Posts by Johnb89 93 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jan 2022
Early OSX days and maybe iphone days you'd wait for a .1 or maybe a .2 release for most of the bugs to shake out and things to settle down. For me, neither ios16 nor Ventura are yet stable/debugged enough x feature compelling enough to 'upgrade' to, and here they are announcing the next things.
So they've finally done it: not even bothered to finish one big release before introducing the next. Twice. Sigh.
This is yet another example of a settlement or closing of a case in America where guilt has obviously been established, large or small fines assessed, but
1. They never have to admit guilt
2. No lessons can be learned because the details of the judgement are kept secret (though not possibly in this case, but in many)
How is that in any way justice, or an effective system of justice, or justice being seen to be done?
Yes yes, money talks. But it shouldn't.
The problem with being over 50 is that you have enough experience to realise that 80% of everything is crap, the latest fad is not going to change the world (probably), and anyway won't do so next week.
The thing to do is not say these thoughts out loud. Dye your hair, be enthusiastic when the latest craze is being mooted, collect your cheque, and laugh about it at home or at the pub/golf club/tennis club/morris dancing club event.
For the cases where they are going to charge more by weight, do the big people get bigger seats? Because that would be fair and rather handy. As a tall person I already book (and pay extra for) the emergency row or extra leg room seats. In fact we already have that... business class... or first class.
Bigger seats in just economy would be fun.... every plane has 3 sizes of economy seats, lovingly arranged in family groups or sets of 4 facing each other like trains.
If congress doesn't renew this law the FBI can continue doing these searches anyway.... what's the difference between breaking the law by misusing powers, and breaking the law by doing things that you aren't allowed to do?
Does not renewing the law mean the tool gets shut down? Seems unlikely... hidden perhaps, but not shut down.
Reading the comments, too many commenters are suggesting there is one answer for every job, every company, every day of the week, every person.
As a few have said some jobs can be done remotely, some jobs are better done part in the office (to meet with people) and part at home (to allow concentration), and some need to be at work... assembling cars, for instance.
Then there is the balance between types of productivity... short term, and long term mostly. Yes, staying at home to finish this dev project for 2 months will get that project done faster (let's say), but not going in to the office for 2 years means you lose track of what the company is about, by not meeting the people that are the company. Sometimes standing together at a white board gets the job done better.
And no, typing on slack/teams/whatever does NOT replace face-to-face conversation in all ways.
All apple should have done was let the user decide. Tell me "So here's the thing, your battery is getting older. You can a) let me slow your phone down to prolong its life, b) Keep using it at full power but your phone might crash, or c) get a new battery." But all that discussion breaks the 'it just works' thing, which anyway is a marketing slogan not backed by reality.
If they'd told me that I would have got a new battery, Instead I blamed software bloat and traded my SE for an SE 2020, costing me a pile of money. That is what this lawsuit is about.
Back in the day Windoze would apply updates at the end of the day. Seems like a good idea.
Except it would only tell me that it was going to do that when I shut down, at which point it would take 10 or 30 or 60 minutes installing updates with a big message 'do not unplug computer while updates are being applied' while I was wanting to leave the office with my laptop in my bag. And you couldn't tell it 'not right now, just shut down please'.
Pulling the battery out solved the problem nicely.
The proponents of auto-updating seem to think that software is flawless.
So it is a balance between being exposed to malware or whatever for a time til I choose to review and update, and being exposed to someone buggering up the update process. Waiting helps me reduce the problems of the latter, or at least do it at a time convenient to me, notably after making a backup.
I've deliberately ditched software that auto updates... Brave, Zoom, and Microsoft Office (which you can turn off auto updates, but that doesn't stop the auto-update application itself auto updating itself... sigh) amongst others.
When I turn my phone 'off' I, stupidly, had in mind that it was 'off'. Silly me. A bit like "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is" for those that remember.
So now in Apple land, turning on airplane mode doesn't turn off the radios (wifi and/or bluetooth can stay on even when activating airplane mode) and turning the phone off doesn't turn the radios off. Non obvious modes of operation that I would have thought break 'no radios when flying' law.
Not to lessen the issue of these tags... I'm just venting about how I'm not allowed to control my device.
At one point, IIRC, Huawei totally developed their own software and firmware for routers and such from scratch, but thoughtfully included 'copyright Cisco' anyway. This was some time ago, and at least rumours at the time. I can't say that I know its true.
