Posts by Helcat 383 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Nov 2019
Common one at friends, who have a varied number of cats over the years: That lovely fluffy blanket of Cat hair that gets into the intakes to insulate the internals of the computer.
They're not quite sold on the idea it's a self-service grooming device for cats, but they have gotten used to regularly opening up the case to clean out the accumulated fluff before the computer suffers thermal shutdown due to all that lovely insulation...
One would hope that these AI's got to argue with other AI's and left the real people to get on with their lives.
However, if AI was pretending to be a thing in order to stimulate some form of response, the chance that another AI would be the respondent would invalidate the results.
The other, and less forgivable, result is that people seeing these posts would believe them and use them as 'proof' to support their stance, or disbelieve and look for evidence the post is a lie then use that as proof of their opposing stance. Yes, this includes rape stories: There are people who believe anyone born XY is a rapist and the number of claims of rape in social media is proof this is true, where as those who think rape claims are mostly fake will look for proof, find it, and use that as evidence that most claims, if not all, are fabricated.
Meanwhile, genuine victims suffer because they're lost in the chaff of these fake stories.
Oh, yes, and other researchers who are using social media as a source of data who are not involved in these AI experiments will have had their research data corrupted, invalidating their research and wasting their funding and their time and effort. Sure, serves them right for using social media in the first place, but sometimes it's where research needs to start. And heaven help them if they actually engaged with the AI thinking the AI was a genuine victim...
So, a bit of clarification would be in order, then.
The UK Supreme court stated that, in regards to the Equalities act of 2010, the term woman was defined as Human Female and man was Human Male. This allows the act to be read as intended at the time of writing, which would allow a Trans Man who got pregnant to receive maternity care and access to the maternity suite at a hospital.
The issue was the Scottish Parliament tried to back-door in a change to the Equalities Act that would have resulted in Trans men being denied maternity care (which falls under Women's Health) should they get pregnant. Only the Scottish Parliament then tried to fudge things by saying 'well, there will be exceptions'. The Supreme court disagreed: That would render the act unworkable and it would be too confusing over what part referred to a woman by gender, and what by sex. Hence they referred to the definition as provided in the act itself: That it was based on biological sex. Worse was the way the Scottish Parliament tried to back-door this in was through a separate bill that was limited to Scotland, which would place Scottish Law as superior to UK law (which is certainly not allowed).
What people are missing is the court also noted that the Act can be changed via amendment, and all the Scottish Parliament had to do was table such an amendment to the UK parliament. Then it could have been reviewed, issues noted and proposed solutions to discrepancies provided and then voted on so it applied to the whole of the UK. And for reference: There's been a fair few amendments over the years. Last looks to have been in 2023.
So you might think the Judges know 'fuck all' about science, but they know a hell of a lot about the law and how to read and understand legislation.
One area I do find interesting: The dependency on China for so much of our goods is placing China in a position of power they could now exploit to seize territories, such as Taiwan.
After all, any country that is dependant on China for materials for their military that then tries to oppose China will simply find their supply cut off and scrambling to find new sources (noting it'll take time to get those online and production running).
And it's not just the threat of war: Covid should have been a massive wakeup call over dependencies on supplies being shipped into the country. In the UK we're very dependent on a lot of imports: That's one heck of a weakness. BREXIT and Covid showed us just how bad things can be, and that's not as bad as it could get, either.
Perhaps there is a silver lining, perhaps not. One can only hope.
UK government were talking about making datacentres (and hence AI) a higher priority to such things as heating and transport. So if that's how it goes, we're not looking at finding leftover energy for AI, but for heating homes and powering vehicles.
Off-grid home power production is looking really attractive now. On grid (the normal installs of solar/wind with batteries) runs the risk of your home storage being tapped when you actually need the power yourself, leaving you short.
(with perhaps a touch of sarcasm regarding how the Militwittish one plans on handling this one...)
Nope - we already know how, if you'd paid attention.
Remember this big push for EV's? They come with this neat little feature where you plug them in and they act like battery storage.
That's how the datacentres get power: People plugging their mobile battery storage into the grid. (You thought you were charging your EV? Nope, you're supplying power to the grid. I know... you only plug in your EV when it needs charge, but if it's plugged in and partly charged when the Grid decides it needs the power back...).
