Posts by that one in the corner

Gen Z and Millennials don't know what their colleagues are talking about half the time

Re: .. One lump, or two ..

Hmm, Maxwell's

> ducks in a row

Ok, so what the bleep does it mean (and when would you use it outside of the office)? All the multiples of ducks I've ever[1] seen are in random squabbling groups or in a (relatively) neat V-formation - at a stretch, you could call that two rows.

You do get *ducklings* walking one after the other, if the parent is on the move across land, but what kind of monster would make a metaphor out of lovely fluffy ducklings? Anyway, it never lasts for long, once they reach the river/stream/pond/tin bath they are all over the place (as though the steering was just a wee bit off - one foot bigger than the other? So cute!)

[1] and even in the least duck-filled portions of my life I'd expect to encounter the quacking beggars at least once a week during the season.

Re: the jargon file

Just be thankful you aren't "delivering quality to the customer".

Human Populations Are Not Quantised!

> Boomers don't look up things they don't know

Ah, "Boomer", another one of those terms that gets bandied about without checking that it means the same thing to the reader as it did to the writer (you know, the sort of thing that this entire article is talking about!)

Since I were a nipper in the UK, The Baby Boom has meant the rise in births in 1946, straight after the war, which caused significant extra (given that rationing was still in place, etc) social upheaval. For example, having to build new schools and find adequate numbers of teachers in order to keep up with the cohort as it aged. Schools that were then in danger of being underutilised the following year and more so the next, as the boom was a definite spike: by 1947 proper British values had set in (and absolutely everyone had been reminded about the joys of baby sick and wailing at all hours of the day) so things pretty much settled down again to the usual pace.

Those Brits are all 76/77 years old now. A strangely specific group of people to be targeting with respect to their abilities with respect to dictionaries, encyclopaedias and the like.

However, apparently, the US just kept on at it, from 1946 all the way to 1964 (presumably the more greatly spread out population meant they were less troubled by the wailing from up and down the street in 1947 and then it all just became a habit). So they have a lot more "Baby Boomers" with a far wider age spread.

Can I take it that it is Our Overseas Cousins you are referring to and whose inability to use reference materials is in question?

BTW According to Wikipedia, "British people usually define" those born between 1960 and 1969 as Baby Boomers! First I'd heard of it! This claim is backed up by Wikipedia using a link to a single paper from 2017 in the journal "Working With Older People" (which, as you know, is one of the great trend setters in British culture), which paper uses the term pretty much just "because we want a catchy readable title" not because it is usual! Wikipedia then goes on to claim that this ten-year cohort makes up 20% of the UK population, because the Wikipediots have referred to an "article" on yougov.co.uk which was nothing more than a headline ripped from another article that clearly stated it was using the US "definition" of "Baby Boomer"!

Sigh. Rant nearly over, conclusions:

* Wikipediots don't even bother reading the material they link to

and

* these "generations" only refer to the US, at least up to the point where t'Internet has tried to homogenise culture (that would be "Z", I guess). So it has been weird looking up what all these supposed generations[1] mean in order to follow a Register article about results from a UK survey!

[1] In my day we didn't have these fixed so-called "generations", we knew that babies are being born all the time, so "my parent's generation" meant something different to different people. Human Populations Are Not Quantised!

Re: Gus from Drop the Dead Donkey

> "Let's run this idea up the flag pole and see who salutes".

That one was in use way back in the 1950s (Gus probably picked it up from his grandfather): Mad magazine was poking fun at it back then, as can be seen in the book-format reprints such as "Madvertising"[1]

[1] don't guarantee it was in that volume - they wore put a fell to pieces long ago - but it seems likely.

PS hopefully you all know that Don Knuth's first publication was in Mad magazine in the 1950s, the "Potrzebie System of Measurement"; possibly November 1955 as the thickness of that specific issue was used as one of the basic units as published.

Re: Most misused list - where is "steep learning curve"?

> "Steep" when used with "learning curve" generally means that it's going to be difficult (as in a steep climb) so it's viewed negatively.

Grrr.[1] It *never* "means" it is going to be difficult - the learning curve is a well-defined thing (plot of measure of learning against time) and has few well-recognised forms (usually involving plateaus as learning is put into practice etc etc).

Presumably you meant to say something more like:

>> "Steep" when used with "learning curve" is mistakenly believed to indicate that it's going to be difficult (as in a steep climb) so it's viewed negatively.