I presume these weren't quite that old?
(Writing as a disgruntled ex-Nortel person, regarding the rumours that Huawei might have accidentally stumbled upon much IP, code and such, back in the day. So finding it hard to feel sorry for Huawei now.)
Not wanting to take the discussion up beyond the level of penis-painting, but I've often wondered... New-ish roads don't last long before there are potholes. Potholes repaired either bulge up, making a bump, or the filler comes out in short order... either way there is still a problem.
Is it a problem with the materials used to pave or repair our roads, or the skills (or lack of) of the people doing the paving and repairing? The materials to be used is a solved problem in the world, particularly because UK weather is benign. That leads to the conclusion that the workers aren't trying hard enough (or don't have the right equipment?). Is that it?
As noted, this isn't an IT problem, so perhaps I'll suggest that we fill in potholes with old windoze laptops and chromebooks.
The other part of the smart motorway debacle is the variable speed system. Who hasn't been on a motorway where the signs come up 40-60-30-50-60-30-50 and so on, or 'queue ahead', where there is hardly any traffic, let alone a queue?
What does this teach us to do? Ignore the lot. Then in the one in maybe 10 times it's true there's a problem because we've all ignored it.
I wrote them once: 'why does it say queue ahead when there isn't?'. Answer: Its all automated. So if the sensors detect a lorry going 50 or so we'll put the queue ahead warning for a few miles back. That was 15 years ago, but I can't see its any different now.
If we're going to spend all this money building these things with sensors and signs and all can we at least have them work? And if automation isn't up to the job, with it obviously isn't, have some people run it.
I'm struggling to see the point of changing, enacting, worrying about, or otherwise caring about laws that our western governments ignore anyway, not even in secret. In the UK the supreme court has found that government surveillance that was done was illegal, but not only was no one prosecuted, they were told they could keep doing it. Which is nice.
So what is the point of spending time and money like this to change laws?
And how dare 'the west' tut and wag their fingers at whomever for doing naughty things when 'we' do it ourselves, to ourselves and our friends, let alone our adversaries?
To clarify what some other commenters have said, with "AI", or machine learning, there isn't an algorithm. It really isn't a huge number of if/else statements. Even better, even the people that create/own/manage it have no idea why it does what it does, how it works, or indeed how changing something affects the outcomes.
That doesn't stop modifying the AI's output with things like 'anything Elon mutters is gold', of course.
So when the UK supreme court rules that GCHQ et al spying is illegal, but that they can continue doing it anyway and no person will face prosecution, I should feel warm and fuzzy inside because I'm protected from government spying.
When the US government has laws that force any US company to give any data to the US government, and a similar 'not allowed to tell anyone its happening' clause applies, I feel warm and fuzzy inside again.
The blurriness of the distinctions here challenge all attempts at credibility. 'But we're the good guys' doesn't cut it.
IIRC Qualcomm used (and still does?) a very similar model at the time of 3G when they were dominant, where some of the price that Qualcomm charged was based on the value of the end device. Qualcomm licensees used to squeal loudly about it and made every effort to get away from Qualcomm wherever possible. This spurs competition.
Every company's job is to make money. Charge too little and leave money on the table, charge too much and push customers to alternatives. This is the way it works, and I'm quite sure the people in the ARM exec offices understand this.
So Tesla charges extra on Tesla insurance if the Tesla software does things in the Tesla car that the owner/sucker has no say in.
This isn't incompetence, this is Revenue Optimisation! The bonus for the person that thought of it must have been millions, or given how clever that is, a percentage of the take.
For those concerned about being watched by every camera one walks by, there's at least a moral case to spray paint over the lens. Of each one. Can one do that without getting caught?
If 'they' are going to blather my image illegally all over the internet, with tracking no less, I have a right to mitigate against that, up to and including disabling it. And if accused of breaking the law the case that you were preventing their crime is not unreasonable. Whether a judge would agree is a question.
Now my neighbour may not KNOW his camera is doing that, but ignorance on his part does not signify acceptance on mine. Interestingly, my neighbour-with-a-doorball-cam took pains to point out that he'd pointed it only at HIS door, not the street, not at my house etc. Bless 'im.
Indeed. If 'your'* software is in charge of the car, then 'you' are liable for what it does as if 'you' were driving.
