It's pretty impressive when you're up close and personal with it.
Plus, if you have a flexible lunch it is a practical visit over a few days at this time of year too.
> ERNIE 5, the latest model, was brought into service in March 2019, and is a quantum random number generator built by ID Quantique. It uses quantum technology to produce random numbers through light, replacing the former 'thermal noise' method. Running at speeds 21,000 times faster than the first ERNIE, it can produce 3 million winners in just 12 minutes each month.
(Normally I'd do that but am a bit rushed at the minute.)
A lot of things we do today in IT feels overly expensively done, but looking at this really makes you appreciate how far we’ve come in terms of efficiency even with modern over engineered solutions.
Premium bonds are so popular precisely because they are unpredictable. It's like buying a lottery ticket, except unlike a lottery ticket, you get your money back if you don't win.
This isn't strictly true, there are other reasons why they might be attrative. Premium bonds are tax advantaged (as opposed to most other investment vehichles in the UK).
For certain income brackets, they are a reaosnably efficient liquid store.
It's a little unfair that you said "the Lottery prize fund is weighted very heavily towards the larger sums that you'll realistically never win" but don't qualify that the effective interest rate of Premium Bonds also includes some high value but unlikely prizes. I wonder what the interest rate is for 50th percentile prize winners.
Edit: This page on MoneySavingExpert shows the median (50th percentile) Premium Bond winnings are 1.16% over a year if you have £15,000 invested, and are 0%(!) if you have £1,000 invested. They also have a winnings calculator, which shows that median probabilities don't compound over time in the way you'd expect: for £1,000 over 5 years the median return is £50, which is equivalent to 0.98% compound annual interest. (It may actually be fractionally higher because I don't think the calculator assumes you re-invest the winnings in Premium Bonds.)
It’s still interesting to know what the overhead of that operation is compared to normal bonds
My exact thoughts too. It's incredible that within a few decades, a process which was a full time job for dozens of people could now be totally replaced with code that runs in seconds.
Where I work we often have to involve some manual steps in business processes (too complex or edge case to develop in the time available, so we hand over to customer support or back office staff). When that happens it often feels like we're failing to do enough to support those colleagues. But I rarely stop to think that a short time ago absolutely everything they do would have been manual.
I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg ever sits down, brew some tea and question ruthlessly what his purpose in life is.
"What do I want to be remembered as? As a guy that has ruined America, the world in some ways and spreaded false news, kowtow to the advertisers, chasing year over year profits, quarter over quarter revenues, created echo chambers, fucked up politics, sucked up to investors?"
Facebook provided a way to connect people, that's it. Scapegoating Facebook for everything is ridiculous and only serves to oversimplify extremely complex social dynamics. If anything echochambers were stronger before Facebook, it's just that people weren't as politically involved.
And every single public company tries to maximize profit and revenue, that's their fiduciary duty to the investors. If you are against that, that's fine. But to use it as a criticism against Zuckerberg specifically is... weird?
Let's not pretend Facebook is an impartial processor of information... They are absolutely not. They're arbitrators of information. They sell information for a profit at the expense of privacy. At the expense of societal good. Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Viocom, etc. not just Facebook.
Regarding the hyperbole - yep, I realize that. I am here to express my opinions, emotions and speak freely; not to tread political correctness and wimp out on calling things as they are.
"funded principally by an annual television licence fee which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts and iPlayer catch-up. The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament, and used to fund the BBC's radio, TV, and online services covering the nations and regions of the UK."
I don't see that they publish the same content anywhere else. Even for Facebook they could have put only links to their own pages with the same content, had it existed. But it seems it doesn't.
>You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want.
However, to provide our services we need you to give us some legal permissions (known as a ‘license’) to use this content. This is solely for the purposes of providing and improving our Products and services as described in Section 1 above. [...]
>This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems
In this specific case I as a potential viewer of that content can't visit BBC's site to watch the same content, I have to watch it on Facebook, if I want to watch it at all. And I've searched for the specific video on BBC's site.
But BBC's mission isn't to make Facebook earning more money by exclusively providing to the Facebook BBC's content, helping Facebook earning more money from the internet ads tracking their viewers, and moreover, it's not why BBC is publicly funded, and why it collected its fees to produce the content: note again what I've already quoted: the "annual television licence fee which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations" "is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament, and used to fund the BBC's radio, TV, and online services."
And it's not that BBC doesn't have its own web site.