Posts by OhForF' 569 publicly visible posts • joined 29 Mar 2022
I don't trust any system to have that safety net in place to safe me. My approach is never to do a "rm <pattern>" directly but first use "find <pattern>" and if the result lists those (and only those) files and directories i expect i append "-print0 | xargs -0 rm -f" to the find command.
dd needs triple checking - way to easy to zero out your hard disk instead of the flash drive.
>Google pay them to be default search, so Google is a partner<
I am aware of that and while it is not ideal i do not consider that to be a big problem. I even concurr that most people would expect Google to be the default search engine.
>When you type a search into the top bar they send that to Google and take you to the results page, so they are sharing data with a partner.<
I am although aware of that and consider it a much bigger problem. Never should have been the default behaviour; GDPR mandates that Mozilla asks for informed consent before sending the keystrokes to Google but a lot of users do probably not even realize this is happening.
I still fail to understand how sharing our data with partners for commercial reasons is different from selling data as most people would understand it.
My current take is that Mozilla's C Suite is well aware that what they want to do will be considered selling user data and users will object but decided to go ahead regardless.
I wonder if they have a plan how to deal with GDPR yet?
Quoting the updated https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq
<quote>Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).</quote>
So they do admit they want to share our data with their "partners" for commercial reasons but somehow that is not what most people think about "selling data"?
Icon for the CEO's at Mozilla --->
>not accepting the subscription model means not accepting the benefits of continuous improvements<
It is quite possible to sell a software version for a fixed price and tell your users they'll get security fixes for free (product liability) but if they want the "improved new version" they have to pay again. Software providers used to do that for decades and it worked fine and gave consumers the power to only pay for an "improvement" that they actually wanted.
Subscription models allowed software providers to avoid feedback from the customers voting on their new features and improvement with their wallests - end result summed up as "enshittification".
China managed to get a key that allowed them to create their own access tokens to US cloud storage (see this El Reg article).
Now we get arguments that everything in the cloud must be readable to stop chinese espionage?
>growth rate forecasts are being revised down from 30 percent to 10-15 percent for 2025.<
There are still double digit growth rates but that leads to oversupply and problems. Why do marketing departments always forecast exponential growth rates to continue until reality turns up to prove them wrong?
--> Item for those who predicted 30 percent growth to go on forever
>The Rust team agreeing to fix things was intended as an olive branch to people who did not want Rust to be added because people didn't want to fix it if they broke it.<
One side considers it to be a big olive branch and the other side considers it to be a small fig leaf over the 'maintainers would [not] have to learn how to do things in Rust' argument.
That seems to be a good illustration of the current issues around Rust in Linux.
As i understand it what was blocked was wrapping an API maintained by the kernel maintainers to allow access by rust. The argument that those rust bindings freezing the API is not a problem for the maintainer because the rust team would handle it is not convincing.
The "you break it you fix it" rule would be violated as the rust team would be in charge of fixing any breakage caused by an API change. Implicitely the rust team gains the power to delay or even nack any pull request that changes an API that has a rust binding any part of the kernel.
Most people underestimate the effort it takes to maintain a piece of code for the long term. I can understand that maintainers are not keen to depend on a team that has a high burnout rate and hasn't yet proved its resiliency by being around for a long time.
Well they did manage to send those emails to all employees - which is said to be hard to do in the OPM system.
Bringing in their own server, connect one network interface to the database of all employees email adresses, use admin level acces to that system to get the adress list into your server, connect the other network interface to starlink and use that to send the emails is probably much faster and easier than using the existing OPM network with its built in safeguards.
You'd probably get pretty much everyone to agree to cutting down administrative overhead in the government to make it more efficient. Announcing specific measures you want to take to achieve that will already get a part of those supporters to critize your approach. Cutting down the money spent will make those benefiting oppose you.
Do you really expect bringing in a billionaire known for his highly controversial acts to implement an unapproved plan with scant publically known details to meet universal support?
>So if he makes it an official act to shut down USAID and allow muskrat to raid it..... its legal.<
It is still illegal even if Trump can't be prosecuted for official acts. The problem here is that being illegal won't stop the likes of Trump and Musk if there are no penalties so they will continue to do what they like unless the people in the US rise up.
Nobody said spare parts have to be supplied at the bare cost of manufacturing. A reasonable markup to pay for keeping spare parts stocked even after production of the device ends and the logistic involved and even some profit margin is ok. In a lot of cases the margin baked into the suggested retail price should be good enough already.
Apple e.g. will most probably not loose any money if you order replacement wheels for your Mac Pro even if they offer it at the current sales price (currently 400£ extra for the 4 wheels instead of feet).
My proposed solution would be telling the US it is very, very bad to us for billing us for far more money for services than it is buying services from us. You are going to be in for tariffs. It's the only way ... you're going to get fairness. After all with goods the US at least gets those goods while it doesn't give us something tangible for our money.
Joking aside threatening to add tariffs on services rendered by US entities might be a good way to counter that genius negotiation tactic.
How is that US limit for GPU's imported going to work if the Netherlands are exempt? Once the chips are in the common european market there are no further checks at any borders inside the EU and EU rules won't allow further restrictions on trading with other member states.
