While their lithography may lag, their system-level engineering is leveraging unique strengths.
China's lack of power constraints allows them to build massive, optically-networked systems like the CloudMatrix 384.
There is a SemiAnalysis that compares it to Nvidia’s GB200 NVL72.
It looks like they overcome weaker individual chips to outperform Nvidia’s GB200 NVL72 with 2x the compute, 3.6x the aggregate memory, and 2.1x the memory bandwidth.
with scale-out networking and software optimization, not just silicon.
Basically the way the EU sees it, Google has a monopoly in a market: mobile operating systems. That is, if you're an OEM and you want to sell a device with an operating system, Google is currently the only place you can really turn. Apple exists but since it doesn't sell its operating system, it's not a participant in this market.
So the EU saw Google saying to OEMs "you can have Android but you have to install our stuff on it or pay extra" and decided that Google was using its monopoly position in one market (mobile OS) to give itself an advantage in other markets (app stores, browsers, search). They see this as anti-competitive.
As far as I know, Android is open source and any OEM is free to use it without asking permission. The licensing program is for the right to install proprietary Google apps like the Play Store or Google Maps. There are plenty of Chinese OEMs who aren't licensed and sell phones without the Play store.
Amazon tried to sell Android without Google Play, but the resulting Amazon Fire Phone didn't do very well. Unless Google is banned in your country like in China, no OEM wants to risk skipping out on Google Play.
Not necessarily -- trademark infringement requires an element of deception or confusion, not just any usage of the mark.
If an OEM sold a phone with a stock AOSP build, I think they'd be fine with calling it "Android" without permission. Google might attempt to enforce their mark anyway, but they wouldn't have much of a case.
If the phone ran a fork like LineageOS, the OEM would need to be more careful about their use of the mark, but I imagine they'd still be okay with language like "Android-based".
Yes, and that directly causes a device to fail SafetyNet Attestation which can cause some third-party apps to not work even with sideloading/different app store.
Google could satisfy EU by cancelling OEM Android licensing programming and reducing consumer choice to Google phones only, relegating OEMs to suppliers like "good" Apple, and putting most OEMs out of business. Good job, EU.
Google could do that, but it would hurt their business tremendously, as the amount of diverse brands which provide their own unique flavor on top of Android is what helps them keep this dominance.
Reducing the choice to just Google phones running Android will spark other providers to develop their own OS and increase competition in the market, which would indeed lead a great deal of people to say "Good job, EU" if the EU was the catalyst for such a scenario.
The reason android exists was to allow OEMs to compete with Apple.
Google could shut it down and only publish their own phones, but they don't have the chops to become a premier customer goods maker. The field would be free for Apple until Samsung catches up. In the end Google lose negotiation power in getting their search engine, browser and services on Apple's and Samsung phones.
Basically they would be the main loser in the move.
They're working on that, give it some time. The complaint from Spotify gets the ball rolling. The EU will do the rest. Two or three years from now they'll have a $4 billion fine for Apple.
"Spotify announced this morning that it’s filed an antitrust complaint against Apple with the European Union, alleging that the iPhone maker is harming consumer choice and stifling innovation via the rules it enforces on the App Store."
It's based on marketshare. iOS doesn't have enough marketshare on the smartphone market to be bothered by those laws. If apple was controlling the whole smartphone market, it could fall under those laws, even if its operating system wasn't open to other manufacturer.
Agreed, and this needs to stop in my opinion. The EU makes an enormous amount of money by suing tech-giants over and over again without doing enough research to know what companies in this sector are doing.
Those aren't based on nothing. There is laws and being a tech giant doesn't grant the right to go around those.
If those fines aren't justified, those companies can use the justice system in place to fight back, like everybody else.
It's not a free for all, get free money from tech companies with no legal background.
The App uses Artificial Intelligence (evolutionary algorithms) with a main objective of obtaining long-term profit from betting on football (soccer) games.
The AI has access statistical models and learns from past mistakes so that it optimizes future reward.
