cowl

this answer makes things even worse. "we are a small team so its ok for us to expose your pc to risks".

If you dont have the bandwidth to do things securely dont do them at all.you are asking the devs to wait until you have time to return to it to plug the holes you have opened because you needed a bulletpoint for your release.

and this is not just a lack of time, its your attitude in regard to the devs, see also the optout telemetry for another example of total lack of respect for privacy.

The requirement comes because you have to go out of your normal flow to make things not repairable.

Can you tell me one example on how this would make the life harder for startups? The mandate is to produce schematics which the startup obviusly would have and to make parts available. both things that any startup would need to consider as their part of the warranty/repair anayway but now they have to make this availble for third parties and not just themselves.

No I asked the merchant to commit to resend the missing items inside the resolution center and resolved the issue only after the items arrived.

The aim is not "profit" but to get the deserved attention and bypass clear stalling tactics like having to prove a negative. Needles to say that I Did not ever use that merchant again.

Because I don't want to give the credit card details to every site out there. And Because the Resolution Center works wanders with merchants who are not being forthcoming to resolve your problems. I once had an issue that a merchant had delivered less than half of the items that I had ordered, i contacted them and they requested (after 2 days) Proof that I had not received the items. I could only produce the photo of the opened package which was clearly too small to contain everything they were supposed to deliver and the weight in the package label that clearly was too little for everything I was supposed to get. They tried to stall asking proof that i had not received a second package with the rest of the missing items.(How can you prove a negative?

I got fed up and opened a refund ticket with paypal describing the problems and within 30 min the merchant contacted me promising to send the missing items and refund 20% of the cost if i closed the ticket in paypal.

there is no such thing as general post-scarcity though. there is post-scarcity of certain needs but not general post-scarcity. So it's creator would still have reason to hoard certain benefits for themselves while distributing some for all.

Many of those employees will be dissapointed. MS says they extend a contract to each one but how many of those 700 are really needed when MS already have a lot of researchers in that field. Myabe the top 20% will have an assured contract but th rest is doubtfull will pass the 6 month mark.

I did not say the don't have and it's precisely because the do have that is less likely to attract the kind of people that make a difference. Less room to move and less room to be distinguished. Case in point these did not join that renowned group in the first place but joined OpenAI an obscure not renowned group and I guarantee you it's not because MS was not interested.

I would say this is a better outcome for what remains of OpenAI. a New startup would have created more exodus that Microsoft. Doubt many brilliant researchers would want to be Employee number 945728123 of Microsoft when the market is theirs at this moment.

Or just accept that their image is overinflated just because they happened to be in the right place at the right time. Ofcourse they had a hand on building that successful team but do not underestimate the fact that, that successful team was build with the promise of nonprofit, AI for the benefit of all And few of them would have joined Microsoft out of principle.

that is what the press release says. they didn't go into specifics but it is clear that the conflict is in Comercialisation vs original purpose

that's because it was never supposed to be a Corporate. It was a non-profit dedicated to AI research in the benefit of All. This is also why all this happened, they trying to stay true to the mission and not turn into a corporate.

Especially since it's seems it's either Sam or Ilya. Now Sam might surely be preferred as CEO, but after the Anthropic Split, I think Ilya is even more crucial to the continuity of OpenAI. Many of the researches joined OpenAI for the "Open" part. Sure money attracts people but we saw that ideal attracted the best set of people and not money, or it would have been Microsft/Google/Apple who come up with GPT instead OpenAI. Yes i know that technically this is Google's research they are using but the execution. efficinces and tuning is what matters more in this case.

And I'm sure Google would jump at the occasion to fund the nonprofit and keep MS out while they develop their own. The funding Goal for the openAI was just 1B. Small price to pay for Google to neuter one of it's competitors exclusive access to the GPT model.

it's not that OpenAI is reponsible, but those board members have burned a lot of bridges with investors with this behaviour. the investor world is not big so self-serving interest would dictate that you at least take their interest in consideration before acting especially with something like waiting 1 hour before press release. No Board would want them now because they are posined apple for the investors.

Could have been only Sam that was under Vote and Greg being forced to step down after he voted in his favour maybe in a second vote later.

What is confusing here is Why would Greg have agreed to the language in the press release (that he would be staying in the company and report to the CEO) only to resign 1 hour later. Surely the press release would not have contained that information without the his agreement that he would be staying.

Doesn't justify the hostile language and the urgent last minute timing. (partners were notified just minutes before press release). They didn't wait even 30 min for the market to close causing MSFT to drop billions in that time.

A mere direction disagrement would have been handled with "Sam is retiring after 3 months to spend more time with his Family, We thank him for all his work". And surely would be taken months in advance of being announced.

