Re: Wait
Ah okay, half price so Amazon look nice and half service bc if they wanted full service they'd have paid for it?
Good ol' corporate logic.
91 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Jan 2020
Sadly no for the AFAICT too :/
(https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/operator_incdec(
> Unlike C++ (and some implementations of C), the increment/decrement expressions are never themselves lvalues: &++a is invalid.
So they're all rvalues, irrespective of pre-/post-, unless you're using a C where they are. (Very useful.)
And as the quote says, ++x is an lvalue and x++ a prvalue in C++...
My computer is pretty good about not rebooting. Actually, really good. Shockingly good, to the extent that I can decide it's end of day and I should do something about that request from IT to reboot for updates, click "reboot", and come in the next morning to everything just as it was and a "no seriously please reboot" message.
No one is forcing Google to obey these "idiot laws". They're free to not provide their services to EU residents and the EU won't have a single thing to do about it.
Is the EU a regulation-happy ultra-bureaucracy which apparently has a line item in its budget to be filled with fine money? Apparently so, but that's not the kind of thing you can fix by just ignoring it...
> However, "key information" about a cyber attack – with the specific victim being anonymized – will be shared with the relevant industry sectors
Anonymized, hmm.
> A large, publicly traded ad-tech and search company was hacked
> An online-shopping and cloud-services company just reported a breach
etc etc, and even if it's only shared with "similar" companies you betcha a leak is happening if it's in the interest of a competitor.
What I gather from articles like this isn't that cannabis is especially awful, but that the dangers of alcohol have become more widely tolerated: all of the symptoms listed there are also caused by heavy alcohol consumption.
So (and I'm not assuming anything about your opinions specifically) I'd say that people who are concerned about the negative effects of cannabis but also consume even a socially acceptable amount of alcohol should reconsider the latter.
I work in ad tech. 3rd-party cookies definitely help us in many ways.
But also, non-Chrome browsers have already blocked 3rd-party cookies for years, and we've been just dealing with the lack of those signals, fine.
The amount of effort that Google is putting into "ok we're going to remove 3rd-party cookies but also kinda come up with a weird bundle of replacements which are shitty versions of what we think people want 3rd-party cookies for and also rework how RTB auctions work in Chrome" is just suspicious.
If they actually cared about privacy+tracking they'd just say "we're gonna do like Safari and just disallow that" and then everyone would have to deal with Chrome as we deal with Safari. Instead there's this opaque system, controlled by Google, which they pinky-swear has no backdoors or other ways for Google to get to keep all of your info.
I really, really can't buy the idea that this isn't a subtle land grab by Google that they're trying to sneak by regulators. Just say "no one gets 3rd-party cookies" and be done with it.
Astounding that it's 2023 and there are still naïfs thinking this way. (Or at least, cowards.)
We're discussing an issue which affects the entire world (albeit unevenly) and is caused by the actions of people* all across the world (albeit unevenly) and the precise scientific mechanisms underlying which are not as well understood as they could be, and proposed solutions to which are still under development.
But sure, let's just snap our fingers and get everyone to agree to your one simple trick to fix the climate (discovered by a mom!).
* yes, including corporations, which are run by people
I know how "first to market" can be a competitive advantage in commercial situations, but are they really so full of themselves to think they have to be the first to write the laws on something?
Is the hope to set expectations for other countries' own laws? Despite what the EU thinks, I doubt the US (e.g.) is going to decide to go along with Europe just because they got it out the door first.*
So now we've got legislation coming on a topic which has been developing for years (and months already at the level of hype we're dealing with) and it's important enough to miss bedtime for? We're not signing a war-ending treaty, people, go home and have a glass of wine and come back tomorrow.
I guess the upshot for the rest of the world is that the EU will show us what the worst regulatory cock-ups will be.
* (But compare CCPA and other non-European privacy-protection schemes, for instance: GDPR was significantly better thought out than I expect this to be, and jurisdictions passing "copycat" legislation had the benefit of watching what jappened with GDPR before nailing down their rules. So maybe this is for the best for everyone else.)