Fundamentally, none of the people who misuse it know that a "learning curve" is even a Real Thing, so we drop into the pool of people for whom another quote from the article is apt:

> Even more shamefully, 83 percent used a word they didn't know the meaning of in a professional situation.

[1] Sorry, but this one really gets my goat. Calm, breathe in; hold; breathe out. Ommmmmmm

> In fact, this is plain rhetoric

Aagh, well, um - no. No, it isn't rhetoric. Certainly not "plain rhetoric". Sorry.

"Rhetoric" - another word that is being buggered about with by management and politicians!

It means language that *is* effective, but that is being eroded away as people start calling this kind of guff "empty rhetoric" (which is sort-of correct usage) and then it gets bandied around as if it can *only* be used to refer to the empty kind.

Re: I'll Be There

I feel you, it's no good; enjoy the silence: I just can't get enough.

Management jargon is at most 6000 years old

> their preference is to essentially gaslight people by forcing them to redefine the meaningless drivel that they spew to actually have some form of worthwhile meaning which they can change at will by saying "no, that's not what I meant".

So just like Creationist arguments using the word "kind".

Suspired

A new jargon word! Um, what could it mean?

"I live and breathe suspicion of anything new" - no, that be "suspiration".

"My suspicions about this have expired, we should go ahead".

Re: Communication

Shakar, when the walls fell.

Re: .. One lump, or two ..

It was always obvious that a ginger snap could take an edge, but how that was done with a bourbon and a pink wafer we may never find out. We really, really hope we never find out.

Re: Thanks El Reg...

You must have missed the memo. Management have retroactively repurposed the nomenclature "jargon" to better synergise with their visions.[1]

[1] and the voices.

Most misused list - where is "steep learning curve"?

I've not heard *anyone* outside of a few specialised TV programmes[1] use that one correctly for *years*!

Plot "% learnt" or "ability to do useful work" against time and it becomes blindingly obvious that a steep learning curve is good - everyone is finding it easy to learn, or there isn't much to learn in the first place.

But no, management thinks "steep" is bad. The very people you would hope could read a graph. Although it does explain a lot:

"This will lead us on a steep profit path". " Steep? Can't have that, we want a shallow path, much easier".

"Sales growth is steep this quarter." "Steep?! You are fired, the lot of you!"

[1] about teaching, including the one about the Red Arrows in training.

38 percent of graybeards

still had some self-worth left and were trying to fight the management Bullshit speak.

The other 62% *were* The Management and are the ones spouting this bollocks (to be gleefully taken up by the 41% of youngsters in sales and "creative" positions who just follow whatever is trending within a 10 metre radius.

AI promises vendors 15 minutes of fame with investors

the new soup is 13 times hotter

Being a lover of a chicken korma, I know exactly how my guts would react to that AI designed soup.

Strangely, my guts have the same reaction when I read the AI-related press releases.

On hearing there will be an upcoming dramatic announcement: "Tums Tums Taaaa" [1]

[1] actually, Gaviscon, but that name works even less well.

NASA to tear the wings off plane in the name of sustainability

How about some tension, not just compression?

Trussed wings are flying all over the place (it is the scale that is changing here) so how about going one step further back and adding some strength by using guy cables?

Probably a bad idea (drag and all that) but it just seemed an opportunity to let the pylon be used as a support for wing walking: who wants to be the first to stand the whole way on top of a transatlantic flight?[1]

[1] don't think RyanAir wouldn't if they could make it work: although to reduce drag they'd advertise that you are one of the lucky few passengers who gets to lie down during the flight. Be warned: in an emergency situation, you would be required to pull-start the engines.

Ooh, you got so close:

Lettuce hope this Truss lasts longer...

Software picks out more satellite photobombs in Hubble image

Re: Time to move the telescopes

The directional aspect of newer street lights is a definite improvement, but the broader spectrum of the LEDs is, for skywatching, worse than the old sodium lamps: you used to be able to filter out just a narrow band and cut through the glow. Even just naked eye using suitably coloured specs (and a bit of practice, using hands to block out the sides) suddenly the big city sky could be interesting. Plus bright white lighting being more confusing to wildlife.

If only LEDs could be made with a narrow band output...

