Rekall is a company that provides memory implants of vacations, where a client can take a memory trip to a certain planet and be whoever they desire.
While I am aware that it’s a common crypto shill term, I think by this point crypto has fallen out of the mainstream, so their usage of terms doesn’t really matter.
And as others have pointed out, the term FUD has been used at least since the birth of WWW/modern internet.
Isn’t the show unrelated to the books beyond the setting and some characters?
No, there isn’t.
I would love if there was, but beyond basic use cases, Excel is significantly ahead of the competition.
For what it’s worth, HEVC seems to have much better hardware support than AV1.
AV1 encodes are also extremely rare when it comes to unofficial content releases.
Because Snap has less resources for a long legal fight than Google, Amazon and so on…
I’m curious on what your solution to the Nvidia problem is? Just stop selling to the market whose sales increased? Then the next, and the next?
For one, you need to understand whether Nvidia is acting in good faith or not. If they are not, then one needs to create legal incentives for them to start acting in good faith.
A basic evaluation of sales dynamics is done irrespective of sanctions (remember how the example I described was tied to defining a functional bonus system). Nvidia has an understanding of their sales flow into Singapore. If you have a long standing partner that sees an increase in shipments that aligns with internal demand forecast (which are developed anyways), there is no red flag.
If you suddenly have an unknown entity placing orders larger than the total sales in Singapore for the last quarter. That is a clear red flag. You need to ask them who their end-customers are and whether they have validated that their own end-customers aren’t working on sanction workarounds. If they don’t cooperate, then you blacklist the entity and owners and don’t send them any more shipments.
If Nvidia (or a suspicious new distributor) isn’t doing, then they are acting in bad faith.
And it’s already been pointed out that the Ubiquiti hardware in question requires no activation at all. In fact I don’t believe any Ubiquiti hardware inherently needs internet, never mind activation.
That’s why my example referred to a competitor of Ubiquiti (i.e. you don’t actually need activation data to run the calculations as described in my reply to you).
What outlined is just one tool in a toolkit that is regularly used outside of any sanction compliance.
Sales (especially for high-margin high tech items) isn’t done an intuition basis since as far back as the 60s/70s. With modern tech you can very much track your sales flow and identify suspicious sources that are almost certainly working on sanctions work around.
It’s all a matter of motivation (and lack of incentives).
I curious, do you have any information to suggest Ubiquiti has been acting in good faith?
Here is a high-level discussion:
https://piefed.social/comment/9903594
But going beyond that, forgot about Ukraine for a second.
Let’s say you are a competitor of Ubiquiti and you want to develop a bonus structure for your regional teams. You want to know the return on your marketing spend, how well the regional sales teams are developing relationships with retailers, B2B and other source of revenues.
To do that you need to know your real market share. You know your own numbers, but if share is a component of your bonus structure, you need to have accurate numbers for your competition (your sales going up by 15% is a massive failure if the rest of the regional market truly grew by 30%, it means your teams are failing).
To do that, you have several source of data. Roughly speaking you have two basic measures ([1], [2]):
That being said, you have situations where ([1] - [2]) clearly does not equal anything close to even the highest estimates of [3]. That’s when you know shipments into a region are actually being diverted into another country (other countries?).
If the difference between ([1] - [2]) and [3] for your competitor is huge, you want adjust this in your regional market share calculations and bonus payouts. Because otherwise your regional team might be busting ass like no tomorrow and their performance is being undercounted because your competitor is not actually selling a large part of [1] in the given region, the units are going elsewhere.
Believe it or not, this can be a very sensitive topic. People tend to get very pissed off if their bonuses are impacted (especially if they work hard to grow their regional business).
And that’s if you don’t have access to Ubiquiti datasets; our thought experiment positions us as a company that is trying understand shipment to POS/sales transactions for our competitor; Ubiquiti.
If you are Ubiquiti, I assume (this was true in tech product segments where I have worked) you also have the benefit of being able to track geographic activation of your products (I am assuming it’s possible to update Ubiquiti devices?) and potentially their serial numbers; so you can track which shipments are being diverted to which geography. With some more work and tracking, you can figure out what’s going.
There are some other approaches to triangulation that are used that I am not going to cover here (assuming you are a competitor of Ubiquiti).
Do you see why I said what I did?
I understand. Nor am I naive enough to think it’s even possible to completely address money laundering or sanction workarounds.
It’s almost certain they have a lackadaisical (if not out right malicious) approach to limiting shipments that end up in russia. I am genuinely curious, is there a reason to believe otherwise?
There’s almost no way to control that
That’s not really true. If they wanted to, they could massively decrease the level of shipments that reach the russians. It’s not a priority for Ubiquiti.
It’s like with money laundering, it’s very difficult to control (I am talking in a general sense). Yet you’ll find that enabling money laundering for drug cartels is treated relatively seriously by major western financial institutions.
I hate that too.
I didn’t know that the “The Man in the High Castle” (supposed to be based on a novel by Philip K. Dick) show was just about the setting and they came up with their own story. I was so pissed off after watching the first episode.
I was actually wondering why they even went with “The Man in the High Castle” since it’s a strange and superficially depressing novel (even by the standards of PKD). There are much better choices for a series or a movie based on PKD’s work.
That’s why I didn’t bother with the Foundation series (I am a big Asimov fan). I don’t mind a re-interpretation of a literary work, but it has to be creative and mind bending while conceptually (and philosophically?) engaging with the themes from the literary work.