With over 1 year in testing the results of the algorithm's predictions show that there is no magical solution that makes you win 100% of the time.
However it has learned to exploit a couple of strategies and has achieved its objective of obtaining long-term profit.
- It bets on matches where it thinks there are increased chances for a surprise result. (betting against the favorite)
- Picks risky solutions that are more profitable on the long-run.
- Accuracy is between 32-60% depending on bet type. The low accuracy compensates with the increased rewards. ( average win odds of 2.7 and 3.5)
- Due to small sample bias https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgZQMJQRwRM and the accuracy it's main vulnerability is short-term bankruptcy when choosing a stake that is too big in terms of % from the total amount available.
FAQ:
- Does it work only on Android?
Yes, at least for the moment. I plan to see how this goes and then release for iOS.
- Why are you using Facebook for authentification?
It was easy to implement (firebase auth) and I worked on it before the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
It didn't require extra costs and servers and had good enough protection against spamming accounts.
I use the most minimum permissions from Facebook (just the email which is opt-out).
Also planning to market it through Facebook ads so most of the potential users already have an Facebook account.
Well sure, but there are over 2200 games per month and less than 3-5% are the kind of games you are talking about. Super good team vs terrible team (assuming your local home town team is not Barcelona)
69% is a huge number in terms of sports betting. Typically to be profitable you need to be in the 52% - 56% arena to be profitable, so this is significantly profitable
GDPR—while vastly different to what has become the defacto standard practice in most companies—is largely simple, basic, common decency and common sense. My very tiny startup won't have any problems complying because we've actually given a smidgen of consideration to our users' privacy up until now.
In fact, I foresee it being a much greater tax on large corporations: the work in GDPR is not compliance—that's relatively easy once you have procedures in place—the real work is converting existing non-compliant systems to bring them into compliance. This is going to be much easier for those maintaining relatively small, simpler systems, and easiest of all for brand new startups.
From what I have seen and understood about the regulations and the spirit of them this is basically right.
If your system was intentionally designed with both privacy and the ability for users to own their data (i.e. edit & hard delete whatever, whenever for any reason) in mind, then GDPR should be essentially complied with already 'out of the box'.
If this was not the case, either for cynical reasons, simple disregard for the importance of these things, or a decision to not prioritise these things in favour of shipping more features faster, and you just essentially slapped a checkbox with some legal copy over your signup process and thought you were done with all that pesky user data privacy stuff, well, you're in for a pretty bad time now.
Maybe my reading of it the regulations is naive and it won't be so easy in the first case and will be easy to subvert anyway in the second case. But if not, to be perfectly honest it seems just like what good regulation should do - incentivise good behaviour - allowing businesses that behave well by nature to thrive without too much extra hassle introduced, and suppress both the bad behaviour itself and the general productivity of the business behind it where that's not the case.
I'd hardly say that. "Forget me" can take a lot of design work (can introduce a ton of edge cases). "Export data" requires building an entire information processing pipeline.
Larger corporations have the resources to dedicate to this. But for a small startup deciding between spending 4 dev-months on "forget me" and "export data" versus on enabling the top 3 new primary use cases users are asking for, I understand how this could feel really difficult.
I really wonder if it wouldn't be better to make some of the requirements only for companies above a certain revenue threshold or the types of data collected. (E.g. export data is critical for health or finance-related sites, probably less so for a meme generator startup.)
I would. I'm doing some GDPR consulting at the moment and most of my conversations are "I don't think it's as complicated as you do". Americans tend to read law very pathologically unless they are familiar with how European legislation works, and every programmer out there thinks they are an armchair lawyer since there are "obvious" skillset similarities between decoding software and decoding law.
"Forget me" is very simple: If someone calls you up and asks you to stop using their data, you stop using it and remember that they've done this.
You do not have to:
- Destroy invoices
- Delete web logs
- Delete the record of them asking you to stop using their data
- Reprocess all of your backups
- Recall any reports you might have sent out
Or anything else that is silly. But your salespeople aren't allowed to see that person's details in your CRM anymore.
