Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Likely-erroneous assumptions (Score 1) 95

But it's also very possible that they're going to miss the boat. Not completely, of course, but somewhat like Microsoft missed the boat on the Internet.

So...Microsoft certainly didn't get the massive market share AOL had in the 90's, and they weren't too successful at getting the "walled garden" they were probably hoping for around that time...but they did just fine.

No, they didn't. You're judging based on a successful recovery they made in the subsequent 30 years. They really missed the boat, and lost the lock they once had on computing in general. Those who didn't live through it don't realize how Windows was synonymous with "computing". MS had the only real consumer computing platform (Apple existed but it was noise, relegated to a particular niche and lots of people with Macs had to have a PC, also). The web fundamentally changed that.

Comment Re:Very few of these are in America (Score 1) 93

If you pay attention you're going to notice most of these aren't American.

Abi Platock is in NYC. Your point about healthcare coverage makes logical sense, but I'm not sure it holds, statistically. Some of it may be that most influencers are very young, and you can stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26 (Platock is 25... so check to see if she's still doing this next year, and the year after).

Comment Likely-erroneous assumptions (Score 4, Interesting) 95

This whole article is based on the suppositions that (a) the AI bubble is going to burst and (b) it's going to take down Apple's competitors. I don't think that's a likely sequence of events.

I do think we're in something of an AI bubble, and that it will burst... but it won't burst in the sense of "All this AI stuff will go away and no one will need data centers", it will burst in the same sense that the dotcom bubble burst, or the railroad bubble burst. What happened in those cases wasn't anything remotely like "and the hyped technology became unimportant".

I think the railroad analogy is the most interesting because while a lot of railroads went under and a lot of railroad investors lost their shirts, it wasn't because railroads -- especially trans-continental railroads -- were just as huge a game-changer as everyone thought they were, it was just because the capital investment required was massive and the payback didn't come as fast as the financial structures built to fund the construction required. What happened was that those with the money snapped up the failing railroad assets and made a lot of money as the massive economic growth unleashed by the railroads was realized, over the course of a few decades.

Similarly, the dotcom bust famously left a lot of "dark fiber" laying around... but all of that fiber got lit up within a handful of years, plus we've added a ton more.

AI is looking like it will follow a similar path. It absolutely is a revolutionary technology, it will upend the structure of our economy -- even more than railroads did -- and there is a lot of money to be made. And even if AI gets much more efficient and doesn't need all of those data centers, they're still going to get used. The problem is just that some of the early investors pushed so hard trying to out-grow the competition that they've built some unsustainable financial structures, and there's a good chance that AI won't generate payback fast enough to keep those cards from tumbling down.

This probably won't be because AI doesn't advance fast enough, but because it takes time to figure out how to integrate any new technology, to make the business and even social adaptations to make use of it. I suspect those things will happen far faster then they ever have for such a large shift, because AI will actually help to accelerate them, but they still probably won't happen fast enough.

OpenAI has the most exposure. Anthropic has done a better job of figuring out how to monetize AI and is a little less exposed, though still quite exposed. I don't think Google, Amazon or Microsoft have significant exposure, mostly because they all have very large non-AI revenue streams and large piles of cash, both of which can help them survive heavy investment. For example, although Google did post its first quarterly net loss in forever, thanks to heavy data center investment, it was only a $6B loss, and for a company that would otherwise be generating $80B per quarter in net profits and has a $130B cash warchest, that's nothing.

As for Apple? Well, Apple might be able to sit cagily on the sidelines, waiting for the crash so it can use its pile of cash to snap up the assets and buy in. But it's also very possible that they're going to miss the boat. Not completely, of course, but somewhat like Microsoft missed the boat on the Internet. I do agree that really making something like the Vision Pro work really well would be huge.

Comment Re:Why is this newsworthy? (Score 4, Interesting) 27

Nothing in the summary really conveys why this raises to the level of news. Digging in it doesn't really have consequences for the users in the short term.

