I also doubt that the machines you describe support portable system images, simply because ARM has failed to get that even after hundreds of different organizations focused on Linux users, who would appreciate such things, have not provided it. I don't like being locked in to one provider when a cluster of two NUCs and some other X86 box works just as well with little technician work required.
I've dealt with computing hardware specifically built for niche business purposes before, and I have frequently been disappointed. They sometimes have an advantage in repairability and long-term support, but not in price, specifications, or openness. Oh, and that "long-term support" I was talking about means that you can call the support number five years after buying it and they'll answer and acknowledge that the devices exist, not that they will release any meaningful updates after they've made the next model.
It depends what you need that cluster to do. A cluster of Pis really doesn't have anything near the computing power that one of NUCs would have. Yes, there are SBCs with more powerful ARM processors on them, but not as much as you'd expect. A computer built around a flagship smartphone chip would probably be pretty good, but you won't find that very often (Qualcomm has occasionally released development kits like that, though not with the best they have, but they don't tend to sell them in large quantities or provide support). The most powerful ARM SBCs that can be purchased commercially are quite a bit faster than the Pi, but still not as much as an X86 box would generally be. The other problem is that many of those boards do not offer consistent software support or production guarantees. For an X86 box, you don't really need production guarantees because you can run the same software on another one, but if you use a variety of ARM-based boards, you'll have to have custom images for each one.
We don't have a great idea of what this model contains within it. The point is that it is not purely an analysis or a copying program, but a combination of the two. You can get it to produce verbatim quotes, including of copyrighted material. That has been covered in articles here and elsewhere; I'm sure you've seen them. That wouldn't have happened if it was purely a lossy analysis tool. What we don't know as well is exactly how much you can get it to quote, because it's set up in such a way that it will not print an entire book in one go.
The data it has read is radically altered from the original format, and some of it has likely been discarded. Neither proves that it is not a copying tool or violating copyright. If I write a program to mash up data into a form that's nearly unrecognizable, it doesn't prevent me from violating copyright if it can be used to reconstitute the data I don't have rights to. If I take a book and discard a few chapters, but then quote the rest, I have still violated copyright. A perfect example is if I take copyrighted music and run it through a lossy compression algorithm. Some of the original sound is no longer available in the file I created and will never be retrieved by someone who only has my file. The original strings of bytes aren't there either because the format is different. Yet, because it makes the same general impression to someone who listens to it, I am not off the hook.
Music also provides a good example of how even small uses of copyrighted data can be a problem. Some people have decided that they like certain sounds produced by other musicians, frequently drum beats. It would seem pretty easy to make more whenever you want, because you just have to get a drum (or basically any object that makes a nice sound) and hit it with something, but still they value them and integrate them into their songs. These beats are very short slices of audio, and they are not the original audio because, when they're reused, processing has to be done to remove other instrument sounds that are unwanted. If you choose to do this, keep around some money because you aren't allowed to do that for free. You have to license the sound from the person who created it, even despite its brevity, your changes, and the fact that your song is likely completely different from theirs. You used something original to them for your purposes, and so has OpenAI. It isn't as simple as determining whether it produces the entire original work. Even if it can't, it could still be violating.
"my suspicion is that, as these things are being pushed as "good for generating texts for businesses to use", mayhap businesses would also be better off with just the older material as a style guide?"
I don't think they would be. I'm not sure if modern books are very useful, but the modern text will allow the models to generate text of dubious usefulness that at least sounds like modern text. People generally want to read messages from businesses that sound natural, not old, although those old books at least get unnecessary formality down. Also, it would make a more limited style guide consisting of centuries of English which didn't have any particular styles in common, also including translations from other languages which may not always be the best (check out the quality of Gutenberg's translations of Verne compared to modern translations that do such things as getting the characters' names correct). One style in a book which only uses that one is easier to understand than a mash of styles when modern English is expected.
