Office on the web is actually great. They did the hard work of making it work with most of the features you want to use. It's definitely better than Google Docs. It's a daily driver for me.
Yes, sometimes I'll switch over to the corresponding desktop app, especially if I want to copy paste images e.g. select a range of cells in Excel and paste them as a picture in Powerpoint. The switch from web to app is usually seamless. (I'm on a Mac).
It is still quite far behind the native version, every time I think I can do everything on the Web version, as soon as I need some advanced formating on Word/Powerpoint, or more powerfull expressions on Excel, I end up downloading and further editing on the native version.
Google Docs is okayish if all I need is Office 97/Works kind of experience, Office 365 I would probably place it around Office 2013.
Completely disagree. Every project that has xz/liblzma added as a dependency should be looking at the source, compiling from said source and making sure their binaries that they shipped with their software match this. For example, homebrew should do this. If the attacker configured the backdoor for the server to enable a universal master key, who's to say they didn't engineer a backdoor for the Homebrew version to export private keys from the current user's .ssh folder?
That's my second point. Just checking for version <= 5.6.0 is not safe either and is exactly what the original article has done.
But if all you use as the basis of the vulnerability analysis is the version constraint and what we currently know about the backdoor, then, unless you are a distro building a liblzma distro package, you will not be vulnerable no matter the version (which was my point 1)
> In 2020, Showmax acquired exclusive licensing rights to stream HBO’s content in Africa, which has become one of the biggest advantages for the company. “Although we now watch a few local shows on Showmax, my favorite shows were Billions and Curb Your Enthusiasm,” Johannesburg-based designer Mpumelelo Cindi told Rest of World.
Billions is not an HBO show. It's from Showtime (owned by Paramount).
This chart is based on forward inflation expectation, which is probably lower than actual. Ideally I'd like to see this chart until 10 years ago that compares the rate of interest on a US 10Y t-bond when issued with the actual inflation that occurred over the 10 years until it matured.
I wonder if YouTube has a department that keeps track of what is coming into the public domain in which country at what date. Or will their systems be out of date and still flag copyright violations on this content?
Considering the abuse of the automated dmca system, I imagine YouTube will continue to side with the publishers for a long while, even in cases of legitimate use. There’s way less liability in false positives than false negatives for them.
YouTube already doesn't validate copyright claims are valid - the DMCA makes even trying legally perilous, and YouTube's motivation to keep on good terms with the publishers goes even further. So in that regard, this changes nothing.
Probably not. Youtubers can get copyright strikes for playing original interpretations of Bach or any other classical music that has been in the public domain for centuries.
One example on top of my head comes from TwoSetViolin commenting on this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsMMG0EQoyI
In their case, the issue was fixed, but I wonder if smaller channels get the same "benefit" or a human reviewer.
They've got no incentive to prioritize free use over protecting corporate interests. And evidence shows this holds in practice, when it's not necessary for them to. Welcome to "regulation by free market" (in other words, regulation by incumbent private interests)
Which means governments need to incentivise such priorities. Find a government that promotes their citizens above neoptistic and/or commercial interests and I'm sure they'll get right on to it ...
Fascinating implications on search engines. An army of SEO professionals, publishers and all manner of companies that rely on Google for traffic will be interested in pushing for a process review of Google's AI systems.
This is a good point and your comment below ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37768419 ) highlights it well. What people don't realize is that this is in the interest of the consumer. I used to work at Amazon (although not on any of these teams) so that's probably why I know that "see all buying options" means the price is not competitive. As a consumer I value this.
Amazon scours the web to make sure their products are competitively priced. So if a Western Digital external hard drive is $99 on NewEgg, then Amazon wants to sell it for $99 or lower. If it's a 1P product (i.e., Amazon is the seller), they can easily price match in real time. But if it is a 3P (third party seller) product then Amazon cannot take that action unilaterally take that action since it is the seller setting the price. So the best they can do to protect their customer in real time when their crawlers detect a lower price elsewhere is to hide the buy box behind the "see all buying options" button.
I'm sure when this feature was rolled out, Amazon's sales must have dropped. They are taking that short term hit in order to protect customer trust in the long term.
How does an extra click help the customer? Unless the customer used to work at Amazon and specifically knows that "see all buying options" means "scour the internet to find a better price, it should be easy this time".
They aren't hiding the better priced items behind an extra click, they are hiding the worse priced items. If you buy something listed in the "see all buying options" it means that you are spending more than you have to, as you will likely be able to find it for less elsewhere, whereas the normally presented items are the ones Amazon is selling for the same or less than elsewhere.
It's true that the last 15 years have been a fantastic time to buy a house. And yes, you are better off compared to those who didn't do that because they were too young or didn't have the money. But don't ever feel bad about this because you're basically treading water with inflation:
1. Through the years you own your home, you will pay roughly 1% of the notional value of the property in state and local property taxes EACH YEAR. You already know this.
2. When you sell your house, agents will eat 5% and the state you are in will take another ~3%. Other closing costs, the expense and the hassle to spruce up the house for sale. Round it off to a 10% haircut of the selling price.
3. If you're single the first $250K of capital gains on your primary residence is exempt from federal income tax. Beyond that the IRS will take its cut. Include the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) and you're looking at 24% tax on any capital gains, assuming you will be in a high tax bracket when you sell. And depending upon the state you live in, there will be capital gains taxes paid to the state.
Now look around you at the prices of groceries and meals. I have seen these costs roughly double in the last 8 years.
So it's not just that your house has appreciated in value -- it's more that the value of the dollar has gone down. And the plumbers and electricians and construction workers needed to build a new house have also gotten more expensive. By buying real estate you have managed to preserve your buying power somewhat so it's not eaten up by inflation.
You're not as rich as you think, but at least you're better off than the intern and your younger siblings. (edit: formatting)
