Re: Foxconn's iPhone experience isn't relevant here
Yeah, that struck me as a pretty facile statement too. Smacks a bit of "Only 1000 words to Christmas, who cares if what i write makes no sense."
218 publicly visible posts • joined 27 Jun 2014
This falls squarely under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. "... dishonestly makes a false representation ... cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss [i.e to an applicant]".
If anyone from HR or an employment agency is watching, that's worth up to 10 years in prison plus a fine.
I doubt they are. Typically it is only selected institutions and people that are sanctioned. It's unlikely, but not impossible, that the individual contributors are on the sanctions list. This smacks more of ignorance or laziness in understanding the sanctions regime and regulations.
I note that in insulting people's lack of historical memory he doesn't also educate them that Finland was on the wrong side in WWII.
Hmm. Vodafone don't do IT, just connectivity, so I wonder if 'interacting with the Vodafone Platform' just really means "our data sims have stopped working".
Vodafone are phasing out some of their data only sim plans; I got an email telling me that a Vodafone data only service I use is ceasing soon (1st August in case of the particular service that I use). What are the chances that someone at BA got a similar email, failed to act on it and the deadline to find an alternative to a Vodafone data only mobile service just came and went? Is this just a variant on the "forgot to renew a certificate" classic fail?
Intelligent creatures learn from experience and adapt, LLMs don't. Ergo intelligence is qualitatively different.
If you correct an LLM it doesn't incorporate that into its world model. Playing with the llama2 model (prompted by this article) it conflated race and ethnicity. I pointed this out, it apologised and issued a 'correction' without the mistake, except that all it did was substitute the word "ethnicity" for "race" in its first appearance and then continued to say "race" for the rest of the paragraph.
No, there's nothing unusual to it. Everybody has the power to bring a private criminal prosecution.
You used to just have to pop into the nearest magistrates court and 'swear out an information' but nowadays you just toddle along to gov.uk, grab a copy of the form "Application for summons or warrant for arrest for alleged offence under Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 section 1, CrimPR 7.2(6)", fill it out and submit it to the court. There's a lot more detail to actually conducting a prosecution, but the essential thing is that anyone has the power to bring a private criminal prosecution, perhaps not the expertise to, but certainly the power to.
Luxury? You 'ad it easy.
When I were a lad we had to program t' computer by hardwiring the program into it, in actual wire on plugboard. And we had to make the wire ourselves, after getting up two hours before we went to bed to mine the ore for the metal for the wire ourselves.
It's necessary to point out that Dublin is in Ireland because Americans may read this, and they get very confused when a placename, that they have reused umpteen times to name somewhere in the US of A, is used to refer to the original and not the Dublin in Ohio, California, Georgia, Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas, or Michigan (and I've probably missed some).
If only the early settlers had possessed just a little more imagination, the USA would not have 21 Glasgows, 7 Edinburghs, 10 Londons, 7 Cardiffs, 16 Birminghams, and 27 Brightons - that last one clearly suggests a lot of people wishing for somewhere to go to for a dirty weekend.
Breeden responded: "We haven't got to the point yet where those [privacy] issues have been raised; we're at the technical design point. ..."
Then the people involved aren't competent to be involved. Privacy issues in a digital currency have to be at the core of the technical design if it is to have a possibility of meeting any privacy constraints placed upon it. Anybody who doesn't realise this has no business being anywhere within a thousand miles of any digital currency design.
By the sounds of it they expect to bake privacy in by saying, legislatively, thou shalt not breach privacy instead of ensuring technically that it is not possible for you to breach privacy.
This kind of idiocy is not surprising to those who have watched various government types keep insisting that there must be a way you can break encryption but only for the "good guys".
People don't like bullies. If you want to see yourself lose market share to RISC V, just carry on the thuggish behaviour.
People don't forget, and perhaps even now there are embedded engineers the world around going "You know, I've been meaning to have a play with RISC V and if ARM are going to run around being arseholes perhaps now's the time to do it. If they can be this stupid in how they treat people who are trying to help them by educating about their architecture, what other boneheaded mistakes are they going to make once the IPO really goes to their heads?".
Many, many years ago in 1985 I wrote a password generating algorithm for the company where I then worked. It took a 30 bit pseudorandom number, split that into three 10 bit fields and then spat out a three word password, with each word of the password taken from a list of 1024 words, all nouns, that had been carefully crosschecked for possible confusion by feeding them all through the "soundex" algorithm. Soundex is normally used to find words that sound alike, even if the writer uses the conventions of another language (e.g. "mare-duh" instead of "merde"). It was developed to help match people's names under variant spelling.
