Rejected
It's because your comment was HTML-gore. Our publishing system escaped all the code so it looked like a horrendous mess. If you want to link to something, just paste the URL as is, ta.
C.
3261 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Sep 2011
I really hope you are reading the full article. The thrust is that, according to storage world people we've spoken to, it is unusual for a NAS box vendor to insist on its own branded drives above a certain capacity even in an enterprise environment.
And as the article says: If Synology really can deliver the performance improvements it claims its drive firmware enables, being locked into Synology drives may be a sound decision.
It's a nuanced issue.
C.
The issue is that the link to change address for those with a BRP goes to a printed form and not the online form. Similarly, if you want to report an extraordinary change in circumstances - such as separating from your partner - you're directed to the printed form.
Whereas if you have applied for a BRP and haven't had a decision letter yet, you are directed to... an online form.
This bureaucratic maze is what this article sought to highlight.
C.
Well, yeah, though that doesn't contradict what we wrote. See yesterday's piece on the risk at least some people are unwittingly taking.
Some people are doing this to give Wall St a middle finger. Some are doing it to pay off medical debt or make life-changing sums of money. Some people won't get very far at all. It all amounts to a rebellion against the status quo, though, in our opinion.
C.
Er, yeah, that 200Gb/s figure is in no way the entire internal bandwidth of the system. It's basically the base speed per port.
As the linked-to article and this paper [PDF] and HPE's own bumf says, that's the link speed of the interconnect. You can have, eg, a 64-port switch with each port doing 200Gb/s per direction (four lanes of 50Gb/s).
NCAR also said the "HPE Slingshot bandwidth is 200 Gb/sec per port per direction."
C.
As I've commented before, that's disingenuous. The Trump administration massively ramped up family separations.
Under Obama, separations were rare and usually for the child's safety -- ie: they were being trafficked.
C.
I'm assuming you think you mean 'biased' not 'impartial'.
If there's one thing about The Reg, it's that we've never, ever knowingly shied away calling something we think is dumb "dumb".
And running a platform like Parler, in which anyone can say anything, no matter how extreme, and think there will be no consequences? That's really fkin dumb.
C.
Not "only." Just a lot. And a lot is too many. Paradox of tolerance and all that.
We've got to stop thinking in binary terms, of either total free speech or no speech. Life is shades of gray. Saying 'Jeff Bezos is a greedy scumbag' shouldn't get you kicked off AWS. That would be suboptimal. But we're not talking about that: we're talking about people using speech to plan the overthrowing of democratic rule. The glue of a civilization.
Speech has consequences.
C.
"For people who supposedly deal in facts there's an abundance of rabid anti-conservatism based on emotion alone"
This story, and us here at the Reg, aren't anti-conservative. It's written with the normal level of emotion. Everything in the story is fact. You need to drop the victim complex. It's not healthy.
"You seem to be perfectly happy with censorship as long as it isn't a viewpoint you support"
Nah man, you need to check out the paradox of tolerance. If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. If you force the likes of Amazon to enable the spread of hateful, violent messaging, you're not going to see a bright, happy future.
If someone draws the line and says, no, I'm not going to allow people to plan an armed insurrection in my country on my servers, then that's their choice -- and that's you no longer welcome. Just like if you mouthed off in a pub at everyone, you'd be thrown out. Speech has consequences. Go make your own platform or find someone to host you. Amazon doesn't owe you a thing.
"Amazon was not supporting Parlor in the sense of Facebook ... Content was none of their business."
Funny, a conservative telling a private enterprise what to do. I thought you were all about small government? Now you want to tell Amazon how to run its cloud and who it should do business with. Weird.
C.
It was never our intention to tarnish anyone's reputation and I wanted to be very careful that we didn't. We felt that we were maybe only hearing half the story. And as it turned out that it really was a one-sided HR screw-up, we ran a second story and addressed our misplaced skepticism. At least we're being transparent.
