Posts by Helcat

Ad blocking is alive and well, despite Chrome's attempts to make it harder

So rather than fix the reason people use adblockers (intrusive, invasive and annoying ads) they want to stop people blocking the ads.

If they bothered to make ads less intrusive, and less invasive, people might be more tolerant. But when you're being forced to watch 5-6 back to back unskipable ads, just to watch one short video? And when more ads are inserted at random INTO the video?

That's when I started using an ad blocker. not that Google understood this: It got grouchy due to anti-malware software blocking third party cookies and off site scripting: Things that are intended to help keep my system safe...

DWP finds Copilot saves civil servants a whopping 19 minutes a day

Re: Costly placebo

"Second, the numbers are already wobbling."

Not necessarily: One department might do more work where co-pilot can be used successfully than another. However, the department saying there was zero benefit did note that was due to the need to check and correct the slop from co-pilot, which raises the question: Did the others actually check/verify/correct the Co-pilot output?

One thing that was mentioned was the summarization of documents/meetings: That's one area where LLM's are fairly decent (in my experience). As long as it only references the document inputted and a template to fit it into, the output is decent enough and generally does save a bit of time, even with me having to proof read the output.

Does this make AI cost effective? Hell no. It just means I get a few more minutes before the next pointless meeting... time for a coffee!

Tesla revenue falls for first time as Musk bets big on robots and autonomy

Re: Car sales are stalling

BYD are cheaper (Dolphin is about £30k, Tesla 3 is closer to £40k).

That's a major point in EV sales: Price. And there are more people who can afford £30k than £40k. And those who can afford £40k are more likely to look at a higher spec'd Dolphin or look at the Seal or Sealion than a basic Tesla 3.

And yes, I've been looking at BYD.

Woman bailed as cops probe doctor's surgery data breach

Re: What for?

Oh, I agree.

My response was just giving another reason the data might be of value to the thieves.

Re: What for?

The value?

Other than research companies loving this kind of information, and would love to directly invite people to drug/treatment trials, bypassing your GP...

Targeting people for ID theft. If you have a specific condition, someone who also has that condition would benefit from using your ID to get treatment when they're not actually eligible for it.

Zuck forms Meta Compute to pave the planet with 'hundreds of gigawatts' of AI datacenters

Re: Will these be built in the Metaverse?

Meta Ray-bans.

That's where they're at.

Including AI.

Google's working on a rival set of AI enhanced AR glasses.

Memory shortage could push PC shipments to pre-pandemic lows

I see an opportunity!

Okay, so time to go out with a long coat on and a hat: Scruffy type. Stand on the street corner near a PC store and when I see potential customers: 'Hey, kid: Want some Ram? Going cheap: Only been used once'.

Will also change my name to Dibbler. Initials: CMOT.

Hey, it's a way to make a living, right? Got to be a profit in it somewhere? Just mark up that old DDR3 and DDR4 as DDR5 - no one will notice?

Okay, so I'm not really that dishonest, and not got quite that much spare memory lying around, waiting for projects I've not started, but it looks like those project won't start now. Just glad I did finish my last Gaming rig before I'd need a new mortgage to get the parts...

Microsoft teases targeted Copilot removal for admins

Now, I'm a little cynical (just a little... honest!)

What's to stop an app, such as, say, Word, or Excel, calling co-pilot on the QT, so it looks like the user has run it, even if they were completely unaware of doing so?

What's to stop Microslop (I do like this new name for MS - better than M$!) from installing copilot again after it's been disabled as part of patching or upgrades or as part of a separate package then report the user installed it, even though (again) the user was completely unaware it was in the install - or they were not given the choice NOT to install (other than not installing the patch, upgrade or even software they actually do need)?

What SHOULD happen is Co-pilot should be an Option. One you can select to install, OR leave unselected so it does NOT install. That's the only moral approach to this: Make it an option the user has to select.

I know: it's the opt-in/opt-out argument once more...

Grok told to cover up as UK weighs action over AI 'undressing'

Nope, but I was pointing out how scumbags could deflect attention to the innocent. It's called 'fraud'.

And the 'free market' has a duty to monitor for fraud. So they have to care about where they get the money from else they risk getting shut down, assets seized and the owners finding themselves in a nice tiny hotel room with free meals, limited time to stretch the legs, limited outside access and very tight security (aka prison).

Okay, that's what I want to see happen. Don't holding my breath waiting for it, though.

