Re: Excused Boots
You're not far off :(
C.
3261 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Sep 2011
Hate to 'actually' you, but ACTUALLY: Our revenue this year is neatly following 2016's record high. As in, 2016 smashed El Reg's all-time ad sales records. The unsung heroes here are our sterling ad sales team, and us news scribes are in their debt.
So yes, we sometimes run vendor-sponsored articles - clearly labelled sponsored or promos - and they make us a decent amount of money. Take 'em as you like: they are written by freelance journos we vet for quality. And the pieces are super interesting. Don't skip over them just because they are biz-sponsored. It's all part of the El Reg mix.
However, a vast chunk of our cash comes from display ads against our top news articles - which are produced well away from any vendor interference.
We strive to provide highly technical and accurate IT news and features independently and ethically.
Ultimately, this all funds the snark, sarcasm, the exclusives, the analyses, the features of The Reg that you love and we'll continue to serve.
Hey Andrew - it's Chris from Drobe. Remember those RISC OS days? Ah yeah. Now I'm at El Reg. Lol!?
Anyway. Thanks for reminding ppl about the extended iOS settings to actually switch off radio comms. We linked to Apple's instructions, so no foul there.
"The continued race to the bottom in El Reg persists"
The fact that we're the most read in the enterprise IT space, and that we're making year-upon-year growth in ad revenue and profit, suggests you're full of shit, Andrew.
C.
This article isn't written for people who have avoided the bug. It's written for people hit by the bug who want to know WTF is going on. And check the link - Apple admits there is a problem.
Also, ppl saying their gear works - are you using the Outlook app? That app is crippled: check out the reviews for it. The UI is mashed beyond repair. That's not a great UX for ppl.
There's no sensationalism going on here. iOS 11 doesn't fully work with Microsoft's software - Apple says as much. If it works for you, great. Judging by the stats on this article, millions disagree that all is ok.
C.
"ranting about the SJWs is poor form"
Ah, come on. Our job is to summarize as best we can complex stuff. In between the usual in-fighting and politics that rage in some open-source projects, the thing for us that stuck out was the CoC side, and so that's the focus here. To us, it's the straw that broke the camel's back.
The ability, or inability, for Node.js to self-govern properly as a FOSS project is best left to another story, and something we can look into. In fact, it should be obvious that, after two splits now, that all is not well in the project.
It's our job as journalists to identify the information that is most interesting to readers. And in our view, a bitter argument over CoCs - which is a rather large policy issue these days in tech - is more significant than people flaming each other on mailing lists.
C.
"the EPO has got nothing to do with the UPC"
Apart from granting them – and, for years, spent a lot of time, money and effort promoting UPC, is a huge cheerleader and advocate of UPC, and stands to gain a lot from the UPC coming into force.
So yeah, nothing to do with UPC, lol.
C.
Couple of observations, my dear fellow:
1. Your comment pointed out a typo in the article. Our standard operating procedure when we see corrections in comments is to fix the typo and reject the comment - because the comment is unlikely to make any sense after the tweak is made. You should email corrections@theregister.co.uk so problems can be addressed ASAP. We don't have time to read every comment but we do like to correct all errors.
2. You need to, as we say in California, chill out.
C.
"I'm not saying it'd be fast or efficient"
Well, bingo. It's hard because it's virtually impossible to calculate using today's systems. And your numbers are off. Read the full problem:
"The total number of ways of choosing one hundred students from the four hundred applicants is greater than the number of atoms in the known universe! Thus no future civilization could ever hope to build a supercomputer capable of solving the problem by brute force; that is, by checking every possible combination of 100 students."
C.
I almost rejected this comment, but I approved it so I could point out its idiocy.
"It's been appropriated by straight-out low-IQ and hysterical thought enforcers and politicians out for a quick rallying so much that it's become meaningless."
MATE, THEY ARE WEARING FUCKING NAZI SWASTIKAS. FUCKING NAZI SWASTIKAS. THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS. No, this isn't name calling or shock labelling by the left.
THEY ARE WEARING FUCKING NAZI SWASTIKAS. IN AMERICA. IN 2017.
C.
"What browsers is this applicable to?"
If you follow the link in the story (and read the sentence) it was reported by a Brave browser developer because it affects Brave. Brave is based on Chromium, so it may apply to both. How Wireshark and Charles Proxy are detected is under investigation – it's looking like RPC via JavaScript so may be cross platform.
C.
"It would be *so* nice if we could have an honest debate about what the guy *actually* wrote"
He wrote a 3,000-word ramble. You gotta forgive people for summarizing it - and for a lot of people, it was a rather long-winded way of saying: it's ok to assume people are genetically incapable of some jobs. And that's rather in the face of efforts to ensure a fair and diverse workforce.
C.
"What does the part about maths have to do with the memo?"
Ah, so tedious. It was an example of how there are sod all differences between men and women if you're not interested in things like physical strength. You're still missing the point, the contradiction within the memo. You can't on one hand scream about considering people purely on merit, and then on the other hand bang on about how some people are incapable of tasks due to their biology.