It's not easy at all, though. The government enjoys the presumption that the lawyer is competent and made decisions that could have been seen as reasonable at the time. E.g., "didn't make a different closing argument which might have worked better" is not usually going to cut it if the argument that the lawyer DID make is plausible.
Plus, you also have to convince the court that you could have gotten a different result had your lawyer not ****ed up as you allege.
It'll be interesting to see if "asked a computer what to say" qualifies, assuming the computer gave a reasonably lawyerly response. I bet it won't cut it.
I've contributed large amounts of work to a rather well-known libre program which is commercially supported (by an EU-based company). I've never and won't ever be paid, but they've given me things of nominal value as unsolicited thanks.
Do I fall under the law? My code is used by many companies who pay the aforementioned company for support. I obviously can't retroactively change my license terms, and (more importantly) neither can they, as I own the copyright still.
Well, that's no longer free software, then, assuming it's intended to be legally binding.
And if it's not, it can't be much of a CYA (I'm not a lawyer and haven't read all the legalese, but I wouldn't be surprised if just saying "they used it in violation of the license" isn't a good enough defense).
So in the former case FOSS is just dead, and in the latter case devs are just as fucked.
It was going to be a cage match, as I recall.
Why not a prison-cell match instead? If Musk wins, we don't have to deal with Zuckerberg anymore, so there's no downside. (The best outcome of course is them both KO'ing each other and then neither can leave, that's how it works, right?)
> we'd have to stop many of the things we do to offer and highlight low prices – a perverse result that would be directly opposed to the goals of antitrust law.
Every time! Say it with me: "the goal of antitrust legislation is not lower prices, but non-monopolistic competition".
See, e.g., the FTC (which is of course biased, but also likely the group that beat understands antitrust) (https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws):
> [the objective of antitrust is] to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.
So lower prices is expected as a result of a competitive marketplace for econ 101 reasons, but saying "we have low prices so we're not within the scope of antitrust law" is affirming the consequent pretty darn hard.
(n.b. that I obviously haven't read the whole action, so this is just my constant annoyance at companies that [pretend to] think that their monopolistic behavior is in fact fine because it [at this moment] is getting [purportedly] lower prices for the consumer)
Growing, again. I remember "Best Viewed With Internet Explorer" being popular once.
On the other side, web developers don't usually enjoy having to test their work in multiple rendering engines (boo hoo, right?) and as Chrome is often the default browser they have access to, "works on Chrome" is going to be what they give us.
> need for additional metadata about the contents of a window in order to decide where to put that window.
Bollocks.
I use i3wm, which is tiling only* and it puts things where I want them, because I put them where I want them. I guess this makes me a "power user" because I don't mind pushing C-M-arrow on occasion?
And I'm pretty sure much of the group of people who don't like Windows's management thereof might also not want/need/like any feature like "huh looks like that one is your web mail".
* okay, you can have a pop-out window and nontiled dialogs
Is it just me, or does this look like Congress deciding that it won't ever manage to agree on any substantive legislation on (say) digital privacy, but just *maybe* it can agree to have someone else make the decisions, so that going forward the Rs can blame the Ds on the committee for decisions they don't like, and vice versa?
And we get yet another group of regulators who we have even less ability to influence.
Yay.
A "secure" system identifying me based solely on my voice isn't something I'd trust with any amount of my data, let alone anything a hacker would care to get their hands on.
So as I see it, this is similar to the technique of lifting someone's fingerprints from a surface and using them to bypass a fingerprint scanner: not easy but doable with the right knowledge, effort, and a bit of luck... and then you can try guessing the password and such, maybe get your hands on my phone for 1TP.
Ah, I see you haven't met the super-powered FISA Court, a _bona fide_ Article III judicial body, which hears surveillance-authorization requests in secret hearings and issues classified warrants and rulings regarding same, and if you were somehow able to learn that you were the subject of a case, your lawyer doesn't have the right of audience in that court anyways.
Yes, surely the best way to tell if a student wrote the paper is to make them answer questions about the topic and argument.