It is my pleasure to inform you that the communication service which you, our esteemed customer, hath purchased is indeed without function as to your particular place of residence. This we have ascribed to the deficiency of a telegraph to be found betwixt your abode and the house of business. When we are granted a personage of adequate knowledge and a horse upon which to send him, the fault in thy resource shall be witnessed and, if it please he which to him is all glory, fixed. I remain your obedient servant, Local Internet, LTD.
climate change isn't going to be slowed in the nick of time by magic new technology. We have most of what we need there. Instead, it's existing interests trying to slow change by claims of economic necessity. Against that, models of what happens to agriculture, industry and populations with different carbon emission models. That can be seen as an arms race for strategies within an economic model with the winner getting to a sustainable target in a sustainable time.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Sure, adversarial models can be used to improve the quality of one of them, assuming that the models are being targeted at that narrow set of things that can use automatic means to train themselves. Maybe, if our simulations were very accurate, we could use that method to suggest ways to make our investments in climate technology more efficient. What it won't do is convince those who don't want to incur that cost to do so anyway. It will not change the minds of people who are convinced that there isn't a problem, that it isn't their problem, or that they don't want to do anything even if it is their problem.
This suggestion sounds like a dream where running some AI programs against each other will create some effectively no-cost solutions to big problems. It won't. There is only so far one can go to reach maximum efficiency within current limits, and there is a cap on how efficient something can be at all even if we had perfect technology. I, and possibly you, don't think about that very much since the companies and governments we work with so often operate with such a ridiculous level of inefficiency that it seems there is always a lot more ability to improve them than there is a desire to, but the limit still exists. Running a lot of simulations until we get one that looks nice will not change the significant costs of sustainability, and even if we cut some of them, it will not prevent us from having to do the hard work of either paying the costs ourselves or getting those who cause the problem to do so.
It probably happens more often than not, but nobody writes in about the time they didn't find what they expected, walked away, found someone else, and it got fixed. It would only end up here if the second opinion didn't help and the box went down anyway.
However, having dealt with my fair share of boxes with uncertain support, I get why it happens. I've conducted tasks on systems that didn't seem right, but I either couldn't get a second opinion at all or the people I could find didn't know any more than I did about what the system was doing or how. They still wanted it fixed, though. For context, I'm a programmer and work mostly with programmers, so not everyone has as much administration experience as I would like them to, and not everyone on the team is a good choice for disentangling an ambiguous config. My general solution to this situation is backups and walking very slowly through the system to make sure I've thought of several things before I utter that sentence "Well, that's all I can think of".
The copyright line is required and is present even when the GPL applies. The "All rights reserved" isn't required and was probably put there on autopilot by someone who has seen it after nearly every copyright line. It has relatively little meaning anyway, but when the GPL explicitly applies, it cannot counteract any of that license's provisions. Unless they've also changed the GPL, it has no effect on what the user can do. If they have replaced it, things get more complicated but we'd have to look at the specific changes.
Almost certainly not. All they have to do to comply with the original license is to include the license terms including the copyright statement somewhere in the system. I'm sure there's a file in /usr/share that does that. It doesn't even have to be unusual to do that, because that is what forks are likely to do; they no longer use the original name because they might make breaking changes and don't guarantee compatibility, so if this is going to be made into a new version by the Kylin team, they might have done the new version numbers to make that clearer. That doesn't guarantee that they have done what they need to, but their obligations are pretty easy to do and don't require them to produce useful compatibility statements.
The reason this doesn't make sense to you is that the article talks about two separate, unrelated court cases, each one involving different people and a different political point, and you've grafted pieces of the two into one Frankenstein's monster of a case. For example, this theory about what might be happening: "OR is she for/neutral to gay marriage, and "the Harvard College and the University of North Carolina" wanted to force her to write an anti-gay-marriage website?"
The universities are part of case number 1. The website designer (well, perspective designer at some point) is part of case number 2. The two do not connect. The only case that has to do with websites and their content is case number 2. I'm afraid that providing more information may just re-introduce the confusion, but you may want to search out more information on each of the individual cases to better understand what has happened.
Technically, just to the person with the binaries. However, that person cannot be forbidden from sharing the source or the binary using that license, so they can then publish it. Additional agreements can be used to get someone to agree that they have the rights to publish but that they will not exercise them, but that is more complex and must be created when they get the binaries originally.