Did the US administration figure they need ASML and thus should not piss off the Netherlands but not really think of further consequences of exempting the dutch?
If the US go forward with banning the EU from buying as much 'merican GPU's as we need they'll just force us to buy them elsewhere - do they want the EU to start shpping in China?
Why does the size of the countries matter for the gap between rich and poor people?
If the US is too big to have a more fair distribution of wealth should it be split up into several countries?
As for concentration of money in relatively small areas we have that in Europe as well, see e.g. Monaco or if looking for investement money London and Frankfurt.
No web shop will be designed to reserve a physical item in a warehouse and schedule picking and delivery when a customer puts an item into their virtual shopping cart. This would involve significant effort in several systems (web shop, ERP, MFS) and be totally wasted if the customer decides not to go through with the order.
Most web shops will be deliberately display an item as available when they know it is not in stock but replenishment is scheduled (or the item can be ordered in from some 3rd party) within a few days.
Even if half the customer cancel orders after being shown the "next day delivery" will happen in 2-3 days you will have more orders than you'd have after displaying "out of stock".
>The price you pay isn't marked up< if you compare it to the local shop's "list price". Local stores do need a mark up to pay for keeping items in stock and i am usually happy to pay their higher price for being able to look at the item and buy it in a store close to me instead of buying it from a web store. If i can't find local stores having what i want in stock i can order it myself - almost always at a lower price than what the local store would charge me for it (and that is including shipping fees).
>if the item is wrong, you can take it back for an exchange in many cases<
Local laws make it even easier to exchange/return items if i order online; within the first 14 days i can send it back for a full refund without stating a reason (if i didn't order from some obscure chinese shop that will ignore EU laws).
Don't get me wrong - i rarely order online and more than 95% of my purchases are done in person in local stores. Paying a (local) store to order stuff for me still seems to be as stupid a concecpt to me as ordering items that need to fit and come in different sizes online.
>Many smaller hardware stores in the US are affiliated with a co-op (Ace, DoItBest, etc) and have access to thousands of products they might not keep stocked in the store.<
Why would i pay a markup at a local store for them to order an item in instead of ordering it directly myself?
Optimizing the cost structure by no longer keeping low margin items in stock even though customers need them will result in customers visiting less frequently and thus reduce the business with higher margin articles displayed in the store. Local stores will not be able to compete with the big retailers on cost.
In other words reducing the items kept on stock optimizes cost but at the same time removes the local store's raison d'être.
Amazon has using convoluted processes to discourage people from using services that don't directly make them money down to a fine art.
I learned that when contacting their support to ask if it was possible to order a kindle ebook without providing a phone number. Wasted more than 15 minutes of my and their time because they do not want to allow their web page and first support levels to admit that they do require a phone number. The first two support levels repeatedly confirmed it was possible to order without providing a phone number. Their 4th support level finally admitted it is not by pasting an obviously pre-canned statement why they "need" a phone number.
That header could make it harder for web sites to claim they had my informed consent when i tell them with every request that i do not consent to tracking so it could be used in court when laws like GDPR are in effect. As the feature is already implemented i don't see why it can't stay in place while we try to get the powers that be to change the law so web sites have to respect that setting. What is accomplished by removing that feature?
Removing a single bit of information that can be used to fingerprint my browser is very close to doing nothing, there is a ton of other information for fingerprinting.
Even with your improved UI design it should not move at all unless the coordinates entered are in a predefined safe range that is known not that damage the system. Personally i'd opt for adding a couple of manual switches to stop operation before it turns into a health and safety issue.
Trusting programmers and users to get it right? -> See icon
I agree that outsorcing all kinds of production to China to get cheaper stuff has a lot of downsides but i don't see how we can blame China for the state of our western eduaction systems.
What am i missing, how is chinese money used to hollow out our education systems?
You forgot to mention to keep any device with a transmission function inside a faraday cage when you do not want it to trasmit...
There is no absolute security. If you use networked devices you'll have to define a threat model and what threats are acceptable or you might as well get rid of those two screens on every desk and go back to using pen and paper. A government migth want to take your advice and use paper for extra sensitive messages sent to an embassy. The same government will most probably not want to go back to pen and paper for daily tasks like tallying up the taxes due and paid.
A friend of mine ended up with the former telephone number of the sales contact for a popular provider of ingredients for restaraunts. That provider only contacted his customers to update the telephone number when my friend started taking orders.
Warren missed a trick there, he could haven taken charge of the issue and then sent an eye watering invoice to his former boss.
When you work on premises for longer than their normal hours it is a good idea to ask the security body that checks you in who will lock up for the night and when they start so you can let them know not to close down before you sign out.
Safety rules (see icon) usually allow you to leave the building after lock down (at least if you don't mind triggering alarm systems) but it can be a lot tricker to get your car out through locked gates.
While "AI PC" is not well defined a quick DDG search seems to confirm that generally an AI PC is one designed to be better at processing local AI workloads.
Does Micros~1 even offer a version of Office and Copilot that works locally on the PC instead of doing everything in the cloud?
If everybody is using the PC as a more or less dumb terminal for the cloud the ability to run AI workloads locally won't matter even a tiny bit unless they redefine AI PC to be one designed for faster network access.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
