johnnycab

>I remember London black cabs as mainly being a reliable service with reliable drivers >The cliche of not going south of the river held up to some scrutiny too. >At least it was a two way conversation with a cabbie.

It seems that you rode a black cab very occasionally, if you never experienced a cabbie getting lost. Much has been made of the knowledge, which was dense where the routes being traversed were frequent but it was already deteriorating by the time Uber arrived. I have had the misfortune of having to rely on black cabs, on some of my past gigs, on a daily basis and spent a small fortune/part of my life on these rides, especially when they were the only choice in a rush. I can assure you that the cliché of not going south of the river was 100% true, amongst many others, although it doesn't matter so much anymore. As for romanticising the 'two-way conversation' ─ it was not a dialogue but usually an unsolicited diatribe of regurgitated opinions, gathered from the daily rags and caustic radio chat shows ─ which you were bullied into agreeing with, just to journey in some relative peace and quiet. I will take an Uber et al. every single time, for the very reasons you mentioned.

The article seems like a collated excerpt from stories shared on the front page of the internet, albeit still a good read. In between the bizarre justification for why water costs more. There are book-ended TIL moments like: for Lufthansa and Air New Zealand departures, I carted out extra handles of alcohol ─ a 'handle' translates as 1.75L (half-gallon/60-pounder) of liquor bottle, to the cheesy ending:

One time, the team popped a can of Pringles and found a live cobra.

In this case, once you pop ─ you will stop.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-term-handle-...

It might be far easier to buy crypto via an ATM. Sure, it will cost a bit more but you will have some anonymity.

https://coinatmradar.com/

>Moreover, AMEX somehow is not subject to this regulation.

NAL. It is somewhat complex and involved Amex exploiting a 'loophole' in the EU law, which capped the fees. It revolves around how three party and four party arrangements were structured and implemented. Nonetheless, it was challenged and Amex lost it's appeal and currently open for interpretation, notwithstanding the fees that it has to continue swallowing as a result.

Excerpt: What is more complex is that American Express doesn’t even charge interchange fees because there is no intermediary. There are no interchange fees to cap. Instead, it has to cap its general fee charged to retailers. This will presumably need to be set at a level similar to the total fees now charged to retailers for accepting Visa or Mastercard.

https://www.headforpoints.com/2018/02/08/american-express-eu...

The linked TED talk is by Janelle Shane, an optics research scientist and an AI researcher. She maintains a blog, which is quite funny and has also written a book drawn from her experiences with NN's, particularly GPT-2.

https://aiweirdness.com/

Firstly, I apologise sincerely, if you felt in anyway whatsoever, that I was being uncivil. Secondly, it is extremely unfair to label someone a 'nasty troll', when they have diligently provided official sources as a basis to conduct a conversation from, versus hearsay.

Last but not least, I accept your offer of sharing the views of your legitimate contact and a source, which can be used to confirm what you say.

Ah, yes, of course, the super-secret 'CuRrEnT FrAmEwOrK PoLiCy' which you can't link to or share? By attributing any authority to what is essentially a loose collection of a government's ambitions, aspirations, pipe dreams and a random wish list of sorts, is rather fanciful, to say the least. The current talk of full-fibre broadband is just a manifesto pledge, which has already been downgraded to upto 'Gigabit broadband' by the Tories. This rhetoric is reminiscent of 'information superhighway/superfast broadband' buzzwords from the previous decades to capture urban/rural votes. Similarly, there are no detailed plans available on how it will be implemented or how any of this going to get funded ─ which could cost over £30 billion; then the Labour party are pledging to give it all away for free?!? In the absence of any hard facts, putting stock in any of these words uttered by someone, who knows somebody else, who then conducted some research and everybody thought it was a jolly good idea ─ rings alarm bells and means forgoing privacy in return for something perceived to be 'free', yet still being majority funded by the taxpayer.

I will leave you with the USO [Universal Service Obligation] from DCMS (Dept. for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport) as an amuse bouche on delusions of grandeur.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

>Didn't WhatsApp used to be $1 a year before Facebook bought them and it was a very successful pricing model?

I was hounded and paid £0.69 to renew the 'subscription' ─ which was subsequently offered for free to everyone, shortly thereafter. I felt betrayed, but I would happily pay the same amount today (or slightly more), if only to preserve some shred of privacy.

>That's basically it. >If nothing else has worked, let's try threatening Openreach until service improves.

That is basically NOT it and issuing random threats to incumbent telcos, whilst contemporaneously empowering them is definitely not the solution. The shameless politicking does not address how to fund the empty promises. The article in essence is debating whether or not, Labour (2030) vs Cons (2025) pledge of "full-fibre Broadband" is a plausible one ie. the former is offering free access to the walking dead, and the latter shamelessly targeting it's base minority of curtain twitching shires, and neither of these parties know how to solve the wider and complex implications of engaging with businesses or how to implement any technical plans.