"The directors will consider what shareholders want. And, as we've seen with the likes of Twitter, despite objections from hoi polloi in the cube farms, the management and board insisted on selling."
In Twitter's case, the directors and the board both attempted not to sell, adding extra blocks to the process. It was only after shareholders demanded that they change their mind and get them the Musk payout that they accepted it. Of course, when Musk allowed it to break down, they pursued the sale he had agreed to, but that was also something the shareholders would have made them do anyway. Sometimes, the management doesn't want to make a company crash, but if the people who own the company want the money now, they have the right to get it and to make the management act for that goal.
I'm not sure they need to actually use any LLM to write stories completely misunderstanding what it can and can't do and making unrealistic extrapolations from that. Using the model opens them to the risk that they actually see the kind of stuff that we, who have either used it for our own curiosity (I plead guilty) or seen the results of people doing so posted here, have already seen, which indicate that accuracy from a model like this is just a game of chance. Not that some people, who are more interested in spending some time talking than on real journalism, can't ignore that fact and talk more about how it's going to take all our jobs, but some of them might not feel so confident about it knowing what will actually come out of it.
I think it only means that the boss gets the idea, but doesn't recognize the original acronym. Alternatively, they do, but they don't think quickly enough to come up with an alternate acronym that still fits the pattern closely enough.
They may be thinking of earlier versions of Android, where permissions were specified and granted at install time. This wasn't just the first versions of Android. Through many of them (I'm not sure when this changed), it was normal to see the message "Do you want to install this app? It will get access to:". IOS never did that, at least I've never seen it, and Android doesn't do that anymore, but for many years, it was structured that way.
The comment by EvaQ appeared to be primarily complaining about the use of the word "European" when the actual meaning was "European Union". This is not the first time a discussion like that has started when there is something real being talked about. For example, some people will describe the result of the Brexit referendum as "leaving Europe", and others will kindly reply that it really means "leaving the European Union", and that "leaving Europe" would be much more complicated. As correct as that pedantic reply is, it isn't really doing anything for the original conversation.
To illustrate this, I pointed out that, in the EU's statement where the offending "European" appeared, to be entirely correct about who is covered and who is not by the rest of the sentence, you'd probably have to put a paragraph of extra conditions in place of the one word, but that everyone reading the statement understood with perfect clarity what they were trying to say.
I find this quibbling about terminology rather strange. A lot of arguing over someone using the word "Europe" when they mean "The EU", even though we all know what they meant. There are a lot of terms in English where we could use a strict definition that few others are using despite everyone knowing what was meant, but it's rarely helpful. For example, people or things are sometimes characterized as British, meaning they're from or in the UK. However, technically British means from Britain, so if they're Northern Irish or from one of the non-Britain UK islands, I could argue that they're not really British. It wouldn't help anyone if I did that, because we know that is included.
In this case, the terms are even harder, because what the sentence really should say is "In light of the serious threat to the rights of those who have them under GDPR". Noncitizens resident in the EU have those rights as well. Citizens of Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway are also covered because they've adopted it, even though they're only EEA, not EU, members. Turkey and Switzerland have laws that are similar to GDPR in an effort to be harmonized with EU regulations, so they might have rights or might not. And, if we're going even further, there are threats to the rights of British, sorry UK citizens, even though the EU commission has no power or intent to do anything about those threats, they're still there if the law is weakened. When you read a statement, do you want a paragraph listing all these technicalities, or can we agree to accept text when we all understand what they meant?
"since NK says "So what?" to these things why would they bother making an elaborate dummy"
They probably wouldn't make an elaborate one, just a really basic one. However, appearances are important to them (for some reason they haven't recognized that their appearance nearly everywhere in the world is as the worst country on a lot of metrics). This is why they frequently tell obvious lies, for example saying that multiple failed satellite launches before were actually successes. That said, they already have one photographic satellite in successful orbit (though how powerful it is, whether they are able to communicate with it, and what they're using it for are less clear), Kwangmyŏngsŏng-4.