Re: Only for those prepared to pay then?

Some have, and will.

Some will have stopped - if only because they don't have a paid account.

The hope is those using it for such activities can now be identified, and where it's non-consensual / involves minors: hauled into court and prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned and key lost.

Oh, I doubt it'll happen, but it would be a start if it did.

Now, a better solution would be to turn off the feature entirely. Unless there's a good reason for it to exist - then additional checks could be introduced to ensure everything remains legal. But again: is that likely to happen without someone wielding a big stick.

But it's a start: It's recognizing there is a problem.

Re: Only for those prepared to pay then?

Oh, I agree: It requires the image to be inspected, and it's far from perfect. My understanding was, however, that the image would be linked to the account used to generate it, else what would be the point of the restriction?

That's what might cause (and note it only might) deter some from using it for such purposes. Then again, it's more likely X just 'doing something', much like the government is 'doing something' - not that the 'something' is actually achieving much. Or rather, it is, but not what they claim it's for (example: Digital ID).

Who said it's their money?

Those payment details will be on record: That'd make it easier to find the 'Paedo' people. Unless they're using stolen cards, or Id, at which point that poor old spinster, Ms Miggins, 92 years old and still thinks a computer is a job title gets an unexpected visit by the fuzz.

Re: Only for those prepared to pay then?

One note on it being available to paying users is their details, including payment details, are on record.

That might act as a deterrent to illegal usage.

Linus Torvalds: Stop making an issue out of AI slop in kernel docs – you're not changing anybody's mind

Re: Cost

AI investment is propping up the economy because it's currently profitable and that's because of how it's being marketed: The fabled Rainbow Farting Unicorn.

The reason it's more expensive for businesses (particularly SME's) is that when it produces the slop: Someone has to fix it. Example being the SME's using AI to update their websites, to find the slop doesn't really work, meaning they start losing business so they then have to get in the company that they had been using to update their website, who now charges MORE to fix the website issues than they'd have charged to do the updates themselves. Because they have to undo what the AI did, and THEN do the updates: Way more work.

Obviously, if the AI got it right: Win! It's the frequency it gets things wrong and the cost to fix it where the problem lies.

And when SME's figure this out and ditch AI, the dam will start to crumble, and when Big Business realises: That's when investment is pulled and the dam bursts.

Oddly, there's a fair few companies ditching the public consumer to gorge themselves on the AI bandwagon. If/when things do burst, do they think they'll be forgiven for the outrageous prices they're now charging for what little they bother to produce for the public? That could be the next big upheaval: The likes of NVidia going bust as ASUS takes over as the main supplier of graphics cards and memory for gamers...

Lenovo shows off new laptops that twist and roll

Re: Malware Using the Auto-Twist Feature in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

You're of the opinion the webcam on them works and that there isn't an inbuilt physical shutter.

Camera on my X1 doesn't work (never has), so I leave the physical shutter covering the lens as there's no point leaving it uncovered.

Personally, I think it's a great security feature! Means I have to use a much more obvious webcam that I can physically unplug in addition to the larger, more obvious lens cover that USB webcam comes with.

But my concern would more be with how the screen twists and covers part of the keyboard. Perhaps that's a feature to combat RSI? Encourage users to plug in an external keyboard, which would then encourage the use of an external mouse, too...

Memory is running out, and so are excuses for software bloat

Re: Microsofts fault...

Honestly I want to give you a hundred thumbs up: Spot on with the AI crap: Most of us don't need it, don't want it, so why is it running on our systems, consuming resources including RAM but also CPU cycles. Why make it so hard to disable the darn stuff?

Although... M$ isn't the only company pushing bloatware and unnecessary functionality such as AI. Google are doing so, too.

UK.gov accused of Grinching Christmas by ignoring phone theft scourge

Re: Erm

The problem is career criminals know how to game the system to ensure they get lighter sentences.

I do wonder if there's a better approach: One where the initial sentence is light, to give people a chance to clean up their act (the slapped wrist approach), but any subsequent conviction will land an increasingly harsher sentence, meaning repeat offending is less pleasant.

Plus... let's make the convicts pay for anything beyond basic bread and board. If they want TV, they have to earn it. They want education, they earn it. They can take on jobs around the prison to pay for the extras via work credit, even to pay off some of the sentence so they can be released early. They don't have to, though: They could just sit there with the absolute minimum and for the full term of their sentence: That's their choice. But if they choose to work: That cuts costs, and it helps them get used to the idea of working for a living.