Plausibly a good change, but a change among countless other good changes that pass without notice.

I dunno. Given all the non-nerd news that shows up here, it's refreshing to see something more deeply technical, even if most of use who don't spend a lot of time thinking about VMs in Linux aren't directly affected.

I'd be fine with a bit more coverage of possibly-interesting kernel changes. I mean, /. shouldn't cover all of them; we have LWN for that. But picking the occasional random change of significance to highlight is worthwhile. Maybe one per week or something.

Comment Re:Thinning wouldn't be a full solution but (Score 1) 104

I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it would be climate irony if the mitigation to Canadian wild fires was to build roads through the forests as a sort of fire break (obviously you don't need to drive on the roads, but you'd cut the trees and clean up the ground as if you were making a road).

Typical roads are not effective firebreaks in dense, tall forests. The general rule is that you need 1.5X (minimum) to 3X the height of the surrounding vegetation. In a forest with 100-foot trees that means you need firebreaks 300 feet wide. In areas that are sloped or often windy, the width needs to be increased.

Comment Re:That's not the worst part (Score 1) 61

Not sure what exactly they convinced you of, but it apparently means you ended up on the wrong side in gweihir's mind, so tread carefully. Or just ignore the guy. Either way, been there, done that,...

My guess is he read the first half of the first sentence of my response and concluded that I was just repeating what Google says about the issue, that I mindlessly believed the company line.

Never mind that I personally designed and implemented the feature, so if there's any official Google PR on the issue, it's based on what I told "them", not what "they" told me.

Thank you for you explanations and the good work to make Android secure.

Thanks. There were good reasons to move on from Android, but it was pretty cool being able to work to improve the world's most-used operating system. Relatively small impacts get multiplied by a big number.

Comment Re:Good for him! (Score 1) 210

'...agents are "authorized to make such search or seizure"...'

How can they be authorized when they are not on US soil? Who authorizes them?

Atlanta, GA isn't US soil?

But even if this were one of the overseas CBP checkpoints (the ones that do pre-clearance, so you don't have to go through CBP after landing), I think those are considered US soil as well, under an agreement with the host nation.

Comment Re:"dismantle safety protections on Google Play" (Score 1) 69

Could you elaborate? What 24 hour delay?

Could you elaborate on exactly what you did at Google since you apparently have no idea what they are doing Re: sideloading and the security you claim they need to protect users from what google doesn't want them to do?

I was the TL for hardware-backed cryptography and associated bits. No, I didn't always follow every detail of what others on the large (hundreds of engineers by the time I left, though I was #13 on the team when I joined in 2014) team was doing. However, I do quite fully understand the context in which they were doing it. If you'd actually like to understand more about the thinking that likely underlay whatever you're talking about, please elaborate.

I do know about the planned requirement to require all app developers to identify themselves and pay a $25 fee if they want their apps to be installable via any route (sideload, third-party app store), indeed I even explained in my prior post why that benefits anti-malware efforts. I'm not aware of any 24-hour delay associated with it. If you weren't being such a pissy asshole about it, I might go google it, but you've burned pretty much all of my goodwill, so unless you care to actually explain what your problem is, I'm done here.

Comment Re:Plausible deniability is better (Score 1) 210

There should be an option for a password which unlocks the phone in a separate sandbox which is benign.

Of course, if the government has a warrant, even this will get you into trouble.

I think the most plausibly-deniable strategy is to put the phone into a state where it shows the OS setup wizard when powered on, making it look like you wiped it and powered it down just before going through the border checkpoint. Then to reactivate it you have to go through the "setup" process and when you get to the password configuration if you enter the correct password it unlocks and returns to normal. If not, it boots to an apparently freshly-setup state. I think this would be much easier to correctly simulate than an apparently in-use device.

Of course, the safest strategy is to actually wipe it and power it down before going through the border checkpoint, then restore from cloud backup after clearing the checkpoint.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Oh dear, I think you'll find reality's on the blink again." -- Marvin The Paranoid Android

Working...