Perhaps this indicates that Kwangmyŏngsŏng-4 may not have the resolution expected of a modern satellite either. Alternatively, they needed a dummy for testing as a missile but decided to include some old camera parts they had in case it did make it up. It wouldn't be as useful as a real reconnaissance satellite, but much less expensive if they're going for missile testing. In addition, the ability for them to get a bunch of reconnaissance data from satellites they launched is much less than their ability to collect reconnaissance data from someone else's equipment by stealing or buying it, so they may not really have a reason to manufacture any.
There is no accepted concept of "belongs to" between the two Koreas, since both are of the opinion that the other, land and everything on top, belongs to them. However, it's not that unusual to confiscate military hardware that is in your area. For example, that balloon that the US shot down is not being returned either. In general, if you lose it outside your territory and don't go get it, nobody who does go get it will even briefly consider giving it back to you.
They are not talking about being banned. This is not a content moderation decision or even a "I don't like this user and it's my company" decision, where Musk has the power and the right to do basically whatever he wants. This is a situation involving employment rights and access to the legal system, where an imbalance in power is a real factor because just owning a company does not give anyone unrestricted rights to decide what their current or former employees may seek legal redress about.
Since the 1707 Acts of Union created something called The Kingdom of Great Britain, containing most of the parts of the Great Britain that we have today, including all of the island of Britain, I think that counts as having existed since that year at least. The 1800 acts added Ireland, but only some of that is still in force. Had the sentence called it the United Kingdom, your pedantry might have worked since it looks like that name was created when Ireland got attached, but it didn't say that.
It looks like they agree and will release that with IOS 17. So it might be coming. I have used other applications which support offline maps already, though.
Apple did it, but they didn't make a point of it. If you open the included compass application on an iPhone, your coordinates are right below the compass display, precise to the second. Tapping them will open a map of your location, although that probably requires connection and may not work in all places.
That is true, but if there are so many emergency calls that it is taking up all of the network, you're likely talking ten or more times as many calls as there are people to answer the calls and talk to the people about what the emergency is. The emergency call system is great for even somewhat large emergencies, but if the city is carpet bombed, it's not going to do much. The emergency services will already know that something bad has happened and be reacting to it in some way, and they don't have the resources to respond to every person in trouble in that situation.
Although the foreign language can backfire, if you're good enough at languages, you can probably create gibberish that sounds kind of like a language you speak. Doing one that's similar to one you know means you are probably better at preventing repetitions. I have found it effective at getting them to hang up but it isn't very good at making it take a long time.
This is absolutely the right view if the workers you're thinking of are the ones you call because you need them to do something. It's also at least a bit valid when they're doing something legitimate even though many will find them annoying. Pollsters, for example, may not thrill people, but they're trying to do something that doesn't harm you and the results of which you might use. However, most of the calls I receive are not from pollsters or anybody else doing a real job, nor even from the group of telemarketers who are doing nothing useful but at least it's legal. Most of those who call me automatically are entirely focused in either stealing money from me, stealing identifying data from me so they can sell it, or selling something fraudulently to me based on a complete willingness to lie about, for example, knowing who I am and having records about me.
That group is not stuck in a dead-end job, they are choosing to be criminals. That's not strictly true, because there are a few (not by any means a majority, though) which coerce people into doing it. I do not show any sympathy to those people, and I don't suggest you do either.
I get the argument. Basically, I was agreeing with it. I think that, if they could provide the evidence, their case would be strong even if Microsoft hid the chunk so it wouldn't come back. That still requires them to show that a piece of their code, not a chunk from Quake that has already been copied under several licenses in many places, can be printed by the bot.
As for hiding the evidence and only showing the court, it could work and if they really won't provide the evidence publicly, they should at least try that, but I think it will seriously weaken their case. The problem is that Microsoft will, if they can't see the code, start looking for claims for why it shouldn't count. They could argue that the plaintiffs won't show them the code because it would prove the copying to be insubstantial or obvious (we all agree that copying a boilerplate expression or standard lines wouldn't qualify, and how would Microsoft know that wasn't the code submitted). The court is staffed by people who can't recognize obvious code from original and very clever code, so they could be swayed to either argument. Doing it publicly would help if they could do it. That they haven't makes their case suspicious but not automatically faulty.