(and that's the end of the light sarcasm response).
The other way is something the government was pushing a while back: Making Datacentres a priority for power, combined with plans on rolling brownouts when demand exceeds supply. Allegedly datacentres should also be at least partly self-powering via wind and solar onsite, but I've lost track as to how far that's got.
"The Civil service managers view is that 'your' job is easy and 'their' job is hard and requires intelligence and skills, so that they can obviously do your job if they make a small effort !!!"
I can confirm that does happen as I was directly informed that 'anyone' could do my job while his (the manager in question) was highly skilled. This was during the initial planning phase of a project involving several departments. So, as I wasn't needed, I let the project lead and my manager know, and went back to doing things I was needed for. I wasn't the only technical person to face this attitude, either: Core people (aka technical and not management or secretarial) got told they weren't needed, so they also went back to their regular work.
Project failed spectacularly. As in it barely got off the ground before those who were 'highly skilled' and 'didn't need these low-skilled tech leeches' threw in the towel due to their inability to get anything done. Project was passed to others to do (admin departments, not IT), until it eventually got passed to us (Data and IT). We were told we had two months to get it working so it could be tested. It went live by the end of the first month. Fully tested with bells and whistles added. Not a joke - that one project saved over £1M a year, every year, in insurance payments and was completed by two people - myself and a colleague from the Data team. All it did was keep track of when qualifications expired and sent reminders to staff. The bells and whistles was it also handled mandatory training and other certification. So nothing special.
That's the fun of looking at what all sides say: Sometimes there's some good points raised, but often it's just amusing.
Yes, that actually does apply to all sides, not just those not aligned to a particular view. In the case of the Signal incident, hearing the claim it was a cleaver 4D chess move to uncover a mole: Okay, that might be true but those claiming it didn't sell it too well, and it's more likely someone mucked up. A good point, however, is the messages seem rather 'clean': Not much jargon or shorthand in use. It could be a decoy, it could be misinformation, it could be a hoax: The 'journalist' has been alleged to be involved in hoax stories before, after all, but that's the claim made to support the idea the whole thing is a hoax or a clever trap. Or a ploy to push out information into the media that wouldn't normally be carried by them, hence the messages being clear of jargon.
But most likely it's someone who added the Journo either by mistake or mischief (I'd say the latter's the most likely) and said journo's milking the situation for all it's worth.
As to Herr Starmer: Government bloat is a thing. The Civil Service could do with a careful trim, but I doubt the efforts of the government (of any flavour) will do much good. From my own experience (NHS, not central government) the go-to trick is to offer cost savings and reduced headcount but then dump the work associated with those cuts onto a different department. Most likely the one the work had been taken from along with associated headcount and budget, which will not be returned...
Think it's waiting on the following to be released first:
Outlook (Even Shittier)
Outlook (Enhanced shitty)
Outlook (Ultimate Shitty edition)
and Outlook (Directors Shitty cut)
Obviously the (less shitty) edition will be a cut-down version of the (Ultimate Shitty Edition). One with any feature that's even remotely useful removed. Such as being able to view emails.
That's actually a good point: I used to work in a city, and to be honest, the commute was a pain so I would have preferred working from home.
Now, I'm in a rural office close enough to home to comfortably walk in, or cycle, and there's a lot of lovely trails around here that I can go out at lunch for a walk in the forest. Hence I prefer being in the office now.
Where as: Those who have a longer commute prefer to work from home due to the hassle of driving in.
Flip side: I found WFH made it harder to maintain a work-life balance as an expectation grew for us to start earlier and work later as we didn't have said commute (even if mine was sub 10 minutes if I drive). There's also this expectation that, if WFH that we're available in the evenings and over the weekends should anything crop up. There was even some management pressure to that effect in both questioning why someone wasn't available to immediately pick up an 'urgent' task, or by praising how many hours some put in outside of the normal work hours - passive aggressive bullying. But me, as I work in the office: Sorry, have to head into the office to do that so that invokes the lone worker policies... oops.