Plus... for a thief, take all that stuff away from them at random times. Just so they know what it's like to be the victim of theft. Seemed to work with car thieves who liked stealing cars to go joy riding, destroying the cars in the process...

Denmark takes a Viking swing at VPN-enabled piracy

Re: They Came for the VPNs...

One report is that age verification will be needed to download the VPN software.

However, that doesn't stop a child using a VPN on a computer if it's already installed, or is installed by an adult.

So the next step would be to require VPN's to require age verification on each use.

Oh, and there's another amendment been proposed for that child safety act: To require all phone manufacturers to add image scanning to their devices to report if an image, either taken by that device or downloaded to the device, might be of a child, and to then notify the police. No chain of custody: Just your device spying on you along with the opportunities it offers criminals to scam/extort people.

Also goes to show how quickly mission creep occurs... and how little those in power care about the privacy of the public.

Electric cars no more likely to flatten you than the noisy ones, study finds

Re: Vehicle weight?

ME's tend to see the more severe cases that are sent to hospital. There, the cause of death is important, and yes, head injuries are more dangerous.

No, I've never said that all the force is transferred: The design of cars has helped 'soften' blows by extending the time over which the forces are transferred, allowing better absorption by both the pedestrian and the vehicle. This is a good thing (although I still rather there be zero impact).

What I've said, and still say, is that a heavier vehicle imparts more force due to momentum for the same velocity - it's the same concept as the same car hitting at a slightly higher speed. That difference can affect the non-elastic elements (the bit that breaks bones). Bones break when the force transferred to the bone exceeds the material strength of the bone - this is true of all materials. With some materials, such as bone, there isn't that much of a progression between no failure, partial failure and full failure . And that's the point I'm making: That the more force, the bigger the risk of fractures, and depending on the bones fractured, that could be the difference between a minor injury and a critical injury. And yes, that includes the skull - that's one set of bones you don't want fracturing, and the soft tissue within does NOT like shock.

So, as a first responder, I don't want people hit. If they're going to be hit, I'd rather it be at a very slow speed, and with a very light vehicle. As either increases, the chance of a more severe injury occurring increases. And this IS a case of a small difference in force = sudden jump in severity of injury. Like I said in my reply to John Robson, fracturing the femur is bad enough, but fracture the pelvis is much, much worse. And the difference there could just be the angle of impact, but it could also be a small increase in force.

Re: Vehicle weight?

So firstly, thanks for acknowledging there is a difference.

The issue, I believe, is you don't think that 0.5mph difference is particularly significant. Problem is: It can be.

So: a 1tonne car hits you in the hip. It causes bruising. I can pop a cold pack on that, offer you paracetamol, check you can walk, signpost you to the hospital (self-present) and discharge you at scene if I'm confident it is just bruising. Sure, I'd much rather have an ambulance crew check you out, just to be sure, but you're considered non-urgent so it could be a while, and that's why I'd advise self-presenting to the hospital.

A 1.5 tonne car at the same speed (say the e-208 rather than the 208) that's now fractured the neck of your femur. Now you need a traction splint (outside my scope of practice) so that's an ambulance, but I can (if I've my kit) give you Penthrox or Entonox (depending on if I have the latter) as an analgesic. You're going to hospital, possibly cat1, possibly cat2 - I don't make that call.

Now, a 2 tonne car hits you at that same speed and that's a pelvic fracture. You're now in so much pain you can't follow the instructions for the analgesics I can provide, so you're waiting on the ambulance for morphine. You'll also need a pelvic binder which, while within my scope of practice, I don't carry - so that's waiting on the ambulance, too. Good news, however, is you're a cat1. Stat. So the nearest ambulance, unless already on a cat1, is getting diverted to you. You're in a really bad way with a pelvic fracture: Internal bleeding, organ displacement, intense pain: You could die very easily, so this is a real major case.

This isn't a joke, btw: Injuries aren't a linear progression: Even a 0.1mph difference could be the difference between soft tissue injury only and bones breaking. So to me (I'm a First responder btw) the milder the impact, the better (with no impact being the best!).

And that is why I say: the larger the mass at a given velocity, the more momentum (hence force) results in a greater risk of injury. The body can absorb x amount of force without issue, but it doesn't take much beyond that for the injuries to stack up and move from mild to critical.

Re: Vehicle weight?

