Re: Metaverse is a failure
Is the Metaverse supposed to represent anything more than a sort of second Second Life? Possibly displaying digital stuff bought as NFTs?
1347 publicly visible posts • joined 2 Sep 2019
Tesla has actually removed radars from some of its cars, leaving only cameras. Reuters
And before people start saying "it's because they were not needed", the radar was removed only from cheaper models... Meaning it's simply a safety feature that was removed for cost reasons.
a billionaire can undo by playing in another country
Nitpicking, but all of these people are US citizens, who famously have to pay US income tax even if they live somewhere else. And if they want to stop being US citizens, they have to pay estimated future tax bills on the way out.
By curiosity I read Google's Terms of Services. I had to hit PgDn 27 times to get to the end. Though the text was not dense, included whimsical drawings, and was quite easy to read. Mind you, this did not include the Privacy policy, which is 32 pages just by itself...
From a developer's point of view, the rendering engine is the browser, and the UI is just a skin on top. It's like claiming two cars are different models because they're not painted the same color. Anyway, this article is about a security issue in the rendering engine, so it does not make sense to talk of the skin on top of the rendering engine.
I want to point out that one thing that is expected from customers and that internet users almost never do is pay. There's a large quantity of websites, not only Google/Facebook but also news and content creators, that only survive thanks to the ads. I don't know how much users would be willing to pay these websites for an ad-free experience, but I don't think it would be much.
The saying is very nice and all, but the unfortunate truth is that the law is often unclear, and you sometimes don't know what it means until a judge says so. The French civil law system is slightly more clear on that point than the Anglosphere common law, which is worse because it explicitly puts court rulings above written statutes. When it sometimes takes years for courts to reach a final decision, it's a bit taking the piss to claim that "everybody should know the law".
If I understand correctly, the pretext is security. It's not really possible to build an adblockers extension without giving the extension wide rights to see and transmit your surfing activity. Specifically, the new rules would prevent the transmission of that data, which is crucial for adblockers to check their database of ad services, but can also be used to spy on the user.
I think it was a chicken and egg problem. They could not have third-party developers building apps for the iPhone before releasing the first iPhone. So the first version could essentially only contain their own apps, but could be used by developers to build apps for the second phone, with enough time to be sure it was a success. Jobs being a control freak probably contributed to this.
I know that quantum computers are theoretically able to decrypt some encryption methods, because they can factorize large numbers. But I thought there were different encryption methods which didn't use large number factorization, was it elliptic functions? Doesn't that mean that we could switch to those methods and quantum computers would stop being such a bogeyman for encryption?
How close are quantum computers to be of any use anyway? Because they often seem to be predicted for right after fusion reactors, or whenever half life 3 is released, whichever happens last...
What's the point of it doesn't apply to Whatsapp et al?
That said, maybe the simplest would be to force all chat applications to support a common standard like RCS, and accept RCS messages to/from other services. They can still offer bells and whistles on top if they want, knowing that those will not be transferred to users on another service. Pretty much like iMessage supports SMS to a degree.
They might consider forging alliances with certain competitors to share some exclusive features that they have in common, as an advantage on other competitors that they don't like — pretty much like countries sign trade deals. RCS would be WTO, and everybody could choose whether to ally or Brexit.
In the first place, I severely doubt that human drivers are currently stopping Shinkansen trains manually. The trains stop so that each door in the train is aligned with a gate on the station platform. If they are not aligned, people cannot get in or out of the train. Anybody who has driven a train will tell you that this precision cannot be obtained reliably by a human.
Quite apart from viewing the source, I wonder if these people know about the element inspector... Sigh.
There are also those web pages that attempt to prevent you from using the right-click menu. Or even make it impossible to copy... as if that was a meaningful protection in the age of smartphones.
Most people who have open eyes about near-term needs and current limitations of alternatives agree that nuclear is still needed for at least decades... Even with the issues connected to storing the spent fuel. And indeed, smaller and more modulable seems like it makes sense from all points of view.
There are currently serious worries that countries have painted themselves into a corner by rejecting nuclear energy, and that there will be an energy crisis in the near future.
I'm not sure why UK tech salaries are so low, particularly in a high-costs city like London. They are so low compared to the US (admittedly higher than in France, but that bar is in the gutter).
I've seen claims that this is caused by immigration of Indian IT workers, but the US see the same immigration from both India and China, so that's not very convincing...
I'm reminded of how scam emails are apparently easy to see through because it preselects for the most gullible people. After all, there's no point in starting conversations with people who will eventually figure out during the process that they're being scammed; far better to go for the 0.1% of people who will swallow anything you tell them.
Makes sense that Apple customers are prime targets then!
honestly, I've yet to come across advertisements that introduce any product to me that I'm not already aware of.
Even if you know the product already, you might think of it more often afterwards. Advertising does not need you to be aware of its effect for it to be effective.
I mean, everybody knows the iPhone exists, but I'm sure Apple has a good reason for renting huge billboards advertising it.