If I was suspicious, I'd say the party leaders have sold all their bitcoins, so it's time to depress the currency so they can buy the dip
332 posts • joined 2 Sep 2019
NTT slashes top execs’ pay as punishment for paying more than their share of $500-a-head meals with government officials
Curry is a very common dish in Japan, and they have lots of cheap restaurants specialized in curry — Japanese restaurants tend to be specialized in variations of a single dish, so if you go there, everybody must eat some kind of curry. That's not the kind of place to charge $500 a pop, though.
They deserve beer with the curry.
In this round of 'Real life or Black Mirror episode', drones that hunt down humans by listening to their screams
Change of paradigm
There is an infinity of shades between "just a search engine on the web" and "giant behemoth with way too much power". Laws are not well suited to handle the slow progression from one to the other over several decades. I'm not sure that Google is already at the level that it should be regulated like a public utility, and the question is probably not going to be decided by the courts of Ohio. But if Google keeps gaining in power the way it has until now, they will have to be regulated somehow. There has in fact been several laws that have been passed almost exclusively for Google, from the right to be forgotten to the French digital tax, not to mention the push to update safe harbor and copyright laws.
I think it is an idealistic misconception that laws devolve of simple rules which determine what is right and just. The world is way too complex for simple rules to determine that, and laws are just rules written to prevent issues which threaten the balance of society. Giant corporations like Google have found by chance some kind of loopholes in those rules, and they are threatening the balance of society, so new rules will have to be written.
Does anyone know details?
Usually, I'm able to understand some of what the issue is, like at this point Google uses that data, or advantages this product that they own instead of that third-party product. Here it seems Google advantaged its technologies in the DFP (Doubleclick for Publishers) and SSP (Supply-Side Platform) servers, but that's all I can find in the ruling or anywhere else. The details of how Google will fix the issues are similarly vague.
Google seems to be taking these rulings in stride, though.
Chinese app binned by Beijing after asking what day it is on anniversary of Tiananmen Square massacre
Re: They're weirdly touchy
I don't think it is the only thing they are touchy about. Taiwan is another hot topic.
I think we can find an explanation in the recent relaxation of the policy on the number of children. It used to be one only, then it was relaxed to two children, and now they've relaxed it to three. Why relax to three? Surely at this point they could just allow any number of children, right? There are very few people who want more than three anyway.
But the reason they don't want to allow any number of children, or they don't want people to talk about Tiananmen, is that it would mean accepting losing control. Admitting a mistake. Having egg on their face. And that is not their way. They think it would make them look weak.
Apple settles with student after authorized repair workers leaked her naked pics to her Facebook page
Funnily, this could happen to Google as well. The problem of the newspapers is that the way they benefit to society — news — is distinct from the way they made their money: ads. Somebody came up that was more efficient at ads, and they lost their source of revenue. We regret this, because society really needs the news, otherwise nobody would mind their passing, same as nobody cares that phone books and yellow pages are gone.
Google also benefits society in a way that is completely distinct from the way they make money. Somebody might well show up who would serve ads even better, and it would be Google's turn to cry for help.
Four women suing Google for pay discrimination just had their lawsuit upgraded to a $600m class action
Re: I said it before
They have >100k employees, which is easily enough to have some women who were treated unfairly. It's even enough to have a few pockets were women are systematically treated unfairly, despite all the ostensible efforts from the top to root out issues.
So it's well possible that these women have grounds for complaining how they were treated, but it's a very different question to claim that the issues are company-wide... And I would assume that the company have carefully documented their efforts.
Google might still decide to settle just to make the lawsuit go away, though. It's often cheaper than paying the lawyers.
Re: If Google can get away with paying women less than men for the same job...
The women might accept the lower salaries, but there are too few of them applying to fill all positions. Note that Google also sued for discriminating against men when hiring. Then again, they also got sued in a third lawsuit for discriminating against women.
Considering they have over 100k employees, they have plenty of opportunities to discriminate against a lot of people...
AWS Free Tier, where's your spending limit? 'I thought I deleted everything but I have been charged $200'
This is the same company that uses all the tricks in the book to get you to sign on to a "free trial" of Amazon Prime.
In my case, I installed the Kindle app and got to a screen on which the only visible button registered you to a free trial. You had to use the Android back button to refuse. And I only knew I was registered when I called support about the unknown charge on my credit card — the subscription didn't even show anywhere on the Amazon website.
Russian gang behind SolarWinds hack returns with phishing attack disguised as mail from US aid agency
Lessons have not been learned: Microsoft's Modern Comments leave users reaching for the rollback button
This is Google Docs comments
I am truly at a loss for words as to why this seemed like a good idea to your development team.