Yes this is even more surprising. Why would the board annouche he would continue with the company just to have him resign 1 hour later? Clearly the board would not have written that decision without his consent.

The knives out language is very unusual for any CEO dismissal. The urgent timing (they didnt even wait for the closure of markets just 30 min later, causing MSFT to lose billions). Anything less than massive Legal and Financial/regulatory risk or a complete behind the back Deal with someone, would have been handled with much more calm and a much less adversive language. Also Greg Borkman has now resigned after it was annoucned that he would step down as chairman of the board. https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1725667410387378559

> But using Windows is from a data-privacy and security standpoint (ironically, the same reason I'm supposed to use Windows at work) an absolute no-go.

I agree but the real reason they use Windows is not security, but security theater. 99% of the companies only care about the checklists in their auditing and compliance forms not for the real security. The market of said checklists and compliance forms is cornered by Windows Consultancy groups. The only real OS actor here was RedHat and this is the main reason why they became successful imo.

the problem is that many many companies have standardised on windows as desktop. you as an Employee do not really have a choice. At first you still try to use windows at work and linux at home but the little differences in muscle memory become too much so sooner or later you cave and use windows at home too.

It depends on use case but for example in EU a lot of PII needs to be encrypted for the medical/pharmaceutical Services. Of course health data needs to be encrypted as well as financial data etc.

last key wins is terrible advice and has serious security implications.

see https://bishopfox.com/blog/json-interoperability-vulnerabili... or https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2017-12635/ for concrete examples where this treatment causes security issues.

the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7493 defines a more strict format where duplicate keys are not allowed.

newspapers are trying their hand but it is illegal. see for example: https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega... in germany or https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end in Austria.

Unfortunetly because European cases usually do not involve punitive damages, it costs nothing to these actors to try their hand and keep up for as long as thier turn comes becasue there are a lot and they don't risk practically nothing for being found illegal initially. Only after being found illegal they risk fines for repeat violations.

new and old regulation says that you can't track Personal information (and the IP is considered personal information) without the user's explicit consent. And what is useful ad or not is very subjetive. it's useless to be at linustechtips talking for example the black friday deals and you get an add for your local store that is making a 10% discount when the content is talking about the 60-70% discounts available at BestBuy.

geographic location in internet means you are being tracked which is by definition part of what we want to stop. This is nothing like local advertising. Local advertising is contextual advertising not personalised one. The equivalent of that in internet would be for example a Gardening website showing adds for gardening tools or a tech website showin ads for notebooks etc. these are tied to the context and are fine. the distinction is that when i go away from that context i'm not followed by those ads. Location based ads in internet follow you around no matter where you are. Imagine how creepy would be for you if you go to vacation in Hawai for example and see a billboard advertising for something in your home town on the other side of the world.

you actually can't though.

Forget everything you have learned about the famous BigO analysis for 99% of the cases because it assumes a computing model that is no where near what we have today. It was close in the 80-s but now it's totally wrong.

the most glaring example i can offer is that nowdays for example a datastructure based on a linked list will almost always be slower than one based on arrays even though the BigO analyses says otherwise.

CPU cache plays a much bigger role and it pays more to chase a consistent cache access rather than jumping all over through pointers and thrasshing the cache.

likewise most algorithms would be faster looping through all array items rather than for example using a set or hashMap when number of items is small (and by small we are still talking about hundreds of elements, the exact number when one datastructure becomes better than the other will depend on many factors.

that's why, don't assume but measure, it's the best advice there is.

not 75% of all code but 75 of all code that is doing anything with meaningful practically. the classic example of a simple copyFile func.

  func CopyFile(src, dst string) error {
    r, err := os.Open(src)
    if err != nil {
     return err
    }
    defer r.Close()

   w, err := os.Create(dst)
    if err != nil {
     return err
    }
    defer w.Close()

   if _, err := io.Copy(w, r); err != nil {
     return err
    }
    if err := w.Close(); err != nil {
     return err
    }
  }

The downvotes are most probably becasue data structures have nothing to do with the concepts of OOP. the datastructures stand on their own and have been present long before the concept of OO came about. yes you can model them as classes/objects to incapsulate the set of operations that you can do on them but it's not mandatory and certainly does not require any concept of inheritance, mixins etc.

it can not be the ultimate negation though because it does not provide for a way to allow specific sites and the meaning of what to not track is not defined anyway. (see https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/what-does-track-do-not...)

I would love for a codified way to specify this in the browser but that also makes way for the inevitable exclusions. for example taken to the extreme, compliance with the DNT means that you can not use any site that even requires a login.