Which is it: giving everyone a fair crack to prove themselves, or writing off whole chunks of the population? It's stupid.
As for the silencing of debate - if your daft ideas and reasoning can't stand up to scrutiny then that's really your headache. I don't like to see people pushed out or moderates turned into extremists, but honestly. Calm down. It's just a stupid ill-thought-out memo that got someone fired.
C.
Lol, gender differences are small or close to zero.
"There are only a handful of areas with large sex differences: men are physically stronger and more physically aggressive, masturbate more, and are more positive on casual sex. So you can make a case for having more men than women… if you’re fielding a sports team or collecting semen.
"Across nearly 4,000 studies, the average gender gap in math achievement is not statistically different from zero."
And so on.
C.
"The manifesto says to judge each person on their merit."
While at the same time saying certain people - women, for instance - aren't suited to certain jobs due to their biology. You can't have it both ways: you can't say 'treat people on their merit' while also writing them off because "on average" they suck at certain tasks. Which is it: treat people on merit because everyone has every chance of being competent, or assume "on average" women aren't as competent as men? How can you take people on merit if you've already decided half of them are potentially defective? It's hardcoded bias. It don't make no sense.
This is why, here at El Reg, we just don't buy it. We don't buy the memo. It's shit reasoning by a PhD dropout that has now spiraled out of control, fueled by latent biases.
C.
"And then your article doesn't really delve into the memo, it just picks five people whose politics you don't seem to agree with for a barrage of insults."
Yeah, that's kind of the point (hence the headline)... finding people flailing miserably to defend a shonky manifesto, and ripping the piss out of them. We tend to rip the piss out of a lot of people.
Also, you don't have to lecture us on Google. We've written tons on the corp's overreaching power and influence. I've even been interviewed on the subject by a chap writing a book about Silicon Valley and power.
But the target isn't Google this time; it's incoherent views on fairness and discrimination in the workplace, and the morons seizing these views to further unsavory agendas.
C.
" judge each person on their merit."
Judge people on their merit, but on average they won't be any good, but still judge them on their merit anyway, even though there's a good chance they'll suck at it, but still, hear them out, even though you'll interview them assuming they'll suck. That's the memo's thinking. If that's a rational, coherent and fair thought process for you, then... I don't know what to say. No wonder particular groups feel unwelcome.
Right. Let's say you were a fan of the Sopranos on HBO, or you like Brit metal band Cradle of Filth. And say there was a study that suggested Sopranos and Filth fans tend to be unstable in stressful situations. And you go into a job interview with the interviewers knowing from your Facebook that you're a fan of the Sopranos or the Filth. And immediately they're thinking: on average, this person isn't going to be a reliable candidate.
Or your colleagues you pair program think the same.
C.
Damore blundered pretty badly in the way he brought up the issue: the memo is contradictory, and so poorly thought out. He can apparently code but he can't string together a coherent line.
He then became a corporate liability by making colleagues feel uncomfortable, as well as breaking internal policy, right in the middle of Google fighting off legal complaints of discrimination. And, we hear, the CEO had to cancel his vacation to fly back and sort it out. At that point, in corporate Silicon Valley, you're toast.
And yes, we did read the memo. I still can't get my head around it. It just doesn't make any sense. People claiming we've misread are, I suspect, projecting their own opinions onto it to fill in the blanks, so to speak, and warp it to fit their narrative.
C.
Hm. Slight confusion, here. A proton accelerator produces photons from the collisions, which is the light that the detectors pick up. However, to be clear: it's the beam of protons that smashes into the sample, producing the light. I've made it clearer in the piece.
Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.com if you spot any problems, so they can be fixed quickly.
C.
You're like clockwork. We're happy with the story - we disagree with your interpretation of the situation. For example, you can bang on about companies changing names and so on all you like, but it doesn't negate what we said:
> [.sk] has been in private hands since the 1990s, resulting in a number of different organizations running it
C.
"Does ANYONE have evidence that ALL computers trashed by NotPetya were operated -on a workdaily basis- by people with admin privileges?"
All right, calm down, calm down. We've tweaked the sentence so it's a little sharper. Not every trashed machine had admin access, obviously. And giving people and software the least possible privs is a good thing, obviously.
C.
Hi - yup, I've taken the sentence out. On its own, it's meaningless. If you check our other IBM articles you'll see we're not really down with running Big Blue 'press releases' - and our other chip stories go into a lot more detail when comparing features.
Take this article as-is: a product announcement, not a product endorsement.
C.
Lol, time travel, aliens, the TARDIS, all this fantasy, but a woman is too far fetched? What are you afraid of?
There's no rule to say Dr.W has to be a bloke. If someone wants to try another gender for a JA character, why complain? I wouldn't. It's art. It's entertainment. The world is a fluid place. Try new things.
What are you afraid of?
C.