All these features are essentially the way comments work on Google Docs. That was likely the reason for introducing them... Whether this was a good idea or not, that's a different matter.
$1M a year — is that a lot?
Suppose you're one of these people protesting. You have to make $1M a year to join the group, so suppose you make, oh, $10M a year, every year! Lot of money, huh?
Then lucky you, it will only take a century for you to have a billion dollars... and Jeff Bezos has two hundred billions dollars.
They have a point.
I'm pessimistic about surveillance, mostly because technology makes it much easier to beach the privacy of people than to protect it.
We've never managed to build a house that is impervious to burglary (at least, not for average people), and people know that and accept the risk. I believe this will be the final situation for privacy breaches.
I'm suddenly reminded that my mother deliberately keeps cheap jewelry in her bedstand, to satisfy burglars, and the real stuff is hidden somewhere else. At the moment, such a deceptive tactic would be called sophisticated in the digital world, but it might well become a common trick used by grandmothers.
That's a feature, not a bug
The fact that you end up buying the same thing over and over gives more money to the content creators, and relieves you of money that you obviously don't need. It makes money circulate, which is good for the economy! Are you against the economy? Are you a pinko commie liberal?
Apple won't be sharing revenue guidance for rest of the year, but we can always guess what it'll look like
Australia probes app stores, politely suggests Apple and Google could try being nicer and more careful
Better monitoring of apps after review, to stop malicious apps
The funny part is that protecting users from malicious apps is the excuse used for restrictive policies which third-parties claim are deliberately made to prevent them from competing with first-party apps... And the best way to increase competition is to make it easier to download apps from other app stores, which will probably massively increase the amount of malware. Hmmm...
A trip to the dole queue: CEO of $2bn Bay Area tech biz says he was fired for taking LSD before company meeting
Spotlight on Apple, Google app stores: What happened to Tile, Spotify, Match – and that proposed law in Arizona
Third-party app store
I find it curious the big difference between iOS and Android isn't mentioned: it's easy to bypass the Play store and get apps from a third-party app store, or directly from the developer. Are users so inert that it's impossible to be successful without paying the tax?
The makers of Fortnite announced a couple of years back that they would be only available on a third-party app store (or rather, that they wouldn't pay the subscription tax, so they got booted out from the big stores). I'm sure there are ongoing lawsuits about it, but in the meantime I assume Fortnite is still successful?
Watchdog 'enables Tesla Autopilot' with string, some weight, a seat belt ... and no actual human at the wheel
Brit Salesforce exec Gavin Patterson becomes transfer target for controversial European Super League
We have never given census data to anyone – not even the spy agencies, says the UK's Office for National Statistics
Over a decade on, and millions in legal fees, Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle in Java API legal war
Personally, I don't consider that what I can see in the API specs is "code". Which is the total sum that was used by Google. They reimplemented the code from scratch in order to match the API, same as the Wine project reimplemented Windows APIs.
In the first place, they'd have taken a license from Sun if Sun had been willing. But Sun refused because they wanted the world to use their crap Java for Mobile API instead...
Mullet over: Aussie boys' school tells kids 'business in the front, party in the back' hairstyle is 'not acceptable'
Mysterious case of Arizona state senators skipping a vote on tackling Apple and Google's app commissions
Would it be constitutional?
The United States do have a weird legal system, but it also feels a bit weird for one state to void contractual conditions imposed by Apple on app makers in every other state, in fact that I know in every other country. The words interstate commerce come to mind, and it definitely feels like something that is the remit of the federal government.
Come to think of it, how come not a single country has come forward with such a law already? Surely Apple cannot buy off all of them?
I think they mean: We will send a call to our tracking system, and you don't get to say no. It's up to you whether the call is made in parallel to calling your intended target, or whether we call the tracking system first, and that system redirects you serially afterwards.
To be honest, I find the ping idea better indeed: 1) faster 2) intended URL can be copied from the starting point, rather than that of the tracking website, and best of all 3) you can blackhole the ping request
If the calls are made serially, you can't blackhole the tracking system, because that's the one that will redirect you to where you want to go.
US state AGs: How can Facebook, Google, Twitter say they tackle misinformation when *gestures wildly at COVID-19 BS everywhere*
I'm aware that private companies can choose whatever they want to accept on their platforms, I've read the <a href="https://xkcd.com/1357/>relevant XKCD</a>, and I have no problem with it. The right to free speech only protects you from the government, and all that... But isn't it weird to have <b> Attorneys General</b>, who are definitely part of the government, pressing private companies to limit what people can say on their platforms?
It feels weird to have the government saying "something is wrong about the world, and tech companies should do something about it."