It’s mentioned in the books, kopeng. I think it comes up in some of the repair scenes, but there’s such a jargon dump in many of them that it might slip by. Naomi is caressing some of it at one point, like she’s petting a cat. Which is not far off from how she sees the Roci.
I can think of two in the show, but one is right before Holden needs to tell Nagata something important, and the other is in the middle of a brain dump at Tycho station when the Roci is being diagnosed for repairs.
Look I love giving people the benefit of the doubt, but that's not why this pricing model exits. It's because they want to capture a percentage of the value delivered, and the easiest way to do that it to charge by executions
When Bill C-26 was introduced, OpenMedia and our partners in civil society.. unpacked what the bill meant for Canadians, raised the alarm about its risks, and put forward practical recommendations to improve cybersecurity without compromising privacy. Civil liberties groups, academics, and experts joined us in calling for change. While a few of our fixes were adopted, most were ignored. Those unfinished issues now carry over into Bill C-8.. This campaign is about restarting the national conversation on cybersecurity and privacy. If we push harder this time, we can shape Bill C-8 into the law Canadians want and deserve.
> H-1B visa holders are REQUIRED to leave the country to renew their visas every few years
This part is not exactly true. You can renew H1B indefinitely within the USA(every 3 years, need a pending Green card application from the 2nd extension onwards i.e after 6 years). However, if you leave the US for any reason you won't be able to re-enter the USA without a renewed visa stamp from a US embassy. The two exceptions are that you can visit Canada or Mexico for less than 30 days without triggering the visa stamp requirement.
No, it's correct. The original comment said "to renew their visas". The visa expires on its expiration date, however the H1B status itself is extended. Hope this helps.
Even being generous, and saying it's a year, most capital expenditures depreciate over a period of 5-7 years. To state the obvious, training one model a year is not a saving grace
I don't understand why the absolute time period matters — all that matters is that you get enough time making money on inference to make up for the cost of training.
This was a surprisingly big thing back in the early 2000s with The War Against Terror. I think that it was mostly for reasons of 'chilling effect', but the media made everyone aware that the Department of Homeland Security were paying attention to what books people took out of the library.
What was curious about this was that, at the time, there were few dangerous books in libraries. Catcher in the Rye and 1984 was about it. You wouldn't find a large print copy of Che Guevara's Guerrilla Warfare, for instance.
I disagree about how libraries minimise the risk of anyone knowing who is reading what. On the web where so much is tracked by low intelligence marketing people, there is more data than anything that anyone can deal with. In effect, nobody is able to follow you that easily, only machines, with data that humans can't make sense of.
Meanwhile, libraries have had really good IT systems for decades, with everything tracked in a meaningful form with easy lookups. These systems are state owned, therefore it is no problem for a three letter agency to get the information they want from a library.
Libraries don't tend to have consolidated, centralized IT. As a result, TLAs have to actually make subpoenas to the databanks maintained by individual, regional library groups, and The ALA offers guidelines on how to respond to those (https://www.ala.org/advocacy/privacy/lawenforcement/guidelin...).
This, of course, doesn't mean your information is irretrievable by TLAs. But the premise of "tap every library to bypass the legal protections against data harvesting" is much trickier when applied to libraries than when applied to, say, Google. They also aren't meaningfully "state-owned" any more than the local Elk's Club is state-owned; the vast majority of libraries are, at most, a county organ, and it is the particular and peculiar style of governance in the United States that when the Feds come knocking on a county's door, they can also tell them to come back with a warrant. That's if the library is actually government-affiliated at all; many are in fact private organizations that were created by wealthy donors at some point in the past (New York Public Library and the Carnegie Library System are two such examples).
Many libraries also purposefully discard circulation data so as to minimize the surface area of what can be subpoena'd. New York Public Library for example, as a matter of policy, purges the circulation data tied to a person's account soon after each loaned item is returned (https://www.nypl.org/help/about-nypl/legal-notices/privacy-p...).
Have you seen the list of books fascists want to ban? I think GP's point was exactly to emphasize that when we're talking about "dangerous books", we're talking about books that indicate you might not be a toe-lining member of The Party. We're talking about any book that any powerful person decides is some sort of threat, even if it's merely a threat to their ego.
Not dangerous at all! An analogy would be comparing a pea-shooter to an automatic rifle, or a thimble full of shandy when compared to a gallon of vodka. There is not a dangerous word in my local library!