Of course it hasn't. I combine constants all the time, because it makes it easier to understand what I'm doing. For example, I could write 691200. What does that mean? You'll just have to guess. If I write it 60*60*24*8, you can probably guess what it is, and if you want to change the number of days, it's a simple modification. Similarly, I have a few scripts that report the sizes of files, and I find it easier to divide by 1024**3 or 2**30 to get the number of gigabytes than to spell out 1073741824 every time.
It gets even more useful when the constants are more specific. If I'm allocating a certain number of bytes, then I'd much rather call malloc(40*FRAME_SIZE) than malloc(960) *. If FRAME_SIZE ever changes, it's easy to change it once than to redo the allocations. The compiler will calculate the constant for me and store it as such anyway, so why do you think I should do that computation for it?
* Even better would be malloc(40*sizeof(frame)), but in many cases, these aren't structs and are instead strings of bytes which have to be constructed manually. Sometimes, I will create libraries so they can be structs to the user, but not always.
Except compression and summarization achieve different goals, even though in both cases the result is shorter than the input. Summarization will eliminate some of the data that the user would use, whereas lossy compression is designed to be decompressable to something containing all parts of the original data with certain aspects removed for size. I can summarize a video file by cutting out chunks we don't need, and it is not the same as compressing it but all the frames remain there with fewer pixels specified.
One could do a lossy compression of text by removing some punctuation and maybe even spaces, and someone might be able to read it with some work, but that would be compression, not summarization. The two are not synonymous.
That move is not really a problem. By pointing out that it did happen and that the model was not retrained, they can prove that it can generate verbatim substantial portions of code. That it will no longer generate that one won't prevent it from generating any others, including other sections of the plaintiffs' code. Adding guards for literally every portion of their code would likely start causing problems if a lot of people asked for them to do it. That's the kind of evidence that will be needed, but most likely, the person who owns the code concerned will have to be a participant in the trial (if you get it to print some of my code but I'm not involved, you will likely not be able to sue on that basis).
The article suggests that they have some code they say was printed by this bot, but they don't want to share it because it could identify them. From previous articles, it seems that they got threatening communications from someone which is one reason they want to stay anonymous, but it may make it difficult to make their case if they won't supply evidence because that is difficult to distinguish from not having evidence. I'm not sure how easily that can be fixed, but they might want to find an option in order to make their position stronger.
It's possible, but they also have the attitude that "If we don't object to it, do whatever you want that affects other countries". It is possible that this is really just a profit-generating activity and China isn't doing anything about it because they aren't affected and get to collect some tax. Nothing requires this to be a thoroughly-considered plot even if there's a possibility that they could have one.
Yes, a few people could do that, but the people you would need to make that happen are also the kind of people who wouldn't do it. Their job is not breaking the internet, no matter how bad certain things on the internet might be, and they take that job seriously. Meanwhile, if you and I decide to drop traffic to them, it will do nothing whatsoever; either we weren't going to use them anyway or we'll have to fix things when they don't work by removing the rule. It's the same reason that, even when people suggest that we drop some country which has been committing serious offenses from the internet, websites hosted in that country still work. Things have to get pretty bad before an address block is dropped in a way that shuts down the operator for good.
"While most startup investors are in the US, they actually invest all around the globe (even in India)."
They are, but not always at the same level. Pitching a startup to investors often involves a lot of completely subjective marketing to specific investors, who don't go on tour. That makes it easier for people who either live close to the investors or can easily afford to go visit them rather than those who only do a few online meetings. Investors will lend to people in a variety of countries, but not equally. In addition, I did say that there are other factors, and some of them affect investors' willingness to invest in India-based companies. Trade restrictions, worries about local economic conditions, and concerns about local markets (which you also mentioned, so I'll come to that) are considered by investors and all involve the location.