"Export data" is also very simple for most companies. If you have a CRM containing information about a person, then that person can ask for that information.
> probably less so for a meme generator startup
What possible "personal information" do you think a meme generator startup actually has to collect on individuals that aren't their customers?
They should have a CRM containing companies who are purchasing advertising space on their meme generator startup, and perhaps leads that they have obtained through various incremental marketing sources. They probably do not have any personal information on their users, or if they do, their business will not be impacted by simply not collecting that personal information.
But maybe I don't understand what a "meme generator startup" would do because I'm not in their target market.
You keep mentioning how you're consulting on this issue at the moment and claiming that those of us more cautious than you just don't understand how European law works. Would you mind sharing a little more to justify that authority -- what qualifications do you have that we don't, what sorts of business are you consulting with and how much is compliance (including your advice) costing them, and why is your interpretation of the GDPR reliable in cases where a literal reading either clearly contradicts you or contains significant ambiguity that you imply doesn't matter?
I'm not claiming anyone more cautious than me doesn't understand how European law works. That's just silly.
I also don't know what qualifications I have that you don't. What qualifications do you have?
The sorts of business I am consulting to are sales and marketing agencies based in the US. As an SME I work with their in-house council to help them understand what the business is doing. I also help define process designed to make compliance obvious and transparent surrounding areas of my expertise.
I have no idea how much compliance is costing them. I don't know if they look at it this way.
Your last "question" consists of some more straw man and a little too much hand-waving: By all means, feel free to point to any contradiction with a specific recital and I can try to address it. If you have another source who claims to be an expert, I can also try to explain why I may have a different opinion than them.
First of all, please let me apologise if my previous comment came across as unnecessarily aggressive. Looking over the thread today, it could be read as quite hostile, which wasn't my intent.
My concern here is that in this discussion (and indeed in other recent HN discussions around the GDPR), you have on several occasions relied on your role as a consultant to support statements that various actions weren't necessary because of the GDPR, and to dismiss some of the potential legal arguments/concerns that several of us have raised suggesting otherwise as if they are some sort of legal trickery and EU courts/legal systems would not like them.
I claim no special qualifications in this area. I'm just a guy who is running businesses that might be affected by the new law and wants them to do the right thing, but wants that right thing to be practical and to know that we're on safe legal ground with it. Naturally I also talk to others in a similar position from time to time, and occasionally with consultants or lawyers active in the field, and so I know that many others share similar concerns and are asking the same sorts of questions.
What I'm seeing is that most of the experts are arguing for things like a "risk-based approach", which is the standard CYA consultant/lawyer answer to almost anything where they can't say "We don't actually know either, but you'll probably get away with it if you don't rock the boat". My point is that this is not good enough. The EU and member state authorities have form, as I've written about elsewhere, for introducing overly broad laws with insufficient safeguards and insufficient consideration for small businesses, and for then causing real and sometimes very serious damage to those smaller businesses in practice afterwards.
This is why I'm arguing that the GDPR as it stands is a bad law. This is why I want to see clear, concise, unambiguous answers from authoritative sources on issues around backups, log/journal-based records, and the like. And this is why I'm asking what your own qualifications are and what you know that we don't, given that just a couple of comments up you have casually dismissed concerns that many of us seem to have as being "silly", when those concerns are based on reading what the GDPR actually says and the ambiguity that we're hearing from other experts who don't seem to share your clear view of the subject.
> [I'm just a guy that] wants that right thing to be practical and to know that we're on safe legal ground with it.
Then explain clearly and specifically what thing you want to do that you believe isn't practical. Please say exactly what you want to do that you think is reasonable but that the GDPR says isn't.
