Exactly - all the anti-Boeing sentiment in the comments here (while deserved) should also be directing some ire at the funding and contract structures being used for these projects (I.e. “cost-plus” contracts).
They’re just bad policy if you want the _nominal objectives_ of the project delivered on time and on budget; they have structural incentives for contractors to go over.
(It’s pretty clear that delivering the nominal objectives is not what the relevant policy-makers are actually aiming for, though. The cost overruns are the real goal for them, as it’s a kind of pork to steer regional funding)
That may be true, but having customers who want to only use products from one company doesn’t make that company a monopoly, which is the topic sitting behind this article.
That sounds more like coil whine, which is “normal” sound (i.e. moving air) from components vibrating rapidly. That’s not what this paper covers (= more like people’s brains “imagining” sound due to RF triggers)
The reason you remember adults not hearing it is because there is a well-documented loss of high-frequency hearing as people age.
(Which has even been “weaponised” before; there were stories some years ago about stores blasting high-frequency noise outside to deter loitering teenagers without affecting desirable adult shoppers)
I always felt that the DS9 relationships between Cardassians & Bajorans was a product of the time when the show was written, and had stronger overtones of the 1990s Balkans conflicts and Israel/Palestine than anything else. (Though it’s far from a direct allegory for either)
“Recognise speech” / “wreck a nice beach” can sound similar (if you allow for some imprecisions, slurring, accents, etc, like noisy real-world data has).
The relevant term here is _phonemes_, the individual chunks of sounds that make the phrases up; these two phrases have shared or similar phonemes in typical English diction. e.g the first two sounds are both “reh”, “cuh”
People who fit into <some racial/ethnic/age/gender bucket> spend more time looking at <x products>, fed to advertisers who can tie it to swathes of your other online activity
Even if it’s _theoretically_ coarse data/bucketing, that adds up to a lot of data to help deanonymization and targeting. Even if that’s done in the spirit of “just for ads”, it’s not a big leap to political targeting etc, and with the right data leaks, potentially even actual harassment.
Exactly. A paper notebook might not have those security features, but it’s also a lot harder to end up with reams of confidential info in a paper notebook in the blink of an eye, on a whim; or to transmit that data to arbitrary third parties. There’s a “proportionality” argument between features and security.
That’s not the point they’re making, I think - they’re giving praise and kudos to the post above, saying they’re better than “very average” if they’ve pulled off that ascent 6 times
The article doesn’t even mention UK broadcast television content – it’s more about big-shared-screens vs small-personal-screens.
And the author is an American, resident in New York afaict. Even though the Guardian is a UK-based paper, not all it’s content is not exclusively UK-focused.
They’re just bad policy if you want the _nominal objectives_ of the project delivered on time and on budget; they have structural incentives for contractors to go over.
(It’s pretty clear that delivering the nominal objectives is not what the relevant policy-makers are actually aiming for, though. The cost overruns are the real goal for them, as it’s a kind of pork to steer regional funding)