Re: Surely the positions of all satellites are known

Satellite locations need *lots* of tracking to determine with precision, particularly those in low Earth orbit: the atmosphere fluctuates and hence the amount of drag changes, ruining your nice Newtonian orbit calculations.

Determining which satellites will appear where and when in Hubble's field of view needs more precision than "can this satellite get a radio signal to/from Texas right now?" (especially if[1] that can be based upon the satellite watching for an up beacon and shouting back "cooee" when it sees it) and guess what level of precision the operators work at?

[1] if, I said, if: haven't checked if the current crop of comms satellites use this sort of helper. Anyone care to chime in?

At last, Microsoft lets Windows 11 share files with Android apps

> "C:\Users\John Doe" is shared as "/sdcard/Windows

> only the files in a user's Windows profile folder are available to WSA.

So everything under the profile folder is available to Android apps? It isn't possible to set up, say, C:\Users\John Doe\Android and map just *that* to /sdcard/Windows?

Because that would be far more secure against rogue Android apps (and if you *want* Android to see something out of your Documents you can always move/copy it there with Windows Explorer).

> Also, the WSA needs to index shared files before the apps can access them, which can take some time if there are a lot of files.

Why does it seem like this is being done in a clunkier way than just mounting a file share into the Android filesystem? Or has Android been shorn of such extravagant functionality from its Linux parentage? Anyone with understanding of the internals (left to) Android care to chip in on that?

These Microsoft Office security signatures are 'practically worthless'

I have seen "password protected" documents

Good use of scare quotes.

I received a medical file from an insurance company GP via email, with a note that I would receive the password the next day. Didn't spot the note, just saved the attachment and double-clicked: it opened immediately, no password, no encryption, perfectly legible.

In the consultation, tried to point this out, was poo-pooed "Look, it asks for a password when I try to open it".

Except the doctor's PC had MS Office and I have LibreOffice...

GitHub accused of varying Copilot output to avoid copyright allegations

Re: Software is not a creative work?

> instead of obsessing about lines of code, many of which are probably indistinguishable from lines used in thousands of other applications across scores of different domains.

Instead of obsessing about individual notes, many of which are probably indistinguishable from notes used in thousands of other scores across lots of different styles of music.

Instead of obsessing about groups of letters[1], many of which are probably indistinguishable from words used in thousands of other books across scores of different genres.

> visual design, interface design, component design.

> But it's the design that's by far the more creative aspect

Yikes, this is starting to sound like an argument from a "creative" who hasn't had the enjoyment of coding something new :-( But putting aside such derogatory remarks (tut tut Corner, Old boy):

Copyright only covers the *expression* of an idea/design/... and even by your own argument, that is the code (there are other ways to express the idea/... - you may have drawn your UI out on paper and written in the Pantones - and that is also copyrightable; but the code is the expression that is actually *useful* and worth disseminating).

Depending upon your location, you may be able to get a design patent on, well, the design; you may also be able to trademark some of it (e.g. a particular shade of purple used in a specific context - a list of applicable contexts is available from your local trademark office).

[1] yes, given the nlocs in something like Firefox, comparing lines of code to words in a novel or notes in a score is reasonable: certainly makes it easier to structure these comparisons!

Re: Global context of intellectual property

Huh?

> copyright laws must change. Knowledge sharing accelerates economic development.

Are you confusing copyright and patent wrt "knowledge sharing"[1]? Although both are designed to *promote* sharing: copyright allows you to publish and set terms, including licensing, for that expression of the idea.

> Then wonder why, or why, the western economies are slowing down.

Selling access to fairy dust like the current crop of LLMs (and offshoots like Copilot) is a major enough part of western economies that restricting them is going to have a noticeable effect? Then we are truly screwed anyway. Just like the fairy tale of value in sub-prime mortgages.

> As a believer in singularity already happening**

** Singularity in this context is a the creation of at least one craft beer per annum[2]

[1] copyright only covers the specific expression of an idea/fact/knowledge not the idea/fact/knowledge itself

[2] See, we can all redefine words to suit our ourselves

Re: How close does code have to be?

Please be aware that I have applied for a patent on the concept of changing your declaration of main() as follows:

main(int argc, char **argv)

Please direct all licensing enquiries to Under The Bridge Patents (Holdings) Ltd, Basingstoke.

Re: How close does code have to be?

> {copyright} exists to protect money. No other reason.