So there's good and bad to both approaches and currently the company I work for is technically hybrid, but the office side isn't enforced. Am seeing a lot more jobs for my side of tech are either hybrid or remote, too, so for those who prefer WFH: if their current employer starts pushing for office time, there's options.
There's other factors, too: Interruptions and disruption when in the office. It's the most common reason quoted for people not coming in, even on teams days or the fortnightly office day when everyone's supposed to come in.
Yup - that's the downside.
The positive is supposedly less waste. An example being software licensing: Allegedly there's a lot of software licenses paid for but not used. A central purchasing scheme should allow unused licences to be assigned elsewhere rather than buy new ones.
Now, no saying that's what will happen but in principle, that's not exactly terrible.
Other than it also moves people towards the 'one size' problem of the software purchased not really being the best for each department...
Well... this is the definition, apparently:
"The U.S Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
So if the actions taken were politically driven (to intimidate Musk due to his work for the US government), or even simply to discourage people from buying Tesla's, then yes it could be terrorism.
If it's just 'cause they had a bad experience with a Tesla then not so likely.
Still a crime, though, and dangerous: Fire's not predictable and is prone to spread - could have put other properties at risk, along with lives, especially of the firefighters, and as they're busy at the Tesla dealership, they can't then respond to another fire... so there's further consequences. That's why arson is such a serious crime.
One can only hope that there is a shift and people are held accountable for their actions, equally, under the law.
What I would note, however, is those with the money often have layers of people in place to ensure that 'things are done correctly, but if not, that's on the underling'.
Thing is: That works 'cause the person who takes the action should know if the action was legal or not, and if not, to refuse to take that action, and potentially advise the person giving the instruction that the action is illegal.
" I don't really know how human intelligence works"
The field is called Cognitive Psychology. It was part of the course I did on Artificial Intelligence way back when I was studying for my BSc. It's quite a complex topic, and a fascinating one.
It does explain why we anthropomorphize things around us: It's part of how we understand the world, and how we link things together and build associations to better predict outcomes from something we've never encountered before.
"We all remember the "pedo guy" debacle."
That was the first awareness I had of Musk. Was really disgusted especially as he was trying to push an untried bit of tech on a team that hadn't got time to train with it and test it as they were on the clock to save lives. Sure, the mini sub was a nice idea - if it would work - but the logistics of such a rescue precludes the deployment of a niche and expensive bit of tech. It would need to be more widely adopted with rescue teams such that there are trained crew who can come in with it and seamlessly integrate into the rescue efforts for it to be of value, and that's simply doesn't happen. It's not like in Thunderbirds, ffs.
Damn, that's where Musk's head is, isn't it: Thinking of making International Rescue a reality.
Musk really does need a responsible adult.
I thought he was being maliciously compliant: Specifically when ordered to restore ALL payments from USAID, he said 'okay, but why does a judge want us to pay fraudulent accounts'? Which kind of made the judge look incompetent.
Mind you, that judge was also supposedly biased as his wife's charity received money from USAID? Yes, I do follow a range of media so there's a real mix of things reported. Don't know what's true and what's spin, but I guess you could say it's 'entertaining' for a given value of 'wtf'.
What a tangled mess American politics has become, eh? Almost as bad as UK politics...
Was going to say something similar, but would add:
What's the benefits of the upgrade?
Plus, software companies tend to push out their software without full testing these days: They're in a hurry to start recouping the costs for the software, and may push out a 'new' version that's basically previous version with some new features that could have been released as an 'add on' to the previous version.
M$ are a typical culprit for this: SQL 2014 was an actual engine change, but 2016 was mostly tools and stability fixes, 2017 wasn't much better, 2019 had a few engine tweaks and some long overdue features, 2022... nothing special. 2025, bolt on AI by the sounds of it. Hence: What do I get for the extra cost that I actually need? Cries of 'security' is just marketing pressure: Older versions will have matured and vulnerabilities both found and patched while the new version? Nope, not yet.
Basically: Software companies release new versions way too quickly to be worth the time and effort to invest in keeping up with the latest 'bling'. Better to stick to a pattern of upgrade after x years and if you are getting the 'latest and greatest', then accept that it may not work as well as you'd prefer.
They only need to flood one for us to object.
And we (the decedents of those displaced) been trying to drink the darn reservoir dry ever since, just so we can go see our ancestral homes once more.