Again: It's relying on tech to work as intended.

How often does tech fail?

That's the problem. Sure, it's a safety net if the driver fails to notice/react to a hazard, but my point is that an increasing number of drivers are just relying on the tech to do the work for them rather than paying attention, so to them there is no safety net. For me, having been brought up with 'dumb' cars, where I had sole responsibility for control of the vehicle, I just got into the habit of retaining that control and so these systems are just a backup. And so far (touch wood) I've not needed them to do anything. Hence being aware of how often they get it wrong - due to false positives.

So while you say humans don't excel at driving: My argument is more than tech isn't as good as humans in interpreting events around it, so is okay for routine driving where things are predictable, but it's not so good for handling exceptions. That doesn't mean it won't work, just that it's a bad idea to rely on it entirely. Hence we should be paying attention while driving and not being reliant on tech. I don't mind the tech: I'm just not about to rely on it.

Re: "Safety Technologies"

My experience (in an ICE) includes: Heavy rain, wind (particularly if there's blown debris), cars turning left in next lane over (UK), a car pulling out in front of me without ensuring there was sufficient gap... those I can see, I've normally adjusted for in ample time, but the rain was my first experience of Brake Assist applying, and the wind was baffling at first until I realised it was the leaves / debris being blown around. The cars... I'd seen and adjusted got but the break assist insisted it knew better and hit the panic button.

The alarm is a pain on the motorway: That's where you are likely to encounter people changing lanes without sufficient gap. But again: An attentive driver will be adjusting to handle all of that: We don't actually need the 'safety' system distracting us or messing us about.

Re: Vehicle weight?

"If we're talking about low speed collisions, 80kg human, does the weight of the vehicle really have that much of an impact?"

Hell yes: The larger the mass at a given velocity, the more momentum of the vehicle impacting that 80kg human, meaning more force transference resulting in greater risk of injury.

It's basic physics.

Currently EV's are 40%-50% greater mass than their ICE counterpart, so that's 40%-50% more momentum, so that's a marked increase in risk. That is why there's more reliance on the newer safety systems such as break assist: If it works as intended, it should reduce the incidents of impact. However, where there is an impact, the greater mass involved means a more severe impact/injury. General design of the vehicle also plays a part in this, but mass is most certainly a major factor including when breaking.

Knowing someone who is technically blind (Very poor eyesight so while they can 'see', it's far from perfect): The concern was EV's were too quite to alert vision impaired to their approach so any sound that stands out is a blessing.

Now, ICE's have been getting quieter, meaning it's harder to hear them approach. Not quite as bad as an EV without the AVAS, but it's getting worse. With new ICE's fading out soon: That removed that trend, but it does still mean that vision impaired are reliant on an artificial system to alert them to the approach of a slow moving EV, when that system can, in at least some instances, be turned off.

Re: Vehicle weight?

I'd agree that EV drivers won't be 'safer' or more attentive, but for a slightly different reason. (Note: This also applies to ICE car drivers where the same features are fitted).

The new 'safety' tech is making drivers lazy. So drivers rely on the tech to avoid collisions, rather than using MK1 eyeball and that organic processor they're supposed to posses (called a brain).

The brake assist (which is quite relevant to this topic) is a classic example: Having found problems with it suffering from false positives, I found most older drivers had experience the same, but some, mostly younger, claimed it 'brilliant' because they didn't have to worry or pay as much attention: The system just did the hard work for them. They seemed unaware of, or simply didn't care about, false positives. As long as it didn't return a false negative (failed to engage when it should have). I've not experienced the negative because I don't rely on the brake assist. However, I know someone who did have that particular failure and hit another vehicle (no, neither was a Tesla - they were both ICE's). Had said driver been paying attention and responsive in their control of their vehicle, that collision could have been avoided. Thankfully no one was hurt (other than emotionally) and no cyclist or pedestrian involved, but this is the one case where I've known the driver of the vehicle involved. Yes, there's 'stories' of others - but they're stories and may or may not be accurate or true.

However, these systems only makes things 'safer' if the system works as intended. If it fails: That's when bad things happen 'cause the driver isn't paying attention and instead is reliant on the system working correctly.

Australia bans teens from social media, but nobody thinks it'll really work

So under 16's are banned from social media. So now when they hit 17 they have access... but have no idea what to expect because they've never encountered it before?

That'd be a real culture shock, surely?

