tomalpha

It is my (lay) understanding that in the US in particular almost anything is securities fraud:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...

The article doesn't offer any examples which makes it hard to really understand what issue the author is arguing about beyond vague generalities.

> In the name of freedom, an equally venal, arbitrary and rapacious foreign corporation is effectively waging war against the Indian state, all wrapped up in the garb of “freedom of expression”.

It feels like there's some additional context not present in the article itself that the audience is assumed to have.

Perhaps Twitter is acting undemocratically in India, but the article doesn't make a good case for that on its own.

(Also, somewhat ironically when trying to copy and paste the snippet above, the website offers a post-to-twitter overlay/button as soon as you select some text)

Does DRM contribute to this perhaps?

Given the layers of encryption and obfuscation, and leaving aside the merits or otherwise of DRM in the first place, I can imagine it could be hard to do delta patching. At least, without making it easier to crack the DRM - e.g. you’d presumably have to decrypt the asset that needed patching, apply the delta, and re-encrypt/re-sign it all client side.

I read the article as agreeing with the first half of what you say (similar rates so far), but is really looking to the next phase and highlighting a potential issue around different rates of vaccine hesitancy.

I hope you're right and there is no big disparity. The polling numbers referenced in the article suggest that there might though, and that might hinder getting to full herd immunity (or whatever the ideal rate of immunisation is).

When I order with Just Eat the food is generally delivered by a driver employed/paid directly by the restaurant. When I order with Deliveroo the food is generally delivered by a driver employed/paid by Deliveroo.

(There do seem to be exceptions to the above for some restaurants)

Some of the current debate touches on the commission that gets charged which I guess is similar for the two, however much seems to be about treatment of the delivery drivers which would be more of a difference if Just East don't (usually/always?) employ/pay them directly.

This comes across as (perhaps unintentionally?) overly cynical to me.

I purchased Factorio some years ago now, and have always had the feeling that I underpaid for it over that time despite playing a lot less than some friends I know. (I think I have a mere couple of hundred hours playtime which for any other game would be crazy high!)

The devs have continuously worked on it in all that time. It’s not as if they had a bunch of expensive DLC lined up from day one as some AAA titles seem to these days.

Yep, and even more oddly:

> It is also known colloquially as "The Beeb", "Auntie", or a combination of both (as "Auntie Beeb") [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

From the classic Latin “Si vis pacem para bellum” [0]

I’d always interpreted this to imply that deterrence was good - appear strong to prevent others picking a fight with you, rather than studying.

I always wondered if the 9mm Parabellum cartridge was named after the saying too, but no such enlightenment is available on the Wikipedia page at least [1]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9×19mm_Parabellum

No offence taken. I happen to disagree with you about the headline interpretation and the BBC wokeness bit but that’s what a good debating environment is for. (Without arguing the merits either way on the wider issue, I think this isn’t a good article to demonstrate over-wokeness at the BBC for example).

All that said though, it’s interesting to hear others’ points of view and the thanks for replying was genuinely meant.

That’s really interesting - thank you for replying.

The headline doesn’t come across as misleading to me. I interpreted it as the temperature having been recorded somewhere in central Spain which appears to be accurate (granted my Spanish geography isn’t great). The tone also appears to be consistent with what else is being reported - that this is unusual or possibly even extreme weather.

I’m assuming your expectation was different. If so I’d be be curious as to how you did interpret it?

It does look like a cross between the PS4 and Xbox controller but it feels much more like the former. And it is really good :)

I think it takes two to tango here.

You do need an employer who cares about their employees, treats them fairly, supports and encourages a great atmosphere etc.

You absolutely need enthusiastic, motivated and pleasant employees too though. Employees create the atmosphere as much as the employer.

Now you could flip this and say a good employee should be good at hiring, but IMHO that’s kinda just the same thing.

That's a much better reason than I feared. Thank you.

> Location This app may use your location even when it isn't open, which can decrease battery life.

I love the idea of a shell on iOS but why does it need to know my location?

Other's have already questioned the randomness of the original choice, however whether random or not, there is some logic in continuing to do something that had a good outcome. Even if it's just that the particular soft toy didn't eat me, explode, or cause Mommy to be cross at me.

Indeed. Though like in the olden days the large number of stopovers might cut down demand somewhat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Route#Multiple_stops

I can imagine they have tight margins. This might be more painful than an apparently small percentage might appear.

Completely agree. For me the upbeat music really made the atmosphere of the original Colonization, and the later remake (based on Civ 4?) with its more downbeat soundtrack was much less enjoyable.

Is this perhaps a foretelling of what is to come?

If Arm plan to drop Mali completely, to be replaced by something from Nvidia, this could be an early step to washing their hands of driver itself.

Edit: That was a bit cynical. More charitably, open sourcing the driver under these circumstances would allow the community to continue to use and support Mali even if Arm were looking to discontinue it.

