My latest pet peeve is when Siri violates basic privacy standards by compelling data collection that isn't necessary.

A couple of days ago, I asked it for a list of restaurants near a particular town where I would be in a couple of hours. Siri immediately told me I had to enable location services for that query. What? Why? My query didn't ask for a list of restaurants near me. I asked for a list of restaurants near a different town, and more to the point, I gave both the name of the town and the state.

I attempted probably half a dozen different variations of that query, including things like avoiding the word "near", and Siri failed in the same way every single time, so this isn't just a one-off glitch specific to how I worded the query. It's a general problem with the way Siri handles queries that involve location.

This violates the first rule of location services, which is do not ask for the user's location unless you actually need the user's location. If the user is asking for restaurants in Panama City, Florida, Siri does NOT need to know that the user is currently in Charleston, South Carolina. It's none of Siri's d**n business. And more to the point, if Siri actually tried to do literally anything with that location data, it would be pretty much guaranteed to reduce the quality of the results rather than increase it, so having the data is just an invitation for any AI that might be involved to do something utterly stupid.

And you've done nothing to explain what the use case is. As far as I can tell, the use case is "Someone who wants to use their phone to control the TV instead of the TV remote," which is a tremendous amount of technological overhead for such a negligible benefit.

It's way easier to point your camera at the screen and do an instant sign-in on the TV than it is to get your phone connected to the right Wi-Fi network and cast to the right TV, so the use case would have to be pretty compelling to make up for what a pain in the a** it is when it works, much less when it doesn't.

Major correction here: about something that I have tried to use on many, many occasions, but never used successfully. There's a difference.

You won't read or engage further because you don't actually know any compelling reason to use it. If you did, you would have said what that reason was by now.

Not really, no. If I wanted to use the TV to do all of the networking and playback, I would have just used the TV's app to do it. The number of hotels I've seen where the TV supported Chromecast or AirPlay streaming but did not have a built-in Netflix app are literally zero.

From my perspective, casting is a complete disaster by its very nature. It relies on the display device having full Internet access, which isn't a given. Literally every time I've wanted to do casting, it has been because the TV set's Netflix app wasn't working because of a network problem, and it couldn't get access to the Internet, so I was trying to use the phone's network connection. By shifting the network connectivity back to the TV set, it makes the entire system completely worthless, because the exact situations where it could be useful are the exact situations where it isn't.

It's been, what, a week, and they got 6000 jets through maintenance during a very busy holiday travel season?

That speaks to fantastic logistics. There are anonymous folks out there who did a great job and deserve a ridiculously generous Christmas Bonus. :gallant bow:

The figures can be entirely correct and still the answer can be "no". Why? Because Android might use the Linux kernel, but it isn't really a Linux distro in any meaningful sense of the word. And Steam Deck and Chromebooks *can* have some reasonable facsimile of a Linux development environment, but I'd expect maybe 0.1% of users to actually turn it on.

So most of those folks are Linux "users" in much the same way that TiVo owners were linux "users", i.e. they are using a device that deep down, at a level that the user is unaware of, runs some small subset of what a Linux distro typically contains, with a bunch of stuff on top that they mostly aren't in control over.

It's like calling Mac users UNIX users. It's technically correct — the best kind of correct — but grossly misleading.

I too bought memory in April to avoid tariffs. I had to run a stupid python program to generate a dataset that required 96GB of RAM for a delayed project so I figured I might as well bite the bullet. DDR4 was still a good value at that point (it's a problem that can run overnight, performance wasn't too important).

But how are the tariffs limiting the manufacturing supply capacity of RAM factories in East Asia?

Do you have a mechanism to propose?

Do you think they're making enough to meet demand but then blaming tariffs to justify jacking up prices? All of them? It would be an interesting conspiracy but is there any evidence to support that theory?

> How much is this problem is down to AI and how much to beautiful tariffs?

What mechanism are you thinking of where tariffs could limit supply of VRAM from East Asia?

Simple price increases, sure, definitely, but this is described by manufacturers as a supply & demand problem.

Do you have a different angle we should consider?

> It did happened before, but not on this scale and speed.

Check out Meltwater Pulses 1a and 1b.

Trump pointed out that most countries didn't meet their obligations, and most of those countries ignored him. It was Putin who succeeded in getting these countries to up their budgets.

In 2014 only 3 nato members met the 2% target (USA, UK, Greece):
https://www.nato.int/content/d...

Any DNS service can return any IP address for a lookup, this is not an AWS specific feature.

Some services are managed through us-east-1 especially when the service itself is global, things like route53 and cloudfront.

This story is specifically about the UK, and their only open land border is between north and south Ireland, so it would be relatively easy for the two governments to work something out.
The only other routes to take vehicles in/out of the UK are by (or under) sea and include passport control checkpoints, so they know exactly what vehicles are transiting and it wouldnt be a huge effort to record mileage as vehicles enter or exit.

It's only for EVs because regular ICE vehicles already pay taxes on the fuel, whereas electricity is not taxed.

Electricity has too many other uses to make a tax on it practical, whereas gasoline and diesel are generally only used for transportation with very occasional lawnmower/generator use.

Taxing out of state vehicles is difficult, but if the other states have a similar system then it would balance out as those vehicles would still be paying the tax in their home state even for miles driven in another state, and vehicles would be going in both directions unless the tax rates are radically different.

The fuel tax system also addressed this quite conveniently as your driving in another state would be limited by the capacity of your fuel tank to make it there and back before you'd have to fill up in the state you were driving in and thus pay their local taxes.

Require domestic supplies to be at cost, only allow making a profit on foreign sales. Also require that domestic be prioritised so they have to supply the local military first before chasing profits.