Well, for the generations that haven't had access to social media before, and are kept from it. Much like pron and other 'adult' material. Sure, there's harmful stuff out there, but surely it's better to teach the kids how to survive in the real world than hide them away and mollycoddle them so when they do get out there, it's not such a shock, such a horrific, ugly, dangerous place? AKA educate the kids so they've got the tools to survive in the real world rather than hamstring them so they're dependent on the government for protection...

Oh... ah... I see...

UK pushes ahead with facial recognition expansion despite civil liberties backlash

jpennycook - just realised you'd said pensioners through their pension fund managers - they're investors and if property investment isn't providing a decent return, they'll move that investment elsewhere.

So the impact is still the reduction of value of the properties (in this instance through a reduction of investment) which means a reduction in revenue for the government. Perhaps not so much for the political parties, but it's still something to consider.

One note: This is actually happening and has been for a while. It's only one part of a much larger picture, so may seem to be marginal in impact but it is there.

Oh, you're probably right: The other risk is always that people don't consider the consequences of these policies, especially where they interact with other things, such as other policies, but also cultural expectations.

Classic example can be seen in the Chinese 'One child' policy. Great in theory, but add in that a SON is expected to look after their parents (but not the parents of their wife) and you have the beginnings of a problem: Couples wanting sons not daughters, can only have one, find they're expecting the other, so arrange for a 'miscarriage' to reset the child count. End result: China had more boys than girls meaning most guys couldn't find girlfriends/wives.

All because the Chinese government didn't consider what the impact of a one child policy would have when taken in conjunction with the established cultural expectations put on the child.

The trouble is in spotting these potential issues BEFORE they become an issue. Can't do that without putting things together to see how they might fit :p

Well, I kept it simple: Just a few dots to join to see how they might influence each other. Like I said: It's an exercise and you always start small to see how things can interact, and then you might build out from there.

The conspiracy aspect covers if it's intentional or not. Mostly it's not, but where it is: Who benefits. Then project on to see why. Can be rather flimsy, but sometimes it's amusing and occasionally it can expose a potential plot. Just something to be aware of and maybe keep an eye on.

And no, we don't need conspiracy theories to hate surveillance: The Government is supposed to represent the people, so why do they need to watch us? They are ours to command, not the other way around. And yes, as pure as the intent might be now, it won't be in a few years time. After all: With power comes responsibility as power corrupts through the temptation to misuse it. The more power? The worse the risk.

Nope - I was looking at a 'join the dots' to see what the pattern might be.

Pensioners who invest in property generally don't invest in business properties aka office space. Pension funds might, but that's not the pensioners.

However, the people who do own those business properties tend to be rather wealthy, and they tend to donate towards political parties to gain favour and so they can influence policy: That's the dot I'm connecting here.

But it's just an exercise: A way to show how things can connect, and how different policies can interact - risk analysis if you like. That then brings in a question of how someone might benefit from such coincidences, and THAT then brings in the conspiracy theory: Are these things intentional or just a happy coincidence.

And while out for my lunchtime walk (when I tend to mull over random things) this thought popped up: Facial recognition/Digital ID connects to the Age Verification of the Online Safety Act. You're providing identification or a face scan, which would lean into facial recognition and hence it would add to the surveillance capacity of the system if they were joined up, meaning it looks even MORE like it's building into a social credit scoring system - The Government can decree sites are 'dangerous' to youth, so need age verification allowing them to monitor who is accessing those sites and can then track those people as they go about their daily lives, and note who they meet with, to track those people and see what age verified sites THEY are visiting... joining dots to get patterns which will then be put through AI to determine how much of a risk you are, assign that social credit score and impose sanctions against you without you even realising what you're supposed to have done.

Lots of dots to connect. Interesting patterns formed. Probably unintended but we're talking Governments: They like spying on people and meddling with their lives.

It's a game of connect the dots: There's some interesting results if you do that.

Yes, increased facial recognition, connected to Digital ID = surveillance state Britain. Much easier to track the movement of people and know who they are.

Here's another fun game of joining dots: The Online Safety Act, resulting in an increase in VPN usage. So ban VPN's? That's the answer, right?

Connect that to Work from Home trends. VPN's are needed for that. So ban VPN's = Banning Work from Home and Hybrid working?

Why? Well... (this one's fun, so enjoy the ride...)

