Comment Re:Everyone Saw This Coming (Score 1) 54
"Rush"? They've had going on 3 years.
Looks to me that they blindly trusted Broadcom, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Comment What are they migrating to? (Score 2) 54
I didn't see it mentioned anywhere; what is t-mobile migrating to?
Comment Re:Everyone Saw This Coming (Score 4, Insightful) 54
I guarantee there's someone, or a few someones, at t-mobile who saw this coming. They're mid level support or engineers. I'm sure they were screaming to all that they could find about what was coming, but upper management and the powers that be ignored them. None could confront the mass migration that was necessary if this group of someones were right, so they must be wrong.
Until they weren't.
And so this group will be rewarded with all the shit-work needed to get the migration done, while the very same people that ignored the timebomb ticking in their closet will be rewarded for their "vision" and "decisiveness".
God I don't miss corporate.
Comment Irrevocable license per 17 USC 117 (Score 3, Informative) 78
The copyright statute of Slashdot's home country defines a "copy" as a physical object in which a work is embodied, such as a book, ROM cartridge, or optical disc. The statutory license associated with ownership of a copy of a computer program includes making intermediate copies "as an essential step" in the use of the program. Title 17, United States Code, section 117. Historically, console makers and game publishers have lacked power to revoke this license with respect to a particular copy of a game that isn't online-only. With the end of video game distribution on optical disc, this license becomes revocable, and that's the problem.
Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 2
One fact checker rates this "mostly true": https://www.factcheckradar.com...
Submission + - Feds Want to Drop Requirement for Autonomous Cars to Have a Brake Pedal (caranddriver.com)
sinij writes:
Braking distance regulations would stick around, but the physical pedals would no longer be required for cars designed to be exclusively autonomous.
I would want any autonomous car to have emergency brake and/or shutoff.
Comment Re:Typical (Score 1) 125
So your take is that consumers want data collection in their vehicles and buying cars based on that? These anti-features have nothing to do with consumer choice, nobody wants them.
Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 125
Next do Ford, GM, and Tesla.
This is not limited to US-based manufacturers. Toyota and Subaru also does this and AFAIK they are Japanese companies. KIA and Hyundai does this and they are Korean.
Comment Re:The best outcome... (Score 1) 125
The best possible outcome would be for consumers to be able to buy an EV with no data collection spyware, subscriptions for existing features, and mandatory over the air updates. If this becomes an option due to this Connected Vehicles Rule, then US-based manufacturers may have to stop their anti-consumer practices.
Comment Charging for it? (Score 1) 1
What is also outrageous is that Springer charging 39.95 for digital versions of Planck's papers. Parasites.
Comment Good requirement (Score 1) 108
I had a major storm that shut down power for days. Everything went down, including cell service. cable, etc. Only my DSL and landline phone kept working because of legacy laws that required telephone lines to be operational in such cases. I can take care of my own house, I have backup generator, but only teleco can take care of communication infrastructure and they won't unless mandated by law, as doing so costs them money.
Comment Re:Pony up (Score 1) 204
Again, you are failing to understand why people like Slate.
Bolt has telematics collection via OnStar that is very involved to disable. While Bolt is cheap, it is like most modern EVs is not repairable outside of dealerships. So Bolt is F on privacy and C- on repairability.
Bolt has telematics collection via OnStar that is very involved to disable. While Bolt is cheap, it is like most modern EVs is not repairable outside of dealerships. So Bolt is F on privacy and C- on repairability.
Submission + - Max Planck Slapped With Paper Retractions by Suspected Rogue Algorithm (science.org) 1
He Who Has No Name writes: Being a titan in the history of physics, the 1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, having the smallest rational physical measurement (the Planck Length) named after you, and being deceased for 79 years is all apparently still not enough to prevent your work from being threshed and hit with retractions by an algorithm. Science.org has a succinct article that explains it:
"In early May, Yves Gingras, a historian of physics at the University of Quebec (UQ) at Montreal, was browsing Retraction Watch, a website that catalogs fraud, data manipulation, and other scientific sins. He noticed a link that read, “Retractions by Nobel Prize winners.” Were there really Nobel laureates whose papers had been withdrawn from the scientific literature?
