A quick search suggests this appears to be a revised version of Tanita’s MC-980 scale, which is intended for professional use and costs $13,000 USD anyway - even without King of Fighters.
So not really any difference, just a very unusual collab and bit of fun for marketing! :)
There’s also the option of electronic scales which are rechargeable via USB
Haha yeah. People are so accustomed to short TLDs that ‘smith.technology’ just intuitively feels kinda wrong, and it still feels that way to me, even as a tech person who knows it is perfectly valid.
You’re thinking like “smith dot technology dot what?”
Another reason is brand identity.
Using ‘.tech’ or ‘.flights’ or .sports’ for your site feels too “on the nose” and gives vibes of like browsing some directory where things are categorised and sorted. Even worse it implies there are other sites under the same category, and those other sites may be competitors, and this dilutes strength of brand.
lt also suggests strongly what the business does, and while that might seem desirable at first it actually isn’t from a corporate perspective because it means the company becomes tied to their business area and can’t expand and grow out of it into other things.
I think this is a major part of why descriptive TLDs continue to be less preferred over ‘meaningless’ two letter TLDs, because companies want the focus to be on the main part of the domain, not the TLD.
Thanks. I’ve been keeping my eye on colour ereaders, and the tech has improved so rapidly in the last couple of years I do wonder if I just hang on for another year then the colour reproduction could be even better.
Can’t wait forever of course, that defeats the whole purpose, but it might pay to wait just a little.
I’ve had two kindles so far, but my next e-reader won’t be from Amazon.
I’m trying to move my tech life away from closed ecosystems as much as possible, So I’ll probably go for a kobo or boox.
For me the dream would be a really large colour ereader around 10 inches, where you can view even the densest manga or comics comfortably without zooming or scrolling. I think that’s what I’m holding out for.
Thought I was on 196 with the title
UK here and they are turned on.
Thanks a lot, Brexit :(
The answer is very much “Don’t run Photoshop”
(Fuck Adobe. There, I said it)
The worrying truth is that we are all going to be subject to these sorts of false correlations and biases and there will be very little we can do about it.
You go to buy car insurance, and find that your premium has gone up 200% for no reason. Why? Because the AI said so. Maybe soneone with your name was in a crash. Maybe you parked overnight at the same GPS location where an accident happened. Who knows what data actually underlies that decision or how it was made, but it was. And even the insurance company themselves doesn’t know how it ended up that way.
That’s the strategy, yes
“I think the existing, altruistic, free version of Reddit will continue to exist and grow and thrive just the way it has,” Huffman said.
There’s nothing ‘altruistic’ about reddit
You’re right of course and that should be on Microsoft to better implement their driver loading. But yes.
If I send you on stage at the Olympic Games opening ceremony with a sealed envelope
And I say “This contains your script, just open it and read it”
And then when you open it, the script is blank
You’re gonna freak out
Yes, it absolutely is automated.
There are bots running constantly looking for things that match patterns for exploitable credentials in public commits.
AWS credentials
SSH keys
Crypto wallets
Bank card info
If you push secrets to a public github repo, they will be exploited almost immediately.
That Cloudflare were justifiably unhappy with the situation and wanted to take action is fine.
What’s not fine is how they approached that problem.
In my opinion, the right thing for Cloudflare to do would have been to have an open and honest conversation and set clear expectations and dates.
Example:
"We have recently conducted a review of your account and found your usage pattern far exceeds the expected levels for your plan. This usage is not sustainable for us, and to continue to provide you with service we must move you to plan x at a cost of y.
If no agreement is reached by [date x] your service will be suspended on [date y]."
Clear deadlines and clear expectations. Doesn’t that sound a lot better than giving someone the run-around, and then childishly pulling the plug when a competitor’s name is mentioned?
I wouldn’t expect it’s because there’s a server call - I’m sure the developers are smart enough to have all the analytics and tracking be async in the background.
Instead it’s likely because these days every aspect of the TV is implemented in software running on the TV’s CPU. With pre-smart devices, changing inputs would just activate some discreet on-board electronics to switch the signal over with no latency. Now you have to wait for the processor to get around to it, and it’s probably busy loading up a bunch of app launchers and other crap you don’t need, and doing some fancy whoosh-in animations, all of which is just getting in the way of what you actually want.
I agree that’s 100% what happened in this specific case. The customer had absolutely no reason to suspect the information they were given was bad, and the airline should have honoured the deal.
A top-level comment on the post was also mine, by the way, in which I expressed the same and said “Shame on Air Canada for even fighting it.”
Air Canada were completely and utterly wrong in this case - but I haven’t been talking about this case! At least, I wasn’t intending to!
If it seemed that way I can understand now why people were so vehemently against me.
My comments in this chain have all actually been trying to discuss how to determine, in the general case, which party is “in the right” when things like this happen.
There are cases like this Air Canada one where the customer is obviously right. We can also imagine hypothetical cases where I personally believe the customer would be in the wrong - for example if the customer intentionally exploited a flaw in the system to game a $1 flight - which is again obviously not what happened here, it’s just an example for the sake of argument.
My fundamental point at the start of this comment chain was that I don’t actually think we need any new mechanisms to work this out, because the existing mechanisms we already have in place to determine who is right between a company and a customer all still apply and work exactly the same regardless of whether it is AI or not AI.
And that mechanism is, fundamentally, that the customer should generally be considered right as long as they have acted in good faith.
That’s why I’m very pleased with the ruling that Air Canada were wrong here and they cannot dodge their responsibilities by blaming the AI.
I’m honestly glad I can put the stress of this days-long comment chain behind me, since it seems we weren’t even arguing about the same thing this whole time!
Apologies if my comments appeared to be moving the goalposts. I am not trying to talk about morality in a wider sense. If I was, this would be a whole different argument because I believe that corporations are generally unethical as all hell, and consumers are usually within their moral right to exploit them as hard as possible, because that barely even scratches how badly companies exploit their customers or damage wider society. But this is - as you point out - not about that.
The aspect of morality I was interested in from the perspective of defining law is the very restricted aspect of whether the customer is acting in bad faith, knowing that they are getting a too-good-to-be-true deal, or whether they believe the offer made is legitimate.
You ask what makes a human customer service representative so special, in comparison to a bot, and my answer there is simply that they are human
Remember that my argument here, and the deciding factor, is specifically about whether or not the customer believes the price they are being offered is genuine.
Humans agents are special in that regard because they have a huge amount of credibility in reassuring and confirming with the other person that the offer is genuine and not a mistake. They strongly reinforce the belief of an offer being legitimate.
The law itself already (at least in the UK) distinguishes between prices presented (e.g. on a web page or the price on a shelf sticker) and direct agreements made with a person, recognising that mistakes are possible and giving the human ultimate authority.
Really, this entire argument comes down to answering this: Should information given by a chatbot be considered to have the same authority and weight as information given by a person?
My personal argument has been: “Yes, if it reasonably appears to the recipient as genuine, but no if the recipient might have probable cause to suspect it is a mistake, knowing the information was provided by a computer system and that mistakes are possible.”
For most people in this thread however, it seems (based on my downvotes) their feeling has been “Yes, it has the same authority always and absolutely”
I can accept that I’m very much outvoted on this one, but I hope you can appreciate my arguments.
Wholesome sleeping separately because being in a relationship with someone shouldn’t obligate sacrificing your rest quality to meet the bizarre pressure of some unspoken social obligation that couples must share the same bed (unless you want to)