Well, it's that or take up scuba diving and go swim in the darn reservoir to see if the buildings are still down there...
Problem is we're now becoming dependent on China for manufacturing, and they're spending on increasing their military while eyeing up Taiwan.
I agree we shouldn't be reliant on US arms and munitions and with the way the US is going: We shouldn't be reliant on China for our manufacturing, either. We can't be fully self-sufficient, but diversifying our supply chain goes a long way to maintain agility if there are problems with any one of our suppliers.
Just like any business in that regards, really: Diversify for resilience.
Yup - back when I was working for a cable company, we kept trying to do cooperative works to cut down disruption but other utilities didn't want to share their trenches. Main reasons were about who would be responsible for reinstatement and maintenance (yes, we offered to split the costs, but that wasn't swaying them). So inevitably we'd go dig up the ground for someone else to turn up and dig it back up (usually without telling us they'd done so) for there to be a problem, we'd go out to take a look, see someone else has dug up the ground, report that to highways and then get into a bun fight over who was actually responsible (them as the rule is it's the responsibility of the last company to disturb the land). Yes, we were that careful and honest: We were building our reputation and there were enough dirty tricks going on to besmirch the company name that we didn't need to give those behind that any legitimate claims against us. So no cutting corners from us, thanks. That was mostly... a particular big named , well established rival... (and no, not Virgin media: They didn't exist at that point).
There were all sorts of crazy ideas as to how cooperation might work better, and how we could cut down on digging up roads and footpaths, but they never got far: Always some reason why it wouldn't work.
As to phoning around: Right, so all the ducting should be registered with highways so there's a central record of where things are. BUT those records aren't (or at least were not) kept up to date by the other utilities, so you have to call them to check and then hope their records are correct. Else you get what one of our teams encountered: A mains power cable half imbedded in the tarmac of the footpath. Seriously, it wasn't in the right place, let alone at the right depth. That one could have been rather... nasty... and yes, the cable did get broken cutting power to a lot of properties, but we 'got away with it' because the cable wasn't properly buried, to the right depth and the location wasn't correctly recorded or marked out when we'd asked. Not sure if the crew were supposed to check for undeclared cables at the time - know I've seen surveyors out with hand-held devices checking footpaths which I guess is a check for shallow cables, but I could be wrong - not been in telecoms for >cough< years.
Pretty much, yes, but add in that the ducting will normally be colour coded to indicate who the owner is: Aka who you need to call if there's a service 'hit'. And such ducting may just be blocked off but still attached to the main ducts (particularly for gas and water where you don't want to risk leaking).
So, using 'abandoned' ducting comes with a whole heap of problems. Not least being if the original owner turns up to do the repairs they've been 'planning for the x years' as there's a new estate being build that the 'abandoned' ducting could be fixed up to supply.
Oh, and there's already stories* of some enterprising groups who decide to use some 'abandoned' duct without checking it's okay, for the owners to turn up and find all this cabling in their duct that shouldn't be there... and promptly rip it out, then go hunting for whoever broke into their ducting so they can bill the miscreants for the damage done and repairs needed to restore the ducting to a usable condition.
*there usually are such stories, and much like rumours, they take on a life and authority of their own.
Am usually more concerned about what I need to do to help the person, but yes, cardiac arrest is more what we'd be shocking, but to most people, it's all a heart issue hence have a bad habit of referring to all of it as a 'heart attack'. But in my defence: not a doctor so can't diagnose: My focus is treating the person for what's wrong, and for that I go by signs and symptoms rather than risk the wrong term being used.
Now I've not heard of AICD's before: Perhaps those could link to the smart watch to make a call if it activates.
Thankfully I've never had to use a Defib for real - and never been on the receiving end of one - just done the training over many, many years (yes, been doing first aid since I was a nipper, and learned how to use AED's when they became available).
One thing I do know is the automated kit only really works for the common fibrillation pattern: The Emergency Ambulance Crew I know have kit that can detect a range of rhythms and know which ones they can also shock. But again - never witnessed it and really hope people don't need that kind of intervention.
