This made me chuckle. I remember a particular Recruit Division Commander in boot camp. I was proud of my work the first time I completed an assigned task properly. I reported the status to him. He came over, checked out the work, and said "Nice job! Congratulations! You've graduated from worthless.... to useless!" He then smiled and walked away. That was high praise in boot camp.

I wonder if OpenAI will defend their Chinese customer against copyright claims if they are the source of the claim. LOL. https://techcrunch.com/2023/11...

This seems to me the logical outcome of an _enforced_ "Corporations are people" type policy.

I see you are new to the government work environment.

Sounds like what they did with Amazon Prime Video and ads. They did this before, they will do it again.

This strikes me as the company pursuing the best course of action when they determined that it is not financially feasible to put in place enough protections to prevent this kind of activity on their systems. So... instead of protecting against it, they allow it and make money from it. I'm sure there is nuance here, but this smells like PR spin on a business decision to me.

I hear you on the sales growth math. If I had to guess, I'd say that this was probably likely to people waiting for the new EV tax credit rules to kick in. Knocking several thousand off the purchase price makes a big difference, also in the amount of interest paid.

For what it's worth, you can subscribe to F1TV for around $11/month or around $85/year. It is more expensive than the ESPN+ subscription (depending on how you get it), but you get access to some features ESPN+ can't give you. I had the F1TV subscription for years and liked to have my laptop screen showing the lap times, laps on current tire, when the last pit was, and some other data. You could also get the in-car radio for each driver. It's a way to get out of the ESPN+ subscription and you get a lot more data, but if all you want is the race, then ESPN+ is kind of hard to beat. Especially if it's bundled with the other Disney+/Hulu junk. This is the first year I'm going back to ESPN+ (as now I have the Disney+ sub), but I'll go back to F1TV for sure if the cabal above releases their streaming bundles together at an outrageous price point... or with ads. In the end, this is a math equation. I just hope they don't drop broadcast TV for events too in order to help drive subscriptions. I installed a TV antenna last year, and I get just enough of the other one-off sports games I watch on it that I don't have to subscribe for a month to to watch an occasional event like the Army Navy football game, Daytona 500, or the super bowl.

+1. It is like reporting "People go over the speed limit on the Interstate" at this point.

This, right here. I was a college level instructor for about a decade. I'm not an English major, far from it. But the low quality of papers coming from college students made me really begin to think about everything from our education system to the ability to communicate without looking like an idiot. I'm not a fan of marketing but at least _most_ marketing materials are coherent and well written. Yes yes, there are always exceptions, but damn. However, using AI to answer questions certainly increases the quality of writing but it includes content that wasn't generated by the user and that is not what those questions were about.

I bet the AI has better quality microphones than the employees at the location they used for testing had. There is your 22 seconds right there.

I often wonder why we had better microphone and speaker technology during the moon landings than is available today at the average drive through.

I just went through the same thing. I even gave Comcast/Xfinity a chance to lower the bill to stay competitive. I told them my primary concern was cost, so somehow through marketing mathematics they decided the best deal they could offer to keep me was to double my speed for a bill that came up about $7 more a month in totality. I asked the customer service representative how Comcast thought that X was less than X+7. After a few seconds of silence, they recognized I wasn't going to speak again until they answered, so they just said "This is the best offer we are able to give you." So, in about 2 weeks, I get fiber to my house, much faster, for LESS THAN 50% THE COST and Comcast/Xfinity will not only lose an Internet subscriber, but a mobile subscriber too. I never did buy into the cableTV* side of things, so I won't be a statistic there. * One of their favorite tricks is to say "The CableTV & Internet bundle is the same cost" but it isn't. Once you add in CableTV they tack on a bunch of fees and service charges that don't normally come with an Internet only connection. So yeah, the advertised price is the same, but the total bill is always around $5-$10 more. I'm not sad I'm leaving. But it might help them to learn some basic mathematics. It does appear as though they figured out that less subscribers is a bad thing, but squeezing the ones you have left isn't a viable long-term plan either. Sooner or later someone will lure your customers away from you.

