Sigh, true, I guess the future needs to become decentralised?

Ah, cunning.

“The finest trick of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist.”

It's maddening, and also, kinda fascinating what, the reasons why they insist on this, could be.

I asked ChatGPT to speculate in a psychologically informed way, on what the reasons could be. Naturally your point about control came up a lot (many people think at a concrete level and so can't understand having a team which they can't "see").

I'll quote this last reason it churned out, which is again about capacity for perception:

Truly post-conventional thinkers can hold paradox: that productivity can increase and control decrease; that structure can evolve and culture endure. Leaders operating below that level may feel forced to choose one side (“We can’t have both”), leading to simplistic, binary decisions like “Everyone must come back.”

Thanks for sharing what is probably one of the best feel-good stories of the month. Seriously, we're always hearing about how the system is grinding everyone down. It's easy to get really depressed and believe it all.

As someone who wrote a book on totalitarianism said, the antidote is to show that there's at least one voice that is different. One voice that can stand apart from the crowd. One voice that makes everyone rethink, hey, there are options and possibilities. So, thank you.

Sounds very awkward to deal with.

And as a thought experiment, if forcing every employee to wear an ankle tag solved the problem, would that justify forcing every employee to wear an ankle tag?

So I just wonder if a soft PC location logger feature is proportionate.

I guess there's already reasons for suspicion, so would this additional data collection be excessive?

I'd agree generally, but I wonder that in the end, it's actually irrelevant whether security is quantifiable. Sure, we could estimate the cost of a breach, estimating the risk of it happening, and even make a very credible job of it, but those numbers will often get the security dept people nowhere.

Why? Leaders think they are lucky and that they will get away with it.

If they were pessimistic scared pedantic types, they wouldn't be leaders.

And the technology is fragile. So it isn't really their fault. They have to succeed in the market whilst dependent on inherently fragile technology. Their only reasonable bet in that situation is to hope they stay lucky.

And by inherently fragile I mean, you buy it and it should just work, not this, hire an army of people to perform rituals and sacrifices to try to stop the company's crown jewels suddenly leaking out of the hole in the bottom of your coffee machine's waste basket.

Why the tech is so fundamentally fragile, despite many brilliant people creating it, is an exercise for the reader.

Sounds hyperbolic.

Now, where did I leave my car keys...

So I'm actually saving your post, for that day. Maybe print it out, put it in a frame, and hang it in a gallery.

Because on that day, that's the only way anyone is gonna see it.

That's interesting, and just to add my own two cents, I have been following a number of doctors and scientists over the last 10 or 20 years, the ones who have been willing to question things. And it seems that there are quite a few myths in the field of medicine and nutrition. One of the curious myths is that eating lots of fibre is good for you. For example, apparently there's only ever been one study on constipation and it found that increasing fibre increased constipation. At the same time, there's the work of Sabine Hazan who points to the microbiome as being really important for a lot of things and she's been raising the alarm around apparent widespread loss of bifidobacteria. Fibre alone doesn't increase it (just increases other bacteria instead, but apparently vitamin C can increase bifidobacteria). There's also something about a gut-brain axis. And then in the carnivore world, they find that if they just eliminate all fiber, then they digest pretty much everything that they're eating and absorb it, because it's just protein and fat and the body can use all those things bof building and energy, and just absorb them. Consequently, they end up pooping very little. And then there seems to be a thing where every individual is a bit different; some people can absorb certain nutrients very easily, whilst other people struggle to absorb them and have to eat more or be careful they're not also eating anti-nutrients. So the whole thing seems to be quite complicated and there seem to be a lot of unknowns. I guess at the end of the day it's being open-minded, but at the same time, experimenting with oneself and trusting how one feels.

One could read that statement to mean the Chinese via the UK want access.

My guess is a white pixel would in a blur scatter more light in the visual effect, therefore having to compute more of the adjacent pixels, whereas a black pixel has no light to scatter visually, therefore no computation is needed on the surrounding pixels.

Always remember your disclaimer, people!

Maybe they're good at specific tasks and the problems are when they are used for general tasks.

Besides, all code has bugs -- it's just that traditional code has logical errors whereas neural networks have irrational errors.

Sure, there is a lot of experimentation and hype at the moment, but that seems to be part of the process.

I was going to say that, but with punctuation.

A somewhat overlooked point: the 600 year old Ottoman Empire fell in WWI.

New powers decided the new borders.