Stated crudely enough to be inaccurate, as I'm sure you know. Copyright exists to protect the interests of creators and allow them to make a living - purely in order that they spend time creating things - without the need for a patron. Especially as the ability to reproduce increased over time. Copyright and the controlled selling of mass reproductions allowed us to provide patronage en masse, all of (what we now refer to as mere "consumers") providing a small portion of the creators interests. And, yes, these days that means money, simply because that is a good mechanism for handling such portions: individual patronage often being in the form of goods and services provided, including lodgings.

> Almost all of the copyright legislation is created by Hollywood media magnates

The current rotten state of the copyright legislation has been caused by those magnates - more accurately, political systems that enable those magnates to affect the legislation. But that is another matter.

The concept of copyright is definitely a Good Thing. Its execution - varies.

Re: How close does code have to be?

> software is not a creative work. It's a tool.

A *completed*[1] piece of software is a tool - we freely admit that in the documentation: compilers, linkers are part of our tool chain. Other software may be "just" a utility whilst bigger lumps are called applications.

But *making* the software and completing it or adapting it, *that* is a creative act. There are lots of stages that are trivial, repetitive and can even be totally automated[2], but the same is true for other creative pursuits: I'll sand with a dremel because it is less repetitive and tedious than using a teeny tiny sanding block[3].

> Its value comes from what it does or what it can be used for, not from merely existing

That is a trivial observation, too trite to even be a truism. Name anything that literally "has value" merely by existing! "Value" is something that we attribute on the basis of our personal preference or how we react to someone else's preference or actions with respect to it. That driftwood has no value to her because it won't burn cleanly in the hearth, but he can see how to use it in an artwork. Even money - a fiver has no innate attraction to me (the plastic ones are quite irritating sometimes) but I give it value because of how it can influence others actions (like letting walking out of the shop with a new pair of socks without angry shouts).

[1] ok, we all know that no software is ever really "complete", but you know what I mean.

[2] closing brackets, expanding a template to insert an entire loop - as time passes we attempt to increase this list, in order to spend more time on the interestingly creative bits.

[3] and my results are certainly unique! Hopefully I'll get better with practice and someone may be able it is "creative" with a straight face! It is *meant* to be a dragon, btw.

Credible threats of violence directed at their attorney

Presumably from the script kiddies and wannabes who realise they'll never make it as programmers without every single ounce of spoon-feeding they can get from Copilot.

Whatever happened to the shy nerds who used code as their means of expression?

Beams from brightest gamma ray burst ever seen were pointed directly at Earth

Narrow core with wide sloping wings

That is clearly the signature of a Xeelee Nightfighter dropping to subluminal speeds.

Coming straight towards us, you say? Oh dear.

Clippy designer was too embarrassed to include him in his portfolio

Re: ChatGPT-powered Clippy

PS

> the words are stochastically related

I know this isn't the the correct phrase (as in, it is gibberish of almost ChatGPT-like levels) but you what I meant, right? Bother, what is the correct way to describe it?

Re: ChatGPT-powered Clippy

The ending of that R'Pi article just begs for an update:

> David is hoping to upgrade it by introducing a machine learning vision model so Whiskers can look at a handful of different ingredients and give you ideas for dishes you can make using what you have.

"Beat the eggs until stiff then slowly add three tablespoons of Marmite. Fold in 4 ounces of baking powder and one level teaspoon of flour[1]. Layer over the chopped beetroot[2], top with toast and leave to set in the fridge. Serve with custard. Feeds 4."

[1] the words are stochastically related and hence "all the right words", but as a wise man once said, "not necessarily in the right order, I'll grant you that."

[2] however, the beetroot was just an hallucination by the LLM; probably a blessing in disguise.

Clippy kept making it through every level

Asking the public which character to keep in and Clippy kept on winning the vote?

If only they'd named him Clippy McClipface it would have been obvious what was happening...

Lawyers who cited fake legal cases generated by ChatGPT blame the software

30% of what?

> "So far, we've seen this method improve the accuracy of Bard's responses to computation-based word and math problems in our internal challenge datasets by approximately 30 per cent," it added.

Sadly, not well enough implemented to know that it is meaningless to quote an improvement without providing a baseline (or the resultant, either will do): Up from 70% to 93% is better than 3% to 4% accuracy rate.

Overestimated the technology's abilities

Created a ChatGPT login on Saturday: the disclaimers were succinct and straightforward to understand.

If Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca are going to claim to the judge that they were unable to read and comprehend those simple texts...

Family-owned aerospace biz throws a wrench in Boeing IP lawsuit

Boeing[1] to Wilson

Torque to the hand, 'cos the face ain't listening!

[1] named, of course, after the noise made when their lawyers are let out of their hutches.

Can noise-cancelling buds beat headphones? We spent 20 hours flying to find out

How about

some tinnitus cancelling earbuds?

Now those would be useful.

A toast to being in the right place at the right time

Re: He's toast

Sounds like you should have arranged a fire drill (unbeknownst to all but the absolute minimum of management) every time you performed an audit, just to check on those sorts of issues.

Germans beat Tesla to autonomous L3 driving in the Golden State

A "Merc" is ... an outboard moat engine

Whilst an outboard moat engine is okay on the motorway (you are allowed to straddle two lanes to reduce sloshing) I prefer an old fashioned motor bailey around town for ease of parking.

Although the constant nattering in the back is a distraction; please, keep down the chat, Elaine.

Is it a drone? Is it a balloon? Whatever it is the US warns locals not to let them fly in Iran

British universities were recently accused of developing such technology for Iran

Followed the link in that sentence and found strange article: one that keeps saying that it found this that or the other academic paper, but there was not one single citation given in the article. If anything is easy to cite it is a published academic paper, there are published standard formats and whole databases set up to help you do so.

Google HR hounds threaten 'next steps' for slackers not coming in 3 days a week

Re: Coming together in person.

Sounds like the voice of experience.

Just because it worked out ok for Jo Grant...

> Serendipity is important.

I *really* hope that your work isn't trying to leverage serendipity!

It doesn't seem like a viable business plan to hope that someone will have a happy accident just in time to solve the problem:, like Jo spilling those mushrooms onto the giant maggots!

And I certainly don't see how being in the office rather than at home improves upon your having unexpected good luck (unless you are working from the low base level that being in the office is bad luck and any accident is at least going to give the chance for schadenfreude).

FBI: FISA Section 702 'absolutely critical' to spy on, err, protect Americans

FBI is collecting foreign intel on a hacker in China

Colour me confused; as a non-US type person, I'd been under the impression that the FBI only worked within the US and the CIA dealt with anything from outside it. But the phrasing of:

> Abbate did acknowledge that sometimes people on domestic soil get caught up in a sweep. For example, if the FBI is collecting foreign intel on a hacker in China, and that cybercriminal is working with people in the US.

seems to indicate a situation where the FBI started out solely with an interest in China, only later expanded to looking within the US (and then being too broad there, hence the complaint against them).

Anyone care to point me on the correct path to understanding here? TIA.

Will Flatpak and Snap replace desktop Linux native apps?

Re: I deserve to be roasted for this,

No roasting from this direction.

> why don't we just statically link everything

Some people just seem to love complexity?

If you have 147 shared libraries then you have a Grown Up program that Needs An Installer or, More Manly yet, you get to learn how to set up a Snap wotsit or a Flat thingie or shove it into Docker no matter how pointless that is for your Users' Use Cases. But your CV grows.

Used to get this with Windows applications as well: I'll arrange everything to build statically, with as few DLLs as possible (sometimes Windows forces it on you - e.g. using multimedia timers) then someone comes in for a short time and poof! DLLs everywhere ("it saved so much time, didn't have to compile anything"), no idea if they are all still needed ("I just copied them all in, that was easier"), we don't have the debug symbols for them...

Still had to create a new release just to distribute, e.g. an updated SSL library, whether that was statically linked or in a DLL ('cos you can't rely on the User updating "just this one DLL" and nor should you).

Sigh. Time for Grumpy Bedtimes.

Man sues OpenAI claiming ChatGPT 'hallucination' said he embezzled money

Shame we can't see the entire ChatGPT session log

Does it, by any chance, start with:

"Please rewrite the following PDF so that it libels Mark Walters"

ChatGPT hallucinates 100% of the time

Talking about LLMs, including ChatGPT:

> It’s not that they sometimes “hallucinate”. They hallucinate 100% of the time, it’s just that the training results in the hallucinations having a high chance of being accidentally correct.