Meanwhile the idea of nationalising Openreach (BT) under public ownership is a much more complicated issue (i.e. its impact upon pensions, the question of who takes on BT’s massive debt pile (the public?), shareholders, competition etc.) and one that is likely to result in plenty of legal challenges (this could hamper the fibre rollout until settled). Not to mention a lengthy debate over whether that by itself would result in a better market.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/11/2020-labour-pa...

>Oh god! They divorced in 2015. I am sure if Google had any such plans, it is just as likely with any other CEO up there.

Any subsequent marital issues or extracurricular activities of the individuals concerned cannot erase the fact that the venture was literally bootstrapped by Sergey Brin and Google.

https://techcrunch.com/2009/06/18/all-in-the-family-sergey-b...

Deepmind Health was a pure-data play, like most Google acquisitions; including Fitbit ─ which might initially suggest it is a way to sell gadgets or a platform but reverse is true ie. it is a strategy albeit not a cohesive one, to acquihire and/or gain foothold in a sector, especially where it does not have a dominant presence, in order to integrate a disparate portfolio of existing services.

https://deepmind.com/blog/announcements/deepmind-health-join...

>Amazing scan, and the comment is fascinating

There is an entire Byte magazine archive, which will either blow your nostalgic mind, bring a smile or just make you ponder ─ how much/what has really changed?

https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine

I would pick Airpods over Shure, but they don't fall in the $99 category! I was replying on the basis of a specific model and made it explicitly clear that an alternative pair meant either a foray into slightly expensive pairs (still cheaper than Airpods) or go all the all way to the bottom, for the more adventurous.

>If you want inexpensive, SE 215 is what you're looking for, for $99.

Shure has jumped the shark. I own these and have stopped endorsing them, the sound quality is utterly rubbish compared to some alternative wireless pairs, which might cost a little bit more, but even a punt on some of the cheaper pairs like Airdots et al. would be worth it.

It is disappointing that you decided to ignore the death and misery caused by this version of the bus and instead chose to pose a question on journalistic integrity. You did not provide evidence or refute any facts to support your claim that bendy buses were indeed safer or the routes even traversed the narrow streets, where 'Chelsea Tractors' (Range Rover/BMW X5/Cayenne), generally used to roam. There is also no evidence, that this 'lobby' you speak of, actually existed, let alone being overly concerned about the surrounding issues.

For the uninitiated, articulated/bendy buses were in operation from 2002-2011, the article linked was written in 2007 in the Evening Standard (ES), when it was still under paid circulation.

>If you don't have a 4x4 Chelsea Tractor lobby, you can just use bendy buses.

I fail to see the specific connection between the SUV drivers and bendy buses, as these articulated buses were operational on only 12 routes out of 700+ due to their restrictions. If the implication is that these buses were taken out of circulation due to a vocal lobby of car owners of certain luxury marques, living in salubrious boroughs, then it is a preposterous suggestion. The real reason is that this bus was a death machine ─ snaking along the streets ─ killing cyclists, bikers, pedestrians and motorists alike. Amongst a catalogue of flaws, ranging from being prone to catching fire to acquiring the label of 'free bus' by fare dodgers; it's only saving grace in the near-decade long operation was being wheelchair-friendly.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/bendy-buses-the-fatal-facts-...

>Incidentally I got a proposal to vote on the other day proposing changing Park Lane southbound into park land with cafes which I think would be nice.

It is unlikely to be happen due to the 'solutions' proposed in section 3.3.10 through to 3.3.13 (pg33). Which states that there is no will to implement any measures on this part of the thoroughfare by the incumbent landowners ─ any attempts to do so, have been thwarted for more than a century. The well heeled clientèle, do not particularly need a bohemian cafe culture at the doorstep nor do they care about pedestrians, especially when they arrive at the affluent hotels/hedge fund offices/ ballrooms/casinos, in their luxury automobiles to work & play. The addition of having access to exclusive shopping districts, restaurants, entertainment within spitting distance in any direction, further erodes any case for pedestrianisation.

However, there is a good case for lowering speed limit, modernising the subway access and creating more ways to cross between the central reservation, across to Hyde Park.

>either do whatever Torbrowser does or use the most popular iPhone.

Using a iPhone does not preclude you from being blindsided, as illustrated by a NordVPN bug, which was exposed a couple of weeks ago.

Here's how it works:

The user first connects to 1.1.1.1 with Warp, then disables the app without turning off Warp. Then, when connecting to a NordVPN server with ikev2 protocol, the iOS device will report as being connected to NordVPN and secured, without actually being connected. In other words, you're connected and protected, but you're not.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/05/security_roundup_oc...

>He's both an opportunistic speculator buying 15 (!) medallions and a victim who was conned. Depending on when the market took an eventual downturn he could have been a villain. He could have been part of the ominous "they" sprinkled throughout the piece!