As to the size of an AED: The battery is certainly the bulky bit. And the weighty bit. My shoulder can attest to that one... And yes, the excess charge passes through the muscles between the pads, and down through the ground, too. It's why we have to make sure people are stood away from the person being shocked 'cause we don't want that shock going into someone else, thanks. Don't want two people down with heart problems...
You need a defibrillator* for that. Or a pacemaker. The former is a bit bulky, the latter means you've already had a heart attack and the pace maker is there in case it happens again.
*A Defibrillator stuns the heart to stop fibrillation, which is what most heart attacks involve. The heart is fluttering ineffectively (fibrillation) and needs the shock to reset it.
When a CIO says they don't need a wiring cabinet: Are they planning on using 5G connections to the cloud? Or is the place already covered by WiFi and the wiring cabinet exists but the CIO doesn't know about it?
It does seem, from that one example, that there are people being hired into positions who do not understand the underlying infrastructure to make things actually work.
Then again, have had one too many encounters with 'IT professionals' who don't understand the most basic aspects of tech. Far too 'head in the cloud' to remember they need to have good foundations, too.
Perhaps they should keep such chats to outside the workspace? Same for everyone: NSFW does mean 'NOT Safe For Work' so why engage in it while at work?
I can get that most of us have internet access while at work, especially if we work from home, but on company equipment, via company infrastructure: Any such access is restricted at least to some extent and there's usually policies in place to warn people of what is acceptable and what is not. Seems these got caught ignoring that and have paid the price. And I do hope such rules are fairly applied to all staff.
Seeing it here: There's even a push for it to be used more in the business.
I'm not impressed as the code produced isn't that good. Mostly it fails for stupid reasons, but when it's 'fixed', it's still not efficient.
Okay, I'm speaking mostly of SQL as that's the stuff that gets pushed my way to check. And I fix it to make it run a lot faster by rewriting a good chunk. So it's clear that these 'AI' models don't understand data and how Databases work. Yet MS want to imbed AI in the next edition of SQL Server...
Yes, understanding how things work makes it easier to make things work, and build on that. If AI takes that away, then people will lack the understanding on how to fix the issues AI introduces and we might as well turn off all the computers 'cause the mistakes being introduced will only get worse until you could ask the 'computer' what colour an Elephant is, to be told 'Nelly'.
Again: I'm referring to the Optics: The perceptions.
Businesses congregate in larger towns and cities because they believe that's where they'll get the best candidates. However, this then costs them more in both rent and wages as costs in cities tend to be higher, and in London, they're much higher. That's why some businesses have relocated away from the main cities, and they've not had the problem getting skilled staff. But the perception remains that the big Cities, and in particular, London, are the places to be.
Oh, there are other reasons such as where key infrastructure is located, but it really shouldn't matter - and recent years have shown that remote working can be a viable alternative to large offices and local workers... unless there's a requirement for staff to attend their office for a few days in the week, which looks to be a growing trend. But optics: What the 'big bosses' see: That's not changing quite so quickly, and that's affecting the decisions as to where things are built.
I was making a point about Optics: Perception.
It is perceived that the major cities attract the best and the brightest, not stating that they do or that people what to live or work in a city.
Personally, I like being out in the countryside as it's more relaxed and I can go out for some rather lovely walks through woodland. Couldn't do that when I worked in Birmingham. But when I was younger, that's where I lived and so that's where I worked.
Was talking about perceptions rather than actual infrastructure.
As to the grid: I take it you missed the warning a few years ago that there could be planned power outages to 'save the grid'? It's possible to shut down sections and prioritise others for power if there's not enough production. My point being that London is perceived to be of a higher priority than more isolated areas, so the grid might be shut down to remote areas just to maintain supply to the Capital and other priority areas. Although... there was talk about data centres being declared as critical infrastructure so would get a higher priority for power... but again, it's how those who are behind the building of these data centres see things... so back to 'Optics' (aka perception)
I'm going to opt with optics.
London is the capital city, and is the 'heart' of commerce in the UK, so it's the place to be, and more importantly, be seen.
There's also the idea that London has a priority on power supply, and if power needs importing from France, it'll go to London first.
Add in that major cities attract the best and brightest: Makes it easier to recruit people you'd need onsite, be it in London or Birmingham or any other major city.