With more workers opting to work from home, businesses are seeing fewer 'bums in seats' meaning they don't need such a large office space to work out from. So, to save money, they either surrender floorspace, or they move to smaller premises, and reduce costs. So who moves into the old office? No one 'cause more and more businesses are doing the same thing, meaning there's less demand for office space.

That now impacts the Landlords: They're not renting out as much floorspace of their buildings. This leads to a reduction in investment. Meaning the Wealthy property owners have just taken a massive hit to their income.

Now, a bit of a jump: Wealthy people back political parties. Wealthy people losing wealth stop backing political parties. Political parties don't like having their funding reduced.

At the same time, those empty properties aren't bringing in as much money. That means reduced funding to the government. One might even say it's a 'black hole'.

So, banning VPN's = Reduction of WFH = Increased Bums in Seats in offices = increased demand for office space = increased taxes from business premises / increased wealth for the property owners/investors and also increased income to maintenance and security firms = further increase in taxes to the government.

All at the cost of increased road usage (more tax!) at the cost to the worker.

I know: Sounds like a conspiracy theory, right? But it's the fun of joining dots and linking different things together to see if there's a pattern.

So back to facial recognition and digital ID's: There's certainly potential links and the forming of a pattern, and I can see it working to track 'people of interest', with the spin that those would be people who aren't in the country legally. Oh, and criminals. But in reality it's everyone, and it's what China does as part of it's social credit scoring: Anyone recorded to be in the vicinity of a 'person of interest' could quickly see their social credit score take a hit, even if it's pure chance. That's what this system is moving us towards: That's where conspiracy theorists might point a finger and cry foul. Question is: Is there a profit to be made (and there is - and not just by the firms involved with the tracking, but also the value of the data collected to marketing firms - and you know darn well the data will 'leak'... way too much money to be made from it for it not to).

Yes, I'm out of dried frog pills and I sympathise with Vimes now I don't drink any more...

London grid crunch delays new housing amid datacenter boom

"Just wait for a nice calm spell this January combined with a station like drax going offline for any reason"

Doesn't need to be a calm spell - look at what happened to Spain/Portugal. Power SURGE shut their grid down because the winds were too perfect.

But some countries have woken up and realised they need to diversify their power and have backups - Germany being one after they'd closed all coal, oil, gas and nuclear plants. Then they had to go to France to beg for Nuclear generated power to help cover them.

I'm not sure he's even in charge of that party any more. Sure, it's rumour, but allegedly he's been pushed aside with the manifesto that they won't have a leader, but something closer to a council made up of regular members.

That's after kicking out a quarter of their members, and the various other fractures that have shown up as a result (source: BBC article, so may not be exactly accurate - be interesting to see what alternative sources have to say).

Re: Frack off

"we have NIMBY anti-pylon landowners confounding infrastructure builds"

Well... some are, sure, but some have a point. The reason why some will object to those pylons is where they're placed, the access/disruption involved in placing them and to maintain them, and the impact they have on the environment. This is because those who propose the pylons generally draw a straight line across the land and don't give a figs arse as to where each pylon lands. Unless it's in water or the middle of a road (when Highways might step in and say 'No!'), when they might take note. This is in contrast to following natural breaks or lines in the land (hedgerows, following roads etc) which may increase the length of the cable run, but can improve access, reduce impact and means they're not plopping a bloody great pylon in the middle of a corn field (note: With 24hr / 365 day access to the pylon required so that's a track out there, gates etc.)

It's actually an old argument but futile because the national grid doesn't care and has regulatory powers to just go do what they want UNLESS it's blocked by the courts, which is why you get so much NIMBY activity.

The answer, if you missed it, is to work together with landowners to route the grid along easier access paths. After all, the farmers/land owners either get paid rent for the use of their land, or they get paid out for the transfer of ownership. It's just where that plot of land sits that can be a massive headache, and not just some minor inconvenience.

Obviously, those are the ones who have a point with their objections. Then you just have the regular 'I don't like how they look' crowd. The problem is they get the focus of the media rather than those with a genuine reason to object.

Landlord quirks leave thousands of flats stuck in the broadband slow lane

First thing I got when I moved from POTS* to fibre was a UPS** to ensure the router and VOIP phone have power if there's a power cut. They're not exactly cheap, but they do provide some peace of mind. Especially as a landline (or VOIP line) is kind of essential where I am as mobile signal is... not exactly great.

Sure, the issue would then be if the local cabinet lost power, but that would be true even with POTS (and they usually have UPS in the cabinet, too).