And if they use an LLM anyways, and produce a convincing paper, which they then study thoroughly that they might be able to pass the exam, I'd still say they've learned what they were supposed
I don't know, I'm totally fine with this random UX change (unlike almost everything else MSFT forces on me*).
Maybe this is because I already started using Snipping Tool; it's surprisingly pleasant and usable for modern Windows (doesn't need/push me to use OneDrive, no ribbon nonsense, starts up more-or-less instantaneously). The only downside is the occasional pop-up warning me that some emanation called "Snip 'n' Sketch" is waiting in the wings to fix all of those glaring issues I just mentioned.
(* And no, I have to use Windows for work.)
Ok, but think of it from the opposite perspective: you've got dozens of potential matches to known criminals a day (and I think you're low-balling it, even). There's not going to be even close to enough cops to deal with all those reports. So now they start having to triage whom to go after, they send an officer after an innocent look-alike, the "bad guy" (yes, I'm being very generous and assuming arguendo that this is to catch criminals) walks by 10 minutes later and bang! all we've done is waste police time.
I struggle to think of a way in which this can go well, even from the cops' perspective.
Desai's complaint specifies the proposed class as
> All persons who purchased one or more of the eufy Security Cameras within the applicable statute of limitations
Oh come on, can I not be part of a lawsuit if any of my neighbors have one? Or if I can prove that I walked by one and it has me in the database? (In my case, they don't, and I can't without discovery, but it's the principle of the thing for others.)
I know that such people didn't rely on any misrepresentation of the company, so for this specific action they're not similarly situated, but why can't we have a law against doing this crap? People are having so much fun with internet-privacy laws like GDPR, but I'm much less concerned about advertisers knowing some stuff about my purchasing habits and interests than cops* and hackers knowing about my travel habits and recent locations.
* oh right, never mind, that's why.
> This included names; demographic information; health information, including diagnoses, providers and prescriptions; health insurance information, including legacy Medicare beneficiary number derived from the individual's Social Security number or other subscriber identification number; medical record numbers; patient account numbers; and passport numbers.
I've been a US citizen for decades and I've never understood the whole SSN thing. A single number, which you can't change, which gives people who find out about it the ability to see all sorts of personal info, apply for loans, access various government websites, ...
At least my passport number rotates every time I get a new passport.
I already assume that my (name, SSN, some current or previous address, birthday) tuple is leaked out there already. I'd be significantly more livid to know that my medical info got leaked: there's some things about my health I'd rather keep between me and my family. But that's not what gets the big bucks in compensation, I guess.
I had a great Samsung phone (A5, I think) some time ago, lasted for years until I smashed it. Unfortunately that convinced me to buy Samsung for my next two phones: one stopped reliably taking/receiving calls about 2 years in; the other died completely the week before its first birthday.
I hadn't signed up for a phone protection plan, but seeing as that presumably would have gotten another of the same, I'm glad I didn't. Motorola makes some reasonably priced models.
And as others have said, I get great signal (5G) at my house, enough to replace my cable with, even... in one room on the top floor. So WiFi calling is a must-have. Apparently I dodged yet another bullet.
> having model APIs where you can cut off access if it looks like some bad actors are trying to use your toxicity models for these sorts of various purposes would be a step [towards harm reduction].
Great idea! We can analyze the model usage to see if it looks like what someone would be using to create toxic compounds. All we need to do is train a machine-learning model...
I choose to believe that the BOFH did none of that stuff at all. You think, given the kind of state that beancounter is in, that he's going to go check his credit-card statement first?
Laziness is a virtue in tech, I'm told (along with impatience and hubris). Why bother doing all that when you can spend a full 5 minutes in the lift and have your worries vanish?
Besides, it's not like he can't turn around and do it the next day if his advice goes unheeded...
> ... AntiCopyPaster will run the snippet through its onboard Gradient Boosting Classifier model to check whether it's a suitable candidate for refactoring (revision) using IntelliJ IDEA's built-in Extract Method.
They do know that this doesn't stop it from being a "derivative work", right? The licensing concerns are all still there.
If they really wanted to do some fancy analysis they should go and check for licensing issues and then block/complain because of *that*.