1) not all camera bodies include those fine tuning options in the camera firmware;

2) lenses that include additional buttons beyond that which the camera maker programmed the body to understand can't be tweaked by a body that was never programmed to know the button exists;

3) in the specific case of some Tamron zooms, the Tamron focus fine tuning is at up to five different distance figures, while most camera body focus fine tuning is a single global setting for that one lens;

4) for camera bodies that do include focus tuning in their firmware, they also usually have a limited number of slots for a limited number of lenses. For professionals they very well may own more lenses than the camera has slots, so being able to "tune the lens" via "the lens itself" means each can be fine tuned, even if the camera body cannot store that many different adjustments;

5) an adjustment the camera maker never thought to include (i.e., one example quoted in the repo where the focus ring direction can be reversed) can not be tweaked by the camera body. This is useful to photographers who mix lenses from different makers on the same body as Canon builds their focus rings to rotate one way when focusing towards infinity while Nikon builds their focus rings to rotate in the opposite direction towards infinity.

The problem is that enforcement of breaking the regulation is so non-existent that the criminals just place millions of calls knowing, at most, they might get a minor slap on the wrist that can be budgeted for as a "cost of doing business".

Every single call carried across the phone network is billed, and every hop along the path knows who to bill for their part of carrying the call. The billing system is the method to trace back to the originators, and then apply a fine sufficiently large enough to no longer be a cost of doing business.

But the regulators seem to have no idea that the billing system provides the traceability to find the criminals and then go after them. Instead we get things like stir/shaken that are trying to patch "authenticity" on top of a network never designed with that in mind.

Now, granted, correlation is not always causation. But it sure stinks of something Meta had their lobbyists push just after Zuck's testimony so as to shift the liability risk of handling age appropriate material away from Meta properties and onto operating systems (Microsoft, Apple, Google (Android)).

If the intent were to actually protect children, then this would be what was done.

"Protect the children" is just a subterfuge to get electorate support for voting for the foundation for a "1984 thought crime" style monitoring of the internet.

> Maybe the term has evolved to the point where I’ve been left behind, but I think it’s more likely that the term has been adopted by people who don’t know the history behind it.

The marketing team picked it up as the latest fad to fan, and once marketing picks up a term to use it to advertise, that term is lost forever as to its actual original meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_1999

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adding_machine

"Subtraction was impossible, except by adding the complement of a number (for instance, subtract 2.50 by adding 9,997.50)."

A few fancier ones could multiply, but they would do so by repeating an addition some number of repetitions. Nearly all output their results on a paper tape much like "store receipts" today, only printed in ink instead of via thermal transfer paper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power#Resistive_circu...

Advertising company (Doubleclick [1]) wants phone numbers to better target ads. No surprise there.

[1] The company currently calling itself Google is not the same Google as yesteryear. In 2008 Google purchased Doubleclick, and what happened is that the advertising rot from Doubleclick ate Google from the inside out. What we have now calling itself Google is actually all the evil that was Doubleclick, only calling itself Google. That's why the Google motto no longer includes "Don't be evil".

At least for my state, the emissions test a car has to pass is whatever it was supposed to have passed when it was fresh off the assembly line. So older cars do not have to pass stricter newer standards that newer cars have to pass.

Now, granted, wear and tear will eventually result in an older car not passing its original standard, but at least the standard it has to pass is fixed, rather than a moving target.

This is because all lenders require title insurance as a requirement for receiving the loan monies. So for almost all buyers they have no choice, their bank/credit union that is actually putting up most of the money forces it upon them.

The article explained why. Since 2018 in the US, due to the proliferation of giant trucks being used as passenger vehicles (SUV's) backup cameras have been mandatory safety equipment. A backup camera requires a screen. So the automakers have to install a screen in the dashboard.

It is only a few dollars more to install a "touch screen" vs. a "basic display screen", and with the addition of those few dollars to the screen, that touch screen can now replace hundreds of dollars of physical buttons and their necessary wiring.

Net result, the BOM cost of the car drops by several hundred dollars, and the cost to assemble drops by some measurable amount as well.

So they why is: "because they save the automakers BOM and assembly costs".

The term for when the press "gets it wrong" is Gell-Mann Amnesia (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_effect).

In that case, when you have personal knowledge of the facts, or know the specific domain area, you can see where the reporter mixed things up.

AI is no different, it's just a bunch of matrix math substituting for "the reporter" regurgitating what it was previously told. So the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect would apply just the same. If you have domain knowledge, you immediately see where the AI got it wrong. When you do not have domain knowledge, you have less chance of seeing where the AI was wrong.