"Hardly any consumer facing business today is located where its customers are, unless it's a services business."
A lot of large tech companies are services businesses, and they tend to offer their service first in the country in which they're formed and expand from there. That's also true with B2B services, although there are some which wouldn't necessarily work as clearly. Even for goods, although they can be designed and manufactured basically anywhere, they are often sold first in a country in which the company has built a local presence, either their original one or a developed subsidiary which is responsible for marketing, distribution, and support including repairs.
"As with consumer products, R&D is usually located where the talent is, not the company's customers."
I must disagree with the first part of that. R&D tends to be wherever the company wants it to be, which for old and large companies is likely to be wherever they already had it. Apple, for example, does R&D in a number of places, but it still brings a lot of people to Cupertino because that's where they have been working for a long time and they've gotten used to putting stuff there. Several large companies have R&D centers in India, for example, Google has four of them, the largest of which is a facility in Hyderabad which is supposed to hold about 13,000 people. Other companies may just prefer to move their engineers to the place they already did it, and the engineers may also appreciate that.
Nobody said that all of those people were of the same skill. You'll get a lot of variation. However, to answer your question, one thing that the US has and India doesn't (as much) is a bunch of people with money. That includes the following:
1. Investors who want to invest a large quantity of money in speculative businesses.
2. Customers who can spend comparatively large amounts of money on products and services which can make some of those companies profitable.
3. Companies that have lots of money to put into R&D innovation budgets.
India has people with money, but when scaled up to the size of the country, they have much less of it. They still have large chunks of the country where electricity isn't on all day, which you won't find so often in many other countries, which limits the funding available from the general public. You can get a lot of investment from particularly rich companies or individuals in India as well, but you have fewer of them interested in doing so. That's not the only issue, but it is a rather big one if you're looking for a lot of innovation.
Some advertising makes sense, and they probably started with that. If you're a company that nobody knows about, advertising can help people learn that you exist, and that can be seen to have value in increased demand. Similarly, new types of products or recent changes that might interest customers won't do much unless customers see those, and advertising can give them that information. I may not always appreciate people telling me those things, but advertising is sold to those who commission the ads, not those who see them, and those ones actually work. I will admit to being occasionally influenced by ads, although I do my best to avoid many so I'm influenced by a relatively small number. On occasion, I've taken an advertiser's offer of a free trial and decided it was a product worth paying for, something I might not have done if I didn't hear about them. I'll note that the two I can think of were both ads placed in content with a subject related to the products, not targeted to me.
However, sometime in the past, advertisers managed to convince a lot of people that they need to advertise incessantly even when there is nothing new and nobody who sees the ads will learn anything that would make them more likely to buy, basically on the theory that consumers are idiots, so just hearing the name over and over again will make them buy things. That may have worked at one point, but I'm guessing they do their best not to measure any benefits so as to make their pitches vague enough that they can always ask for and get large budget increases. As long as they can say "If you stop and your competitors don't, you will lose out to them", they can make the executives who decide their budget fearful. If they collected data, they run the risk of discovering that doesn't really happen.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of those commercial VPNs are quite profitable. They get a smallish monthly subscription for running a bunch of servers, and users may buy that access without really planning to use it, either because they think it will help with security (it can but it will depend on how it is used) or will allow them to view region-limited content (maybe, but no guarantees). How many people forget they don't use it and continue to pay? I don't buy them because I have my own, but it is probably not that expensive to run if they can sign up enough intermittent users.
They had more valid limiters on the situation than just quantity of English-speaking people. For example, which countries you can get people with required skills. The countries after India in the list are Pakistan, Nigeria, and the Philippines. While you'll get immigrants from all those countries, how does the education system differ between these countries in the level of quantity of people with abilities that make one eligible for an H1B?
The country that comes after that is the UK. You can make a lot more money working in the UK than you can in India, so people who live there, even if they were only considering financial matters, have less of a reason to want to switch countries on average. They have other reasons to prefer staying in the UK; how many UK readers here don't like the US to some extent and make a point of it? Once again, you'll get some immigrants from there, but probably not as many.