There's very very rarely a perfect story in which there is a clearly defined good person and a bad person, and the good person has done nothing wrong, and the bad person has done everything wrong. Life is way more complex than that. Hence our concern.
But it turns out it really was that bad -- and we've followed it up and laid it out here.
C.
From WhatsApp's European Economic Area FAQ (which claims to include the UK still, updated Jan 4, 2021):
"WhatsApp also works, and shares information with the other Facebook Companies who act on our behalf to help us operate, provide, improve, understand, customise, support, and market our Services.
"This includes the provision of infrastructure, technology, and systems, e.g. for providing you with fast and reliable messaging and calls around the world; improving infrastructure and delivery systems; understanding how our Services are used; helping us provide a way for you to connect with businesses; and securing systems.
"When we receive services from the Facebook Companies, the information we share with them is used on WhatsApp’s behalf and in accordance with our instructions. Any information WhatsApp shares on this basis cannot be used for the Facebook Companies’ own purposes"
So, Facebook Companies can't use the info for their own purposes but can use it as Facebook-owned WhatsApp directs.
C.
I wouldn't call it a social evil, but there are loads of reasons why it's a good idea to have a diverse workforce, and have more than just a vast majority of straight white guys in technology.
For example: realizing when features could be abused by stalker exes, when features only work with people of a certain color, etc.
I know a guy who wanted to build a glass-floor second-floor balcony for their house overlooking their nice view of the SF bay... which is cool except anyone standing underneath it, walking from the yard into the home, could look up and see up the skirts of any women standing up there. I like using this unintended consequence of his design as an example that you need more than just guys on your engineering team.
C.
Apropos of almost nothing, that TD article is one of the most reader hostile things I've seen in years. It's not written to educate anyone; it's written so that people can show off to others that they know something better than someone else.
You don't teach people using the tone 'you're a f'king idiot'. Just my 2p.
C.
"So, $28835 / year divided by 2040 hours/year is $14.13/hr."
Which is more than the US federal min wage. These people won't be working in CA, I suspect.
"In 2015, I was hired as an SRE III/SWE IV. Salary, bonuses, and stock was >$200k. I have little doubt that our TPM was close to $300k."
Yeah, as the article says, the quoted numbers are base pay. Once you include bonuses and stock, it's going to be a lot more. And sure, $200k base is low when you get up to L6 and long-term L5.
The quoted base pay range is in the right sort of neighborhood, depending where you are, and experience. You get the gist: in engineering you get paid a lot, and outside engineering, not so much.
C.
> The Department of Redundancy Department obviously hasn't been furloughed.
That part's been trimmed.
> Aspect ratios come in Hz now, do they?
Should be refresh rate -- a brain blip where fingers type the wrong words. Now fixed.
> *Bzzzzt*. Contradiction.
Should be desaturated not saturated, and fixed.
> Cancelling my subscription, etc, etc.
I hope you can forgive these errors -- we're worn out, letting typos slip through, and looking forward to the Christmas break to rest and recharge. Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.com if you spot anything wrong.
C.
FWIW the article doesn't draw any conclusions on _why_ the birth rate is low, just that it is, and Japan's answer to it is... AI dating. There are probably loads of reason why people aren't having children, not just in Japan, that all aligns to fewer babies.
My wife and I are Xennials who don't want kids for various reasons.
C.
Yeah, MySQL. It's fixed -- and the Big Reg typo, too.
We're all knackered, to be honest, from this year, and our brains aren't as sharp as they usually are, and fingers are thus free to type the wrong words. We all need a Christmas break.
Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.com if you spot anything wrong so we can fix it ASAP. It's lower latency than waiting for us to read through comments.
C.
IMHO it's just a polite, non-confrontational way of saying "this statement is false". It's a way for organizations to say a statement is incorrect but we don't have the time and energy to get into a massive argument over it.
It comes down to this: we've got to start drawing a line again between reality and fiction. It's been blurred by the fact that anyone on the internet can say anything they like and demand it be treated with exactly the same weight as other statements -- even if what they are saying is completely untrue. And when their statements are disputed, they scream censorship. No, it's because you're talking bollocks.