* In the UK, POTS is being/has been retired, hence moving to VOIP.

** For reference, I got an APC extension lead type as it takes standard plugs (3 pin). Has been solid so far (3 years and counting) and yes, have had power cuts and still retained network/voip, hence why I'd suggest looking into a small home UPS for key things like your router and VOIP module/phone. Even if you're not going fibre, POTS is being retired so VOIP or mobile are the only options.

"Our understanding is that this is a known issue, where the landlord of an MDU needs to give their approval to allow work to proceed, but that telcos are not always able to identify the landlord in some cases."

Well, I can say this from experience (I used to cover Wayleaves for MDU's back when I worked for a cable provider) and it can be tricky identifying who owns the building shell and common areas of an MDU. However, there's usually a managing company (one that's looking after the shared areas) and they can usually point to the owners. So while it's a bit of legwork - it's not that much effort. Especially now when you can ask Land Registry (does cost, but it's not that much) as all property is supposed to be registered (Not sure what happened if the owner couldn't be identified - think it was then open to claim by the residents...).

Now, the tricky ones were where each unit was individually owned, with common areas in 'shared' but managed ownership. Then you need to get all the owners to agree, and for them to tell the management company they're agreeing, and for the management company not to be an arse about it. Those ones were fun, but not insurmountable. Problem was (when I left that company) that not all MDU's were economic to cable, so... they kept being pushed back. I'd hazard (but not seeing the examples for this current situation, can't be 100% sure) that it's still the case: The companies (BT/Openreach, Virgin Media or whoever) just don't see it as economically viable to cable the building so are just throwing out excuses as to why they can't install the upgraded service.

Very few mutli-tenant buildings have landlords who don't want broadband installed as it's a bonus selling point for them. Those that do object... are likely looking to use it as an excuse to increase rent.

UK digital ID plan gets a price tag at last – £1.8B

Re: I voted for him

"Just waiting for the first data breach"

Interestingly, the Government use Estonia as the standard for Digital ID. Estonia hasn't had their ID hacked (yet) but there was a security breach (certificates) in 2017, and the system was taken offline by a DDoS recently (think it was 2022).

There's also been reports of Digital ID's failing and locking people out of accounts, including banking, so a data breach doesn't look to be the thing we should really worry about.

At least with paper (or plastic) you have the manual backup. No need for power, either...

Bossware booms as bots determine whether you're doing a good job

Re: a1 == slavery

While I'd agree it'd feel like slavery, it isn't. As long as: A) You signed that contract of your own free will, B) you can elect to exit the contract and C) what's happening is covered by the terms of the contract you agreed to and signed, then no, it's not slavery.

Oh, sure, I get what you're saying: That you can't just quit a job on the spot. Not unless you've an 'at will' contract, or you negotiate an early release. But that's due to the required notice period you agreed to. It's part of the contract, and you signed to say you'd agree so on you. Fail to give the required notice and yes, the company can come after you for compensation. After all, abuse can go both ways.

Re: a1 == slavery

Might be worth investing in a dictionary. Then reading it.

Slavery is forced servitude (From the Latin, it was a bound or chained servant). Chattel slavery allows for the purchase and sale of slaves, but is not in and of itself slavery.

If you have signed a contract, and can end that contract then you're not a slave: You are in an agreement over the work you can do. If you're a prisoner who is forced to work as part of your punishment then you are a slave (it's called Judicial Slavery).

This matter of bossware isn't slavery, although it's very intrusive. Mostly because you're under contract which you can opt to exit. And it's that choice that means you're not a slave.

Hope that helps.

X's location tags remind users of the internet's oldest rule: Trust nothing

Re: Did anyone trust X before ?

Did anyone actually trust ANY social media before?

Okay, so some people will, but hopefully more people are waking up to the understanding that social media, and main stream media, too, is not exactly reliable.

San Jose's 'warrantless' license plate queries land cops in court

Re: I'll bet a lot of that

Strangely, HMRC over this side of the pond had a problem when workers were discovered to be gossiping about the tax returns of politicians and celebrities.

It had become accepted practice amongst the workers: They thought it was just part of the job. Not so much when a large number of them were fired as a result, but it started with one, and from there it spread, so the sooner it's nipped in the bud, the better.

The argument of those looking the other way being just as responsible: Yes and no. If it's part of the training that this behaviour is wrong then yes, they become complicit. If it's not in the training, then why not? It should be. Else those doing it can come up with their own excuses as to why it's okay. And without policies backed by enforcement and training: Who's to argue?

