> I wonder if they simply couldn't fit it inside the scanner?
As far as I know, the cells they use for the Blade does look more or less to what they actually scanned, I'm guessing it's the same size as the actual cell they used. Makes sense they couldn't fit the entire Blade assembly, as it's lots of cells put together, but I don't understand why they couldn't use the real thing instead of something else...
I'm guessing parent-poster is saying the "is" should be "are", on the basis that the word "components" is plural.
That said, I didn't perceive a problem either, and my self-diagnosis is that "none of the X" feels like it could be evoking a singular item that failed to be found.
Yep, I think the singular is ok, as it could be just one. Seems like it could be both.
Cambridge says...
> In formal styles, we use none of with a singular verb when it is the subject. However, in informal speaking, people often use plural verbs...
Collins says:
> Since none has the meanings “not one” and “not any,” some insist that it always be treated as a singular and be followed by a singular verb: The rescue party searched for survivors, but none was found. However, none has been used with both singular and plural verbs since the 9th century. When the sense is “not any persons or things” (as in the example above), the plural is more common: … none were found. Only when none is clearly intended to mean “not one” or “not any” is it followed by a singular verb: Of all my articles, none has received more acclaim than my latest one.
But it was "none of -these- X" which (to me, at least) is a secondary signal for plurality indicating that "are" is (doubly) preferable to "is".
(I don't find "none of these components is ..." to be egregiously wrong but it definitely gives a brain hiccup where the "... are ..." variant is much smoother.)
1. Everyone already employed is "cheating" and not using fundamentals. Therefore to prepare them for the workforce them must just learn to "cheat" effectively... at the expense of the "ideals" (read: direct skills or knowledge.)
2. "Milquetoast environments" -- A general "tough love" trope, but I'm unclear on how this tough-school will somehow match the unique issues of the tough-work. Mix incompatible types of difficulty and people are just worse-off.
For that matter, why not flip the argument around? If the future competition everyone slinging stuff through LLM slop all day, perhaps ensuring students have fundamental skills to differentiate themselves becomes more important, rather than less.
To frame it another way: Better to inconvenience the pope once every few years than have tens of thousands of "little person" account compromises every year.
Probably not news to anyone here, but partial step in this direction is to put down vetted official contact details for the institutions.
Every time someone calls to say there's a problem with your account, you ask for their name and/or extension number, because recontacting through the institution is your only good way of verifying their identity.
That works when the system is setup to allow that.
I've encountered banks that don't have that setup — hilariously one bank felt the need to cold call me about my complaint about cold calling from unverifiable numbers. When I asked how I could call them on a verifiable number, they claimed I couldn't. :/
Malware on your phone can reroute your calls to the attacker. So you think you're calling the official number at the correct institution, but you're actually talking to the attacker.
Well, yeah, and knowing first-aid is worthless if someone's been decapitated. :p
If some malware is that deep on the phone, able to redirect calls, then you've got much bigger problems and the attacker might not even need to trick any cooperation at all.
It was in the news a few times in my country. Not sure about the exact technical details, but it might have been a malicious Android app that advertises itself as an improvement over the stock Phone app, encouraging users to set it as the default dialer. You don't need root for that.
> The adtech industry’s leading trade groups also expressed concern — partly out of fear that a public backlash could lead to regulations that threaten their business. They’re proposing rules that would allow companies to continue sharing data for business and marketing purposes, but restrict that information from being sold to law enforcement.
Cue "gifts" to law-enforcement which, ever so strangely will occur close to positive "consideration" for regulatory changes or mergers or dropped lawsuits.
If the information is too usefully-dangerous to sell to a government that has lost basic ethics, then it's too dangerous to have because the same government will find unethical ways to pressure you.
I think what gives me anxiety about the whole situation is:
1. If X% of the population gets wrongly branded with the scarlet letter B[ot], how do they appeal and get it fixed?
2. How will sites notice and know if their choice of "bot protection" is losing them X% of users/customers/job-seekers etc.? If it's a really robust system, they'll never even see the complaints either...
3. If everyone does detect that something is awry, will it be such a monopoly that there's no choice but to let it happen?
I think it's important we break this question apart by "value to whom."
1. Consumers barely notice ads for things they don't care about.
2. Sellers will see it as percentage inefficiency in their spending, wrapped up in other reporting noise.
3. Ad-networks on the other hand, may view a not-interested impression as a lost chance to make revenue by putting something "better" in its place.
reply