After clicking, Gingras froze. “That’s impossible,” he recalls thinking. The fourth name on the list, with two retracted papers, was Max Planck—a legendary pioneer of quantum mechanics and the 1918 Nobel laureate in physics. Gingras had never heard a whiff of scandal about Planck, who was almost as widely revered for his character as his physics. In 1933, for example, he bravely confronted Adolf Hitler over Nazi Germany’s discriminatory laws against Jews."
The Springer Nature, the current-day owner of the journal Naturwissenschaften in which the papers were published 86 years ago, appears to have set an algorithm loose on their library, hunting for plagiarism and other reasons to retract papers... and failed to tell it to leave historic cornerstone works and authors alone.
"The retraction of the second Planck paper, published in 1940, left Gingras and Khelfaoui even more baffled. It also cited copyright violation—yet the piece had never appeared elsewhere. Then Khelfaoui noticed something that added to suspicions that an algorithm was at work. [...] In November 1940, philosopher Aloys Müller criticized Planck’s views in a Naturwissenschaften piece titled “Naturwissenschaft und reale Außenwelt” (“Natural Science and the Real External World”). A month later, Planck responded in print—and used the exact same title. This, Gingras and Khelfaoui suspect, caused Springer Nature’s copyright bot to retract the paper as plagiarism decades later, even though the contents of the two essays differ markedly."
However, apparently feeling like they had to retract the paper was not enough to fully dissuade Springer Nature from still selling it, in its retracted form:
"Gingras was especially incensed that Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95."
"In early May, Yves Gingras, a historian of physics at the University of Quebec (UQ) at Montreal, was browsing Retraction Watch, a website that catalogs fraud, data manipulation, and other scientific sins. He noticed a link that read, “Retractions by Nobel Prize winners.” Were there really Nobel laureates whose papers had been withdrawn from the scientific literature?
After clicking, Gingras froze. “That’s impossible,” he recalls thinking. The fourth name on the list, with two retracted papers, was Max Planck—a legendary pioneer of quantum mechanics and the 1918 Nobel laureate in physics. Gingras had never heard a whiff of scandal about Planck, who was almost as widely revered for his character as his physics. In 1933, for example, he bravely confronted Adolf Hitler over Nazi Germany’s discriminatory laws against Jews."
The Springer Nature, the current-day owner of the journal Naturwissenschaften in which the papers were published 86 years ago, appears to have set an algorithm loose on their library, hunting for plagiarism and other reasons to retract papers... and failed to tell it to leave historic cornerstone works and authors alone.
"The retraction of the second Planck paper, published in 1940, left Gingras and Khelfaoui even more baffled. It also cited copyright violation—yet the piece had never appeared elsewhere. Then Khelfaoui noticed something that added to suspicions that an algorithm was at work. [...] In November 1940, philosopher Aloys Müller criticized Planck’s views in a Naturwissenschaften piece titled “Naturwissenschaft und reale Außenwelt” (“Natural Science and the Real External World”). A month later, Planck responded in print—and used the exact same title. This, Gingras and Khelfaoui suspect, caused Springer Nature’s copyright bot to retract the paper as plagiarism decades later, even though the contents of the two essays differ markedly."
However, apparently feeling like they had to retract the paper was not enough to fully dissuade Springer Nature from still selling it, in its retracted form:
"Gingras was especially incensed that Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95."
Comment Re:How a compiler differs from an LLM (Score 1) 57
Just because you're not given the controls [the random seed used to process an LLM prompt] doesn't mean they do not exist.
I'll have to disagree with you on that. What matters for reproducible builds is that the person performing the build has power to set the seed.
Comment Re:Pony up (Score 0) 204
So you saying younger people are too stupid to value privacy and right to repair and only "the crotchety old fucks" value it? What a dumb take.