Google and Westinghouse lean on AI to speed US nuclear plant builds

Thankfully AI isn't designing, just organising the build schedule.

However, all that means is if it's only looking at dependencies, it'll miss that building D before B means you can't get the equipment in to build B as D is now in the way.

Think of it like this: You're building the reactor, but there's a delay, so you bring forwards the staff canteen: No dependency here. Only the canteen is being built on the spot where you need the crane to be positioned to lower the reactor shielding into place. There'd be no problem at all if the shielding was already placed, but that's delayed and there's nothing to tell the AI that the canteen will become a hard blocker if built before a specific point in the project - a thing a human might spot.

Memory boom-bust cycle booms again as Samsung reportedly jacks memory prices 60%

Re: Blame it on AI

If the cause of the chip shortage is the increased demand for server memory for new datacentres in response to the AI craze, then yes, you could argue it's all AI's fault.

However, if it's due to various political issues that seem to be plaguing the world, or various wars, then perhaps not.

Most likely it's just good old corporate greed in response to all of the above. And when things settle down... prices will be slow in dropping while corporations milk as much profit as they can from the inflated prices.

Palantir plots NHS skills drive for its controversial data platform

Meanwhile...

It's been announced that there'll be cutbacks in NHS staff. Specifically in the admin and managerial roles.

So is there a link between this AI upskilling and staff cutbacks? Or is this left hand / right hand methodology?

Guess the public will find out when the failures of the system only get worse...

You'll never guess what the most common passwords are. Oh, wait, yes you will

Re: Password rules make for weaker passwords

llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Or... if you're really evil...

lIanfairpwlIgwyngyIlgogerychwyrndrobwlIlIantysiliog0g0g0ch

Power crunch threatens to derail AI datacenter construction

Re: Just what we need...

Get an EV! Get a heat exchanger! Get more and more things that require electricity!

Oh, and get solar panels that can then feed into the grid, plug your car in on the tariff that allows the Grid to draw power out of the battery...

There was always an answer to the increased demand for power for these data centres: Pass the responsibility for household power production over to the households, then take power off them to add to the grid to power the data centres, all the while charging people for their connection.

Okay, I know it's one way to spin all of this, but it could become the plot of some diabolic villain's plan in some James Bond film. Wonder if they'd run with that. And could I claim royalties for the idea... (no chance - the government would claim it was their idea all along!)

Smile! Uncle Sam wants to scan your face on the way in – and out

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

I think the problem is more one of perception: Which women stood rather than it being a woman. Please note I'm in the UK, so this is an outsiders take on what was happening:

Hilary had a tainted image after the Monica affair, and a rather poor performance against Trump on national TV. People seemed to be fatigued by the Clintons and hence, even though she got the popular vote, she didn't win the swing states and so Trump won. Had any other Democrat stood in her place, they'd have likely beaten Trump. In some respects, it seems that hubris was the downfall of Hilary's campaign.

Harris was a disaster from the start: She seemed to be shoehorned in at the last moment, struggled to get momentum going on her campaign, and kept repeating the nonsense of being 'unburdened by what has been': She was an easy target for mockery and honestly, she came over as weak and ineffectual.

So the argument of sexism isn't really compelling: Biden came across as confident, Hilary as untrustworthy, and Harris as weak. Trump presented a confident image. Hence Biden had a chance and won: Hilary and Harris did not.

What I believe the US needed was a better candidate, and I honestly think the US as a majority would be very happy with having a female President, the same way they welcomed Obama. Hell, if Michelle had stood... I think she'd have won by an absolute landslide! People liked her! And yes, she was who I was hoping would stand rather than either of Hilary or Harris. Shame she didn't.

Amazon axes 14,000 desk jobs in AI-powered slimming plan

Re: no shit sherlock

More likely it's so they can blame 'mistakes' on AI rather than accepting responsibility for their own idiotic ideas.

Yes, it's what I'm expecting from Starmer over the Digital ID fiasco : It's all AI's fault! Honest!

High-stakes poker scam used rigged card shufflers, X-ray tables, and special glasses

Re: Hmm ...

Nope: You can also wind up with a small fortune by playing poker if you own the house. Then you can claim a cut of the winnings, even if you lose the game.

Never got Dr Lucky with the Civil War Cannon, but the number of times I got lucky with the candlestick...