rickdeckard

Don't know why you are downvoted, that's how the whole article still can be interpreted.

The only change I can read from it, is that they don't need to apply a renaming from Day#1

> "In the situation with the Gulf, it's unambiguously true that the "primary, common, local" name used in the US"

And that's my point. It depends on how "primary" or "common" is defined, the article has no definition of it. Who gets to decide that, Google?

The easy (and predictable) cop-out is to follow a governments definition of what is "the expected primary and common name", and then show that name in brackets.

The only restriction this "definition" seems to set is that your country needs to be adjacent to the landmark to define its name, so "a ruler" cannot decide to rename e.g. Australia unless he is either "the ruler" of Australia or of a country adjacent to it.

And we're back to square one.

--

EDIT: Yes, I also read this sentence: "By saying "common", we mean to include names which are in widespread daily use, rather than giving immediate recognition to any arbitrary governmental re-naming.".

The question remains how to quantify "widespread daily use".

It creates room to justify against an immediate change of a name, but doesn't define when this criteria is reached.

And from all I see, all this doesn't seem to matter anyway, because a new local naming will anyway be added in brackets (see Gulf of Mexico). What am I missing?

> "show lake america, gulf of america, ocean america, asian america, european america and african america if Trump makes it official, but only for the US IP"

I would maybe even welcome that approach at this stage, just to demonstrate the absurdity of those decisions.

They could actively encourage also other countries to rename all foreign landmarks as they please, to fast-track a separate "international naming" convention so people can again communicate across borders...

It seems their actual policy is "the policy of Primary Local Usage":

"Under this policy, the English Google Earth client displays the primary, common, local name(s) given to a body of water by the sovereign nations that border it. If all bordering countries agree on the name, then the common single name is displayed (e.g. "Caribbean Sea" in English, "Mar Caribe" in Spanish, etc.). But if different countries dispute the proper name for a body of water, our policy is to display both names, with each label placed closer to the country or countries that use it."

Which basically means "multiple names until all bordering countries agree on the same name", if I'm not mistaken

I guess the "Maps" Team follows a different policy than the "Earth" team...

Although there is also no definition of "common usage". A new name might already qualify if the local government adjacent to this landmark announces to only use this new name from now on.

Reading the article, I assume this would cause the new name to be immediately shown in brackets next to the old name, or am I missing something?

yes, valid guess, I should have extended the quote.

The page describes that this part is resolved by putting the SIM into a non-Android device to receive the queued messages and acknowledge to the network.

To then recover the device it only vaguely mentions "adb commands" and "factory reset", but I can't find a description what actually needs to be done on the device.

I guess the specific question is: The message database that is corrupted due to this issue, is this DB owned by (and stored as part of) com.android.phone?

> "A remote attacker can cut a phone off from Triple Zero"

Disclaimer for non-aussies (like me): That's not the newest hacker slang for something, 000 is the phone number of Australian's emergency services...

Replace with "can cut you off from 911" or 112, 999, etc. as needed (optionally wear sunglasses and add hand-gestures to amplify the effect)

...or just call it "emergency services"

The page mentions that an adb command is required to recover the device, but I can't find details on what exact adb this is.

Overall a bit frustrating to have such a fancy webpage with a dedicated address, but then no description on how to actually #1 identify and #2 recover an affected device...

> "Once the database is corrupt, com.android.phone no longer needs a fresh message to fail: it crashes immediately on every boot as it reads the damaged store [..] a factory reset only helps temporarily"

Can't I delete the storage of com.android.phone instead of a full factory-reset?

Nice article.

Funny enough, even though I know if/then/else by heart for decades now, I also spent a few seconds comprehending that 1960 arrow diagram of ALGOL60...

The same trajectory, yes. But here they are taking the next step.

So far they didn't dare to announce an AI-generated competitor of e.g. Photoshop, inviting Adobe to get honorable mention in a press-release.

Or create a mafia movie and invite Martin Scorcese to join the press-release.

They could easily create final products already instead of providing their tools as a service to those industries. But they are aware of the backlash, so they wait.

Research seems to be a good field to test the waters...

> "I don't really see how this is significantly different from them scraping the entire human knowledge, distilling it into weights and then selling the results."

Well, so far those companies offered this distilled human knowledge as part of a service, with all the (unresolved) criticism associated with scraping of other peoples properties.

In this instance they did the next step, created a combined output and are celebrating themselves for the result, inviting others to join.

It's the difference of scraping all books to build a language model from it for sale to others, and outright announcing a new Harry Potter book after extending an offer to JK Rowling to join the press-release.

(and I guess I need to clarify: I don't compare scientific research to writing a novel, I compare the handling of both scenarios)

"Nano-texture glass" and "Nano-texture display" should refer to the same: A microscopic etching into the display glass.

"Nano-texture finish" on iPhone Duo refers to an additional layer they put on top of the display panel. It's basically a sticker with a similar (same?) surface structure (they can't put it on the display glass itself because it's too thin)

The unbearable burden of consumerism.

"You didn't even finish your M2 yet and already want to refill your plate?"

As per OP, you're inferring a "healthy competition" between the cyclist and his bike. How would you expect cycling as a whole to evolve under such circumstances?

But I think you're talking about something entirely different, I leave it to someone else to answer.

> "This stuff reads as cope by scientists who spent their entire careers chasing these problems."

This seems to be really hard for some people to understand:

The gripe is not how AI has "cheated" and wasn't "embracing the race", everyone agrees that it's the result that counts.

The problem is that researchers use AI as a tool, and the company owning the tool siphoned all data from the sum of all researchers, combined it and completed the research. Okay, result is reached, still arguably good.

But the company owning the tool now takes credit for the entire research.

"Inviting" selected researchers to be mentioned in the press-release is not fixing that, the entire body of work is actually based on what the sum of researchers did, even those who failed in their research and didn't publish anything.