A nice way of phrasing the problem, which I'm shamelessly nicking (sorry, I mean "am excerpting a portion of under Fair Rights[1]) from a discussion of this case over at https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/06/first-ai-libel-lawsuit-filed/?comments=true

[1] Which is an US concept, but as it is a US website I'm ripping off - sorry, there I go again - and The Register now self-identifies as USazian I'm probably alright

Re: Confusing article

> I can't see anywhere this article says that the defamatory speech was published anywhere

Confusing, isn't it?

Since posting (above) I've been doing a bit more searching and I think I'm going to have to change my opinion about the liability of "Fred Riehl"[1] - he *is* a lazy "journalist", as he likes to use ChatGPT to generate his "stories" (although he does admit that in the byline, so that is one thing in his favour[2]).

*But* as far as I can find out, Riehl never actually published any article containing defamatory statements, as we (including myself) have been assuming in the comments here. Instead, it currently looks like all that has actually happened is that Riehl asked ChatGPT and got back a response mentioning a *random* "Mark Walters" and in doing so, it was ChatGPT that was publishing this information!

Now, it appears that Riehl and *a* Mark Walters[3] are buddies in the "pro gun rights"[4] movement - Walters writes[5] for the website and his radio show has been promoted on the website - so *obviously* when ChatGPT talks to Riehl it must be referring to *that* Walters, hence ChatGPT has published defamatory statements about his colleague. All the contacting Gottlieb was to check the facts, just in case his Mark really was a wong'un - or more likely in order to be able to say to the world "look, even Riehl can manage to do this must due diligence, so ChatGPT must be really negligent".

So, ChatGPT is, apparently, "publishing" when it spits out a response and, despite having to retract my previous idea[6] about Riehl (for a new and even worst one, but hey), I still stand by my belief that this is all an attempt to get publicity for two otherwise totally pointless individuals and their ridiculous website and radio show.

[1] His own website and linkedin profile name him "Fredy Riehl" (having both "d"'s may have been too bourgeois for him)

[2] About the only thing so far; maybe he likes fluffy kittens as well?

[3] Hereinafter referred to as "the idiot doing the suing" M'lud

[4] Nope, already made that joke

[5] https://www.ammoland.com/author/markwalters/

[6] Science - we change our ideas as the evidence leads us

Bingo.

Which is why suing OpenAI is ludicrous - given, from the article:

> Riehl contacted Alan Gottlieb, one of the plaintiffs in the actual Washington lawsuit, about ChatGPT's allegations concerning Walters, and Gottlieb confirmed that they were false.

So the only case for being negligent with the truth would be against Riehl, who either didn't bother learning the basic limitation of ChatGPT *and* contacted Gottlieb to late (basic lack of fact checking) or did so prior to promulgating the incorrect statements and went ahead anyway.

However, given that there is (so far reported) nothing to connect the non-existent Mark Walters to the gun-promoting radio host bringing the case, the whole thing is just a publicity stunt anyway, as Riehl is connected with another gun-related website, ammoland.com

Re: Better to say nothing

You appear to be correct. The only identification of "Mark Walters" given (in all the reports of this that so far found) was that he lives in Georgia and held a role at SAF.

The Mark Walters who is making the complaint is a radio talk host who doesn't claim to have held a post at SAF. If there is any actual reason to connect the two then it isn't being reported.[1]

This Walters wasn't even the first hit for a search on the name plus "Georgia" and when he does show up it is only due to this case. His pro-"gun rights"[2] radio show finally appeared after a bit of scrolling.

Given that, if there *is* a case to be made[3] it can surely only be againt the journalist, the only one who could be caught be the requirement he must "prove that the defendant was at least negligent with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements" (because, well, only a human can be negligent) then this looks to me like nothing more thsn an attempt to get publicity for his radio show.

[1] maybe Walters the radio host is is going to argue in court that he is a well-known embezzler, so it must be referring to him?

[2] guns have rights? But does he support the right for two guns of different calibre to co-habit in the same box? Won't somebody think of the ammunition!

[3] which I severely doubt

MediaTek accused of setting 'patent troll' on rival, says it will defend itself

Re: "a fabless chip company"

And a load of University courses on chip design

Caltech claims to have beamed energy to Earth from satellite

similar to the technique used in military phased-array radar systems

Also similar to the technique used in civilian phased-array radar systems or the phased-array antenna available for 5G phone signals.

But I guess all of us imperialist warmonger commentards are going to be more familiar with the military application and it does tie nicely into the use within war-torn areas (technology giveth and taketh away).