If H1B holders were chosen by pure chance with the only factor being ability to speak English, you would be correct. It is rather obvious that this is not how the visas are given, as there is both self-selection of people who will apply and limitations on who is eligible for the visas.
It wouldn't be good, and we wouldn't be happy that they'd done it. However, it would probably happen, intentionally or not, as the amount you sold increased. Especially if you're making money from this, it's worth knowing how much of that resource is in use and whether you need to do something to increase that resource.
In this case, the users of the GitHub actions should really have cached data instead of downloading it so many times, and had they done it, the server wouldn't be so overloaded. However, even without that, a project which continues to be popular will reach a point where a single 1 Gbps link is no longer enough bandwidth for all the people making requests. They're providing the server for free, so I'm happy to let the users just have to deal with really slow downloads and they can try to help improve the system if it gets slow enough. Still, that's just my view on how they can deal with the resource exhaustion, not a way to prevent the resource from being exhausted in the first place which will happen eventually even without the GitHub forks spiking.
I think they probably would if it was all internal, but they didn't bother to cache for users of GitHub. In fact, the users probably prefer that, because it means there's no risk of a faulty cache causing problems for their automation. The people who end up being the target of a lot of forks, none of which are caching, have a very different view of that. Of course, each fork could and should have cached one copy of the source which could be duplicated locally for each different test environment, which would have cut the bandwidth requirements by a couple orders of magnitude. Users probably didn't bother doing that because it's all GitHub's incoming bandwidth and they don't run the server being hammered, so they don't think they have to care. Caching across forks would probably be more difficult without having Microsoft make assumptions for all users of the platform.
And yet, if I went to a dump of data which contained data about you and made it a lot more public, you'd still have objections and I would still be breaking the law. It does not matter that I didn't steal it in the first place, nor does it matter how the original source got the data (if they stole it or if you gave it voluntarily, you did not authorize its publication). This only applies to certain types of personal information, and the particular jurisdiction will determine whether some information gets protection or not. The people in this case are complaining about increased publication of their details, and their case will succeed or fail based on that argument.
Even if this was only about collecting posts they have voluntarily written and published, they could still attempt to block OpenAI from repeating it using copyright claims. Just because something can be accessed does not mean you have the right to distribute it. Laws exist which limit your rights in that area, both in privacy and elsewhere. In practice, people should be careful not to publish anything they wouldn't like to see abused, because a lot of people will not obey those laws, but just because that will happen doesn't change the fact that they have rights over some of that data and they have a chance of getting a court to penalize those who violate them.
Do you want to address the point I made at length in that comment? The point I was making, which I think you understand already, is that, if there are no other conditions, there will be a lot of qualifying companies that aren't on the list. A retail store that serves 50 million customers in the EU would count, even if 48 million of those are buying things in physical shops and only 2 million use the website. An ISP serving 50 million customers would qualify. A newspaper that gets read by 50 million IP addresses would qualify. None of those things are on the list. This suggests that there is some other condition than a certain number of EU customers and having a website.
If that condition exists, it becomes reasonable to ask what it is and who does or should fall under that condition. You are focusing on the obvious points that they meet a threshold of customers, which I admitted in my first sentence, and are ignoring the definitional questions that are important to deciding whether this company has a point or is talking rubbish.
The problem might not be with "very large", but with "online platform". After all, I doubt this is the only large store in the EU. If you take a store that has lots of customers and also has a website where people can buy things, does that make them a very large online platform as well? If you have a website where people can read things but not post, but that site is popular, would that be an online platform? Would an ISP count if it had more than 45 million customers, which several EU-based ISPs appear to meet? What does a site need to do in order to qualify if they have enough visitors?
This appears to be Zalando's complaint, not that they don't have enough customers to qualify but that the stuff they're doing online isn't related to the point of the regulation or to others that have been named. I'm not sure if that is convincing, possibly because I've never used their business and therefore don't have a great idea of whether they have some business that would fall under the regulation, but the definitional argument doesn't entirely rely on the number of customers.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