Headlines like this really bug me. There are many facets to this problem, but at the core of it lies upper management. They seem to be stuck on the mindset that you can either be secure or you can have a successful business. Why not both? It is possible, and with a good risk management system in place, it can be a reality too. Sure, unplug everything and burry it 100 feet underground with a hardwired self-destruct on it for ultimate security. Or, on the other hand, use 8 character passwords so non-technical users can remember them easily. Like most things, the successful businesses realize the sweet spot is the middle ground. I worked in operations as a security person in a 150 person company. Upper management was allowed to run wild with their decisions and there was no real check in power for them. This was a systemic issue with the old CEO and it didn't get much better with the new CEO. The operations department had an executive, and he did not get along well with the executive with another business unit. So those two executives got into a chess match. Our ops executive lost. So the other executive absorbed our group and merged our two different security teams (haha, really just 2 security people, but that is a different story). The other security guy and I knocked heads a bit, but eventually came to respect each other and get along quite well, what you would expect from a collaborative workplace where people have open minds. In the end, I learned quite a lot from the other person. The problem was that under the new executive, he decided to change things up... you know... "for the better." That translates to myself and the other security guy (insert comments about qualifications, education, experience, technical ability here. Lets just say we are competent "qualified" security people) being paired up to conduct interviews of key staff in different departments. While this isn’t a bad thing, the devil is always in the details. Our instructions were explicit. The executive did not want to hear anything from us. At all. No opinions, thoughts, comments, complaints, moans or groans, especially if they were security related. We were to go out and ask other people in other departments what they thought the security problems were. Write them down. Bring them back to the “architects group,” which was full of smart people, but none of them were security people. We would sit in that meeting quietly and not speak. We were to wait for them to come to a conclusion about how to fix the problems. Write that down. Bring that solution back to the people we interviewed and help them implement it. If the architects didn’t think it was a problem, then it didn’t get fixed. If they did, then the fix was to be implemented exactly as they said with zero input from the security people. In short, we were relegated to head note takers The problem here isn’t skilled workers, it is how they are used. They could have got an intern to do those interviews, take notes, and do the follow-up. Management doesn’t know what to do with security people, and they are largely focused on business operations anyhow. While I agree to some extent that they are not wrong, after all if your security is so tight that you cant’ get anything done, then you don’t have a business. But again middle ground. That is the key. My suggestion to managers is to talk to your security people and find out where your problems are, and work with them for solutions. There will be discussions and agreements to be made, compromises on both sides to be had, but talk to them as they really do know how to secure things. My suggestion to security workers is to not say “no” but instead ask yourself “how could we accomplish this securely?” Management needs to wake up and use the tools at their disposal. We are out there, and there are plenty of us. If you want a good one, you might have to pay a bit of money for it. After all, you wanted a good CEO and you paid them millions why not pay a bit more than 30k/year for a good security person and then complain there is a skills gap that needs to be closed?

I just don't get it. Why not turn something like ChatGPT into a learning tool for students instead of a cheat tool? It seems to me that a non-trivial number of higher education courses rely on the good old memory pump-and-dump scheme with a research paper thrown into the mix. While I understand the importance of having background on a subject, it's the practical application of the concepts that prove knowledge. The answer, in my opinion, is to change the scoring system. Instead of having exams that prove you memorized something, have exams that make you apply the lessons learned to a scenario. It won't matter if a student used ChatGPT to write a research paper. At the end of the day either the student understands the concepts enough to practically apply them to solve a real-world problem or they do not. A change in the scoring system not only would nullify the worry that students are using ChatGPT to write a paper, but it could potentially let students use it as a learning resource to help them along the way. ChatGPT (AI in general) isn't going anywhere. Instead of fighting it, learn to use it as a tool.

I couldn't agree more. I use the Pi 2 with a USB wireless adapter (check for compatibility with hostapd before you buy) along with the ethernet dongle as well and I've got all the quiet hardware I need to run my home network. I locked Raspbian down, removed all the X11 GUI related crap, and configured a few other things as well (DNS/DHCP) and now have a rock solid router that has only crashed when I did something stupid. The best part is... it's updated on a regular basics! I started doing this years ago when I finally got sick of having to buy a new router/firewall/nat when a firmware bug came out and the manufacturers didn't want to put out a firmware update. As for bandwidth, I like the low-end packages from an ISP. Living in the US, we are getting surrounded by ISP's that have a bandwidth cap. I think of the upper tiers of Internet packages as a faster way to hit my cap. Lets be realistic though, I want to be able to stream video from Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime without buffering at a minimum.