I would describe him as a victim of greed, as he already had another medallion as an investment. For him to be regarded as a 'speculator' in this context ─ he could have averted financial ruin by conducting due diligence before acquiring toxic assets and/or hedge his bets. If one were to consider him opportunistic, he should have been savvy enough to know, when to get out and leave others holding the bag. Since, he seems to have exhibited none of the predatory behaviour associated with a conman, it is a bit presumptuous to speculate on his villainous tendencies.

I found the article to be a sad tale, rather than defining it as baffling. The answers to most of your questions can be found in the article, which describes the latent demand for medallions, allowing the opportunistic speculators to swoop in. It was aided by the city, which no doubt welcomed the additional revenue, and didn't do anything substantial to prevent a bubble from forming and exacerbated the misery. The effect of the pump and dump was compounded by the victims, who share a common thread, and their stories pepper the article. This vulnerable group was targeted for it's high susceptibility to any number of cons, and were also the most likely to ignore the zeitgeist of the app-model.

Many were immigrant cabdrivers who could not speak English fluently and signed loans they could not afford, lured by the promise of easy wealth and a secure future.

The faux-pas is not entirely restricted to cockney pronunciation; here is an example of another UK comedian, Michael McIntyre taking the piss out of TV chef Gino D'ACampo's (Italian) mockney version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCJnO8rzXP0

This reminded me of dickfromaccounting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20068269

>I wonder why nobody else is willing to do this? It seems like it works, and it keeps you in the news...

The gaming of keywords, offline and online, to influence SERP's has been done before and continues to do so ─ the optics on the practice of Google-bombing is a matter of frequency illusion. As an example, 'Santorum' clearly demonstrated the value and the power it holds. The eponymous search engine has a role to play by favouring newer content e.g. news media involving politics, entertainment and culture.

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-algorithm-history...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_the_neologism_%22...

>But most small suppliers are so in thrall to the huge company they supply that they won't even ask for that money.

You are contradicting yourself by stating that it is understood that suppliers will get squeezed on payment terms and/or risk getting terminated if they don't stay in their lane; then you state that they should issue demands on late payments. In reality, SME's are not in thrall of mega-corps, they are just doing whatever it requires to maintain the status quo and keep the symbiotic relationship alive, even if it means giving up some rights and being on unequal terms; it is crazy, but that is how it is.

You are correct that Proof of Postage only records the postcode, which can only be obtained at the the Post Office (for free), when handing over the letter/parcel at the counter. However, you can insist upon the address or the property number to be recorded ─ which requires a 'Certificate of Posting', which needs to be filled in and stamped. You can have one or the other, not both. This absolves RM of any negligence albeit they could clarify this distinction.

Since, this particular scam is originating from a very specific ecosystem; in this case, the responsibility ultimately lies with eBay and to a certain extent with PayPal ─ who are blasé about these scams and have zero intent on solving these issues, they are even happy to front-load the system, so it favours certain types of scammers.

https://business.help.royalmail.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/...

>The day ublock origin doesn't work on chrome is the day users will flock to firefox.

>This is because since their core functionality is so similar, small advantages will tip the scales.

It is a a bold assertion, which is not backed up by the data. Despite Mozilla repositioning Firefox recently and reclaiming some lost ground, it is to a larger extent, still only maintaining a steady set of core users. To make an assumption that small advantages will tip the scales in favour of FF is wishful thinking, as demonstrated by some of the conversations. Furthermore, it is inherently not in the best interests of Google to actively promote ad-blocking policy unless it serves it's own purpose, coupled with the acute awareness of why power users and developers pick Chrome ─ they are well positioned to throttle any competition.

https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20850135

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20052623

They will likely get away with it, despite straddling a number of dark patterns ranging from 'sneaking it into the basket' to 'forced continuity'. They will probably get a slap on the wrist by claiming that they did inform the user at sign-up to opt-out etc. and display some faux remorse. The tactics are tried and perfected and not so dissimilar from the range of dirty tricks deployed by GoDaddy; which is hardly surprising considering that both registrars accused of shady practices, share the same parent.

I agree that there is no need to use immoral registrars these days ─ Gandi has a section, which advises on upfront costs of creation, renewal etc. and is also one of the most reputable registrars in the business.

https://www.gandi.net/en/domain/tld

>He's a Windows guy but still, you'd expect he knows what he's doing.

Weird flex but ok.

This clip from Mr. Robot S02e11 regarding eCoin, substituted with Libra in this case, maps suprisingly well to the hypothetical narrative on the shifting nature of skewed monetary power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ee-cHbCI0s

This question is also asked in the RFC by adopting a rather philosphical stance towards assigning a patent to an 'AI based entity'.

4. Should an entity or entities other than a natural person, or company to which a natural person assigns an invention, be able to own a patent on the AI invention? For example: Should a company who trains the artificial intelligence process that creates the invention be able to be an owner?