- You don't need to destroy invoices. [1] [2]
- You don't need to delete web logs (if you block out the bottom octet of the IP addresses) [3]
- You don't need to delete web logs if you're using them to prevent fraud [4]
- You don't need to delete the record of them asking you to stop using their data [5] [6]
- You don't need to reprocess all of your backups [7] [8]
- You don't have to recall any reports you might have sent out [9]
Those are everything that I labelled as silly with a link to the authority and a supporting opinion if I think that the authority isn't clear.
If you see someone with a contrary opinion, my offer remains to try and refute any specific example.
> What I'm seeing is that most of the experts are arguing for things like a "risk-based approach", which is the standard CYA consultant/lawyer answer to almost anything
The ICO recommends something similar, but it's not just about rocking the boat: If you're not putting people at risk, and you're not pissing anyone off, then you're probably not going to have trouble because an honest examination of your processes isn't going to reveal neglect or recklessness of another kind.
> and for then causing real and sometimes very serious damage to those smaller businesses in practice afterwards.
A citation would be helpful.
I suspect there's a balance: Are we harming a smaller business that was being inappropriate? Putting people's data at risk? What exactly are we talking about?
I don't operate a blog, and my primary function at my company is as an SME, so I mostly consult to our customer's in-house legal. That said, my contact details aren't difficult to discover, so by all means reach out if there's something specific you want to talk about that you don't want to share publicly.
I'm not sure I've read anything in there that is hard to implement, other than retroactively.
I'm sure as time passes there will be frameworks and best practices developed for conforming to these regulations, but I honestly don't see anything egregious or complex to develop in there.
a) companies had 2 years go comply. Furthermore, the guidlines of the European Commission are clear that the process should be gradual - inspect, write recommendations, small fines, bigger fines. Nothing like "20 million in June"
b) the law had to cover a lot of usecases and in order to do that concisely, it may sound vague in places. I also don't like (developers never like uncertainty), but there's established practice already in regulators and courts about what is considered "adequate", "appropriate", etc. I agree it could've been better though.
c) that is happening already, e.g. ICO (the UK regulator) has a pretty good set of guidelines and examples. There's also the process of "prior consultation" where if you are not sure about something, you go ask your regulator for a decision
d) this is exactly what the "proportionate", "adequate", etc. are in for. If you are a small company with 2000 data records, you are not posing a high risk for the rights and freedoms of data subjects and so most of the things are not a strict requirement
a) The problem with this is that this practical guide was released in November 29, 2017. And this is unofficial. EU should have released a practical guide two years ago in my opinion.
If the process is gradual the law should reflect that.
d) The law should clearly define what is required for smaller companies and what is not. There's some disagreement if this is the case in GDPR articles too.
a) The regulators had 2 years to write final regulations. They didn't do that either. Apparently it's too much to ask to have eg final guidance more than 3 months before the implementation deadline.
aa) In actuality, the ICO has made it clear that grace periods are not part of their regulation strategy. See eg speeches by senior regulators.
b) hahaha go spend a pile of cash on lawyers (we're at roughly $50k) who are familiar with 30-ish countries privacy regulators. American companies are quite unlikely to have a lead regulator.
d) proportionate and adequate are words that create giant legal bills, because the gdpr naturally declines to spell out in any concrete fashion what those mean.
a) It is not a big change from the 1995 regulation. It is incremental. There is a feeling that the previous regulation lacked teeth with the multinationals, some of whom have chosen to ignore it. Facebook have lost two cases over aggregating data in Belgium and Germany in the last month.
b) I don't know if you are familiar with European law, but what you see as vague is what others see as flexibility. Laws setting out the spirit of what you are trying to achieve tend to age better than a rule based approach.
c) They did [0]. Because of b) it is not part of the regulation itself.
d) They were under the existing regulation, so why wouldn't they be now? The 'vagueness' as you put it gives a judge considerable flexibility to see if the steps taken to safeguard privacy were appropriate to your size
> a) bring out regulation gradually instead of in a single big change like GDPR to have companies time to comply
GDPR wasn't announced yesterday. The time span between announcement and implementation date is over two years. Of course if you only start now there isn't much time left, but then that's your own fault.