If as a fresh faced junior programmer I could manage to spot, and mitigate, the risk of homophones, what does that say about the quality of the thinking that went into What Three Words?
Hey, at least they stated their assumptions.
I recently read a paper on how exercise modes affect blood pressure that was reported in the the press akin to "These two exercises could reduce your dangerously high blood pressure" where they made the assumption that the control groups in the papers they were doing a meta analysis of were sufficiently similar to allow all the studies to be linked. Of course they (1) didn't actually state the implicit assumption or (2) provide any evidence that the assumption held thus rendering the paper little more than prettily worded bunkum and the conclusions worthless.
Unlike this paper, which at most is going to be used to justify a bit of Friday afternoon bunking off, that paper is going to possibly genuinely and seriously affect the health of people who get an exercise prescription from a medic who (a) didn't read more that the conclusions or a report of them, (b) isn't smart enough to spot the terrible methodological mistake.
Given that the word's roots are Latin, via Italian, the Italian Partito Nazionale Fascista, the Italian Fasci Italiani di Combattimento the Italian Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria, and the Italian Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista I think claiming a French origin might be a bit off the mark.
Before taking on work from Musk and Twitter/X, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP really ought to ask "Are we gonna get paid for this?". You've only got to look to recent news to realise that lawyers who work for Twitter/X and don't get the result, even if successful, that suits Musk's current mood when when the bill arrives, don't get paid.
Any approbation that Musk has attracted here is entirely of his own making. Simple factual reporting of what he does, combined with his own pronouncements is more than enough to make him an object of scorn in the eyes of any right thinking individual.
The people who need criticism are those who still indulge in uncritical adulation of the man in the face of all he's done to Twitter, its staff, all the people it owes money to and all the shareholders in his other ventures that have been tainted by his Twitter antics.
You seem to have descended into "whataboutsim" and personal abuse. I take it that means you don't have a solid argument to make other than to assert your way of looking at this is the only way and anyone who refuses to agree with you is an idiot.
Stakeholders, including all the emergency services, had disclosure of this back in February last year. The whole process follows the well established, and well accepted, principles and practices of responsible disclosure. The end goal, as always, of responsible disclosure, is to ensure that vulnerabilities are addressed and fixed, and that no party can take a head in the sand attitude.
One thing I'm sure of, that these long standing vulnerabilities will already have been exploited in the wild with high probability, whether by state level actors or some of our more sophisticated criminals. Clearly it is time for TETRA to be fixed or be retired.
Often "fair use" hinges on how much of a pre-existing work has been used. Me using Blackadder quotes to quip at what others have said counts as fair use, me posting the script of whole episodes of Blackadder does not. Ingesting a work wholesale would definitely cross any threshold used to assess whether a 'substantial' quantity of the original work had been used.
If an LLM can be provoked to produce exact quotes of any arbitrary part of a work by prompting (e.g. "What did Captain Blackadder say in response to Lieutenant George St Barleigh talking about 'willing suspension of disbelief'?") then I suspect it would fail the test of fair use by its ability to produce arbitrarily long quotations of any part of the original text.
You clearly don't know how this works if you think what country you're in determines the routeability of an assigned IP prefix, be it a v4 prefix or a v6 prefix.
If you've a block permanently assigned to you, then you just find a grown-up ISP and say "We need you to announce this over BGP". Better still get your own ASN (You'll have no problem with this is you're capable of getting a permanently assigned prefix) and advertise your prefix yourself to one or more upstream transit providers.
Rather: "Nice block of IP addresses you've got there. Be a shame if people refused to route traffic to or from them."
It'd only take a few people in the right places to decide that they don't like a particular block(s) and blackhole them to make the block(s) essentially worthless. Just saying.
I do hope that "going forward" in the first sentence, second paragraph was meant to be in quotes. If not, next time you consider writing "going forward" in place of "in the future" I want you to imagine your former chief sub Teresa Teras standing behind your left shoulder, arms crossed, tapping her toes, head on one side, eyebrow raised, with that "I could eat you for breakfast sonny" look of hers in her eyes. That should be enough to persuade you back onto the right track.
Part of the real world is that the customers for 'expensive package' may decide that the whole RHEL farce has gone on long enough. One "big enough that they could easily account for 20% of expensive package's revenue" commercial organization that I've done work for use RHEL in production and Centos in test/development and so on. It could decide that RHEL is too expensive to use for everything, especially given that the expensive support from Red Hat/IBM that they pay for is considered a crock of shit by all there. If they say to the vendor of 'expensive product' "support our linux platform of choice or we walk" I bet that vendor will find a way to get the RHELisms out of that software in quite short order.