We're in this mess at the moment because the line between reality and fiction is being blurred by those unhappy with the reality of the situation they find themselves in. They need something to blame. They need an explanation why things aren't going their way. They come up with a theory and they assert it as fact. It used to be one-night arguments in the pub. Now it's posts being shared to 100,000s of people if not more.
Fine, if you want to, let's get down to some definition of what truth is. But we have to get there and stick to it, or nothing matters any more. Nothing at all.
C.
FWIW we've tweaked the article with a link to a fuller description of how it works. It's all about the salts involved. Here's a key part from that explanation:
"OPAQUE gets around this with the following clever trick. They leave the password hash on the client’s side, but they don’t feed it the stored salt. Instead, they use a special two-party protocol called an oblivious PRF to calculate a second salt (call it salt2) so that the client can use salt2 in the hash function — but does not learn the original salt.
"The basic idea of such a function is that the server and client can jointly compute a function PRF(salt, password), where the server knows “salt” and the client knows “password”. Only the client learns the output of this function. Neither party learns anything about the other party’s input."
C.
Uh yeah, it matters a lot. It's a validation of a design, for one thing. You're right that the fabs -- and by that, we mean TSMC, etc -- don't care about the architecture. That's not their job.
But people further up the chain considering using the architecture will think it matters. 'Can we trust that this tech works?' 'Well, Seagate just put XYZm into production.'
C.
FWIW I asked the RISC-V Int'l directors about patents, and they were pretty sure anything they spec out that Arm could claim ownership of could be traced back to pre-Arm days, or would be entirely new and novel.
I think there's going to be a patent royal rumble at some point. One side - and not just Arm or a RISC-V member - is going to crack and it's going to kick off, and we'll find out that once again IBM has the patent on adding 4 to the program counter each cycle.
C.
I have to say that does appear to be the case. Apple's set the gold standard in what's possible with Arm CPU design - from big caches to large reordering buffers to optimizations for reference-counting-heavy code.
I didn't want to call it until outside benchmarks and tests are available. And I still totally appreciate that this level of chip, the 888, takes a lot of patience, skill and time to develop. It appears Qualcomm's poured a lot of that effort into things like the camera capture processing and GPU/AI in hope that that makes up for where it doesn't match Apple's A14.
C.
It's still headquartered in Cambridge, UK. It's acknowledged in the piece that it's owned by Japan's Softbank.
FWIW, an Arm PR once punched me in the arm - how apt - after we called Arm a Japanese chip designer in an opening sentence in a Register story. That jab didn't lead to us calling Arm a British company this week, but it reinforces my feeling that we sufficiently made the point of its foreign ownership.
Arm was created in Britain, bankrolled by non-British entities, now owned by a non-British entity, but still headquartered in the same city it grew up in. It's British by nature, Japanese owned.
Basically, we didn't say Arm is British-owned. We said it's British. And that's something we decided ourselves.
C.
Click the second link in the article, and you'll have a nice surprise.
Also, the article's mainly about Arm the company (from 1990), not the original Arm team. Sophie, IIRC, remained at Acorn all the way to the Element-14 days, working on things like Acorn Replay (tho consulted for Arm Ltd).
Trust me, we've covered her -- see the linked-to articles.
C.
It's a bit more than "some cheap points" -- it's Mac hardware available in the largest cloud on the planet, allowing it to be managed and used alongside whatever fleet of rented systems you have in AWS, with some storage plugged into it.
We've acknowledged the likes of MacStadium in the piece. If MacStadium was as big as AWS, it'd have its own story, too.
C.
In the context of cloud computing, bare metal means you get an actual physical host to yourself, not a virtualized one shared on a host with other customers. You run the OS and stack on the bare-metal of the server, not on a hypervisor (or god forbid, an emulator).
In other words, you are booting software of your choice on the bare-metal of the machine, a Mac Mini. The software in this case happens to be limited to recent macOS.
C.