Is there a real difference between video-link access, and being physically present in this case?

From all the reporting, including Craig Murray's (who's in the public gallery and definitely not on the government side in all this), it seems like the controversial aspects of the trial are based on what's being said in the courtroom rather than physical actions in the courtroom.

Is there a suspicion of physical foul play that needs to be monitored and/or guarded against here rather than legal, evidential, or procedural foul play?

The FT has coverage too https://on.ft.com/33rAwSM

With a particularly damning extract:

> It found the company successfully persuaded the US Federal Aviation Administration not to classify the anti-stall system as “safety critical”, meaning that many pilots did not even know of its existence before flying the Max.

> In doing so, Boeing concealed from regulators internal test data showing that if a pilot took longer than 10 seconds to recognise that the system had kicked in erroneously, the consequences would be “catastrophic”.

This brings to mind the classic Trolley Problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

The scenario is notably different, but it does dig into the issues around acts vs omissions and how we perceive them.

I would have liked to see ARM remain owned in the UK. I think it's proven itself capable of innovation and organic growth on its own.

But how can we evaluate the whether that will continue?

What if ARM is not sold, and then (for whatever reason) stagnates, doesn't innovate, gets overtaken in some way, and enters gradual decline?

Perhaps that's unlikely, but prevent the sale, period is feels too absolute.

I wholeheartedly agree - I absolutely view quality journalism as an essential part of an accountable and transparent state.

Good journalism, which IMHO should strive for a degree of impartiality[0], is needed to hold administrations at all levels to account.

[0] humans are clearly imperfect mind

I get the principle of the point you’re making but I don’t see how it can work if (and maybe this is the key bit) a state is allowed to have secrets.

Perhaps I’m blinkered, but I can’t see how a modern state can function without them in some form. To offer an extreme example, nuclear launch codes must remain secret. (Separate argument obvs about the merits for and against nuclear weapons).

If the state is going to have some secrets, I don’t see how they can work in practice if everyone is allowed to know them.

Separately I’m not sure I buy the slippery slope argument as an absolute given. It’s a clear risk yes, but I see good journalism as one of the safeguards against all forms of government malpractice, corruption or straight incompetence.

If everyone knows, or can easily know, then you can't keep secrets.

You might argue that we shouldn't have secrets at all and everything should be public.

I think that's a worthy goal, but doesn't work in practice.

If another state is competitive with you (and all states are competitive with each other to some extent), then I think you need the ability to keep some information confidential somehow.

I'm not claiming whether or not this is right, or serves the interests of Justice. I'm just pointing out that it appears to me that the defense team is arguing more in the court of public opinion, and less on points of law in the court itself. And to be clear: I don't really think they have much of an option - the law around extradition makes this hearing mostly a formality. There are pretty limited grounds in law to prevent it going ahead.

Independent of this particular case, I don't like the fact that in UK law the process is mostly a formality for UK to USA extraditions. When the legislation was drafted after 9/11 the claim was that this was a necessary evil and would be used solely against terrorists. Like previous non-terrorist cases against bankers, 'hackers' and others, this isn't a use of the law in the way it was originally intended (well, at least what was said about intentions at the time).

So I will respectfully disagree with you there. In general I agree with you about most (almost all?) rights - they should be available to all citizens equally.

However if you agree that:

- The state should be allowed to keep secrets

- The state can't always be trusted to choose what should be secret or not

- There is a need to hold the state to account, but somehow not make all secrets public by doing so

Then there needs to be some subset of citizenry who can gain access to those secrets without the blessing of the state.

In history this has been likely to occur when a person with access to the secrets feels strongly enough about something that they feel the secret should be made public. For good reasons or bad reasons (which not everyone will agree with either way).

A good journalist can fulfil that role IMHO. I realise that "good" there is another assumption...

One interesting snippet, which gets to the one of the key areas around this case for me (I know there are more issues here than just this one):

> Mark Summers then re-examined Professor Feldstein. He said that Lewis had suggested that Assange was complicit in Manning obtaining classified information but the New York Times was not. Is it your understanding that to seek to help an official leaker is a crime

> Professor Feldstein replied “No, absolutely not”.

> “Do journalists ask for classified information?”

> “Yes.”

> “Do journalists solicit such information?”

> “Yes.”

> “Are you aware of any kind of previous prosecution for this kind of activity.”

> “No. Absolutely not.”

> “Could you predict it would be criminalised?”

> “No, and it is very dangerous.”

There are clearly two sides to this argument, but the chilling effect around the prosecution of journalists gaining access to classified information is a worry for me.

I realise that the US Government might claim that Assange isn't a journalist. They're certainly claiming that he crossed the line from journalism into hacking, but that line seems to be blurrier and more arbitrary than it used to be (at least from where I sit in the cheap seats).