Not necessarily. The granularity matters and the clock/log accuracy matters.

[SNIP]

08:08:42.999 Engine 1 fuel switch flips to CUTOFF

08:08:43.000 Engine 2 fuel switch flips to CUTOFF

[SNIP]

. . . is essentially "simultaneously" . . .

[SNIP]

And if the accuracy was +-1/1000sec OR +-100/sec (not uncommon for a log)?

Name 'em

Interesting take, but I must disagree. LLMs are not expert systems. Expert systems have existed for a while now. They are made by "translating" (human) experts' real-world experience into decision trees. IIRC examples include railroad routing and (nuclear) power plant operational safety control.

Many people, including me, having been saying this over and over again. Calling this stuff AI is just not correct. The outputs based on LLM are just unqualified/unverified correlations. Correlation does not equal causation!

Hmm . . . You might be right. I went back to the announcement:

Can I use my Skype credit? Skype Credits can be used for calling. Starting April 3, 2025, automatic top up services will no longer be available. After May 2025, the Skype Dial Pad will be available to remaining paid users from the Skype web portal and within Teams Free, where you will continue to be able to use your subscription or Skype Credits.

That is confusing. Teams Free is free. So what credits? Anyone know more?

Sorry, but "contacts" != "contracts".

From the summary: "People can transfer Skype contacts and chat history to the company's Microsoft Teams . . . ." Do you think that is a typo?

Also, the MS announcement:

"Sign in to Microsoft Teams Free on any supported device using your Skype credentials and your contacts and chats will automatically be transferred." https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsupport.microsoft.com%2F...

"By logging in to Teams with a Skype account, chats and contacts will automatically appear in the app so you can quickly pick up where you left off."https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Fmicrosoft-365%2Fblog%2F2025%2F02%2F28%2Fthe-next-chapter-moving-from-skype-to-microsoft-teams%2F

Bingo!

Bingo! Trickle-down econ BS; and MBA outsourcing real work (factories etc.) to China etc. and outsourcing coding/programming to incompetent "monkeys” in India etc.; and deregulation of the insurance industry (bit me personally: no more reporting to Fed --> no more reporting systems).

IF you're helping to clarify THEN thanks.
ELSE
That's what I said. I started by pointing out that the article was wrong in claiming that Double-keyed Browser Caching "forces websites to maintain separate copies of shared resources". Websites only need one file that they can point to (public URL or private filesystem) . . . even if the browser (client) downloads more than once from the website (server).

I know that (tied to parent site / domain name). That means copies in the client browser cache. But, the websites only need one file that they can point to . . .

The storage argument "forces websites to maintain separate copies of shared resources" per domain is a red herring (BS). The websites already have separate directory trees (in CDN). Any shared resources can continue to be shared: just use symbolic links in website tree(s) to the shared resource(s) in CDN. Don't they do this already?

I cannot get a page? (Using eMatrix/uMatrix in Pale Moon) eMatrix/uMatrix: error message unknown domain?
"Failed to load website properly since html-load.com is blocked. Please allow html-load.com"
"This page could not be loaded properly due to incorrect / bad filtering rule(s) of adblockers in use. Please disable all adblockers to continue using the website, (click OK if you'd like to learn more)"
Loading Support

No. The suggestion is to just apply MS updates (or verify in-house) and NOT waste money on some 3rd party middleman company that fails.

This incident is precisely one of the scenarios where blockchain fails: just don't add the explosives to the ledger then final assembly then ship. This does NOT "require multiple actors working together to commit the fraud."

Thanks!

So, we mostly agree on the facts. But, the "tech[nician] in Lebanon" was not mentioned. The article said that at least two Hezbollah members suspected something was amiss with the devices. One of them could have been a/the technician. I’m just curious whether someone spilled the beans (first) or Hezbollah actually found out upon inspection (first).