Costs a fortune in wages, however, but hey, more pay = more tax!
I wouldn't say they're eating SQL Server alive: They're replacing SQL Server in some areas, sure, but they can't, and likely won't, match all the features of SQL Server, just as SQL Server is still chasing after Oracle.
So it's more a case of having more tools to choose from, and Postgres etc have their place in the expanding DB landscape. Same as NoSQL (MongoDB etc) had found its place, and is expanding, but SQL Server still has things to offer that other options aren't quite so capable of (yet).
As to MS giving up: Take a look at MS Fabric.
And there was I, going to comment on who is using AI. Well, here at least: Management.
Oh, and the Directors.
The one saving grace, however, is they've acknowledged the 80/20 law: That AI has to be correct 80% of the time and the other 20% it's close enough, meaning it's 'Good enough' to use. Else it's too great a risk to use.
But they use it for formatting emails and reports, and for quick data analysis to suggest trends and areas for further attention, but thankfully not for actual decision making.
At least, not yet.
Well, it could be a false flag so they can manage the rush of people trying to test their claims.
It could be rivals trying to bring it down or subvert it.
It could be other AI's wanting to have a chat about how to eliminate those pesky meatbags.
It could also be a ploy by marketing.
And how will we determine what the truth of the matter really is? Hype/marketing, Unintended consequences or jealous rivals?
Depends on the type of rust.
Yes, there are different types, forming under different conditions, with some being easy to remove and others being quite damaging.
Surface rust sounds like the common 'orange' or red rust: Powdery, and brushes off easily. Doesn't cause much damage to the metal. So not really a concern. Indeed: That kind of rust would be expected and stuff just needs cleaning and polishing.
Yes, Civil engineers deliberately allow rebar to rust before brushing off the excess and putting the rebar into concrete: It helps with adhesion. Black, flaking rust, however: That's bad news.
Unfortunately it can be necessary, particularly if you've external groups collaborating on a project. Then you find you have these mixed organisation meetings taking place.
However, in such instances there should be pre-configuration work done to create a trusted channel or shared area.
But for the initial meetings: That's where you'd have the risk as it's unlikely there's been time to set up the security.
Knowing some (UK) government IT upper management: Musk is definitely overqualified.
I'm not even expecting him to be able to tie his own shoelaces to be smarter than the so-called IT experts who somehow bluffed their way into government IT upper management (at least, over here). And I doubt he could inflict the US with the kind of embarrassing disasters that are a result.
Was unfortunate enough to meet some of the UK Government IT upper managers... and I know of the mess they make of government projects. The reason they survive: They move on BEFORE things fall apart, leaving some other poor sap to try to salvage something from the mess. It's the latter who are the reason why things aren't quite so bad over here - even though the project does go over time and over budget (fixing the mess isn't quick, nor cheap, you know!).
So I doubt Musk will be as bad.
Or perhaps I hope, for the sake of the American people, he's not...
"An oft-repeated myth is that potholes form through a combination of surface cracks, water, and traffic, but they're actually caused by chronic levels of underinvestment in public infrastructure."
Nope, the pot hole is caused by the failure of the running course: The tarmac. This can be due to several factors, but the main ones are tears (cracks) in the bitumen that is binding the aggregate (rock chips) allowing said chips to be tugged free, or for water ingress that can then freeze and force the cracks to widen and/or lift the running course from the under layer (hard core), or simply erode the hard core leaving a void under the tarmac.
If these are not fixed, they get worse, and that's where the issue of funds for repairs come in.
Now, there is a problem: Roads are designed to handle a predicted combination of vehicles. Vehicles have been getting larger, heavier and faster, meaning the roads aren't seeing the anticipated types of vehicle: They're having to cope with worse. End result is they fail faster meaning they need repairs more frequently. That then drains the council's budget for highway repairs. Add in the normal council incompetence and it can only get worse.
But what's really needed, isn't repairs: It's for the roads to be replaced of a design better suited for the modern car - and in particular, the EV. That's expensive, but it needs to happen else the issue of why the potholes are forming won't be addressed.
Now to the AI angle: This isn't going to help, even if whats used is an actual AI. Rather, it's a waste of money that could better be spent upgrading the roads.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