*you being whoever signs off the release of it, more or less.
PS, the 'first do no harm' thing is too strong for autonomous vehicles, IMHO. That would lead to having no vehicles at all, including delivering food to shops, ambulances and whatnot.
If only that were the case. Several manufacturers (can't be bothered to look it up) have said aloud that in their view the 'driver' is still legally liable for what the car does in autonomous mode.
Which makes perfect sense, if you think about it. In stupid land.
I usually conclude that whoever wrote a Reach article failed all their GCSEs, and did so without even starting their English one. So an AI might actually be an improvement to grammar and hints of being coherent.
Let alone the lack of actual content, the clickbait headlines and the million ads.
In the UK we have the ICO, whose job it specifically is to do exactly that. If only they would/did. They don't. Around Europe many ICOs have done small things, but not the big things. Mr Schrems gets much credit.
But the problem is voters aren't going to like not having access to Facebook, Instagram, Google and the like.
So we get what we 'want', collectively, whether we few here agree or not.
Recently the UK supreme court ruled very similarly. Though at least the court here ruled that what the spies are doing is wrong while ruling that they could continue to do it. Yup.
Politicians will get voted out if they "let" baddies do bad things, and for that we get much deeper spying. I'd much prefer if the trade off was open and clear, but that is either too hard to explain to the electorate and media, or just too complicated, or something.
Look, if there really is a need for them to have access to whatever data then Parliament should legistlate so, publicly and properly. This bollocks about 'yeah we broke the law but we really had to' is bollocks.
If and when I get a speeding ticket or otherwise am found to be breaking the law can I do the same? I think I shall give it a go.
"But Occifer, I was speeding to stop Chinese/Russian/North Korean (delete as required) baddies from baddying, and HM Government has decided that's ok, so ta."
AFAIK the forced arbitration thing is strictly an American thing... can anyone tell us if they've seen it elsewhere? I've been many enough Euro, UK and other contracts and not seen it. Which is nice, because then I'd have had to have had the whole "You don't seriously think that's enforceable?" conversation with someone.
Like many other little inventions over the many years this is best thought of as a toy*. Its fun (to some), it produces silly outputs, it mimics things in a funny or interesting way.
When Siri/Alexa/Bixby/OK Google first came out how much fun did we have asking questions and getting the silliest answers, before giving up because it was more or less useless? Neat toys, put on the shelf. Photo apps that show you what you look like when old, the latest game, whatever, fun for a short time.
Anyone that thinks its intelligent, correct or otherwise is wilfully misled.
*It might even be useful in some contexts
Of course the Taliban are 'bad' and references to hanging and whatnot are true. But for the Americans to be all holier-than-thou when they still do the death penalty is a mite hypocritical.
Along the lines of 'we are not arguing about what you are, now we are haggling on price'.
--> Analysis of the TimeCamp data showed she had made a timesheet entry for a file she had not worked on,
This line in the article makes it simple to me. You don't need AI to detect this, and it is black and white (presuming its verifiably true). She got caught because she was dumb.
Also, accountants historically bill by the hour... efficience doesn't enter into it directly. They aren't paid to have ideas per se, or to do work, they are paid by the hour.
This is an example of being able to decide something sensible and just do it, which could be considered an advantage over regulators that have to discuss and review and get 'lobbied' and what-have-you.
Also, penalties that amount to a fine of 1 minute's revenue are ineffective when compared to a spot of re-education.
The BBC gets most of its money with the backing of the police, an advantage many businesses would love to have. Do they take that money and do their job of being a public service broadcaster? Only partly. For example: A true public service broadcaster would tell me how to watch the footie no matter what channel its on... the BBC does not do that, they only talk about BBC channels/radio/app/website. The BBC's attitude is to compete, and they have the field tilted in their favour.
Then they spend money on silly things... Search? Changing the logo of their apps every 6 months instead of making them work well? Pushing DAB on us even though it hardly works?
That's ignoring that the licence fee has to be the least efficient way of collecting a tax imaginable.
At first glance at least, this sounds like the UK online harms bill currently in parliament. Perhaps lessons could be shared, approaches could be compared, ideas exchanged?
Better yet, let someone else (ie California) give this a go, gov.uk, and see how they get on... save us on this side of the pond a lot of faffing about.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
