What's a tech term you hate?

[IPD]

On 11/5/2021 at 3:29 AM, Aderalia said:

Products being labeled "pro" even they are clearly intended for users that could be farther away from being a professional. Same with "enterprise grade". Most of the time its just marketing bs...

 

 

Sony single-handedly should be making it illegal to call any other phone than this one... "pro".  And their last "pro" was also sublime--though even pricier.

[Gork]

10 hours ago, tikker said:

Wikipedia continues with "A person who plays a musical instrument is known as an instrumentalist". You don't play your Sonus Faber's. They only reproduce sound. Granted, if you hit them with a stick they become percussive instruments.

 

Definitions in the Oxord and Cambridge dictionaries also imply headphones aren't instruments:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

  

What's the gripe with these, as that's literally what they are?

Curious about this one as well. Are you annoyed that the GPU is technically the chip on the board?

Huh...I hadn't thought about why it annoyed me till now.  The GPU, or brain to the card is part of it. The other part is friends of the family are looong since retired computer engineres. They got into the world gaming, and javascript, and webgl. They'd refer to everything by the engineering and technical name. Rather than it's common name. I think that part of it is why I get frustrated.

I also tend to think of a GPU, has that chip from back in the day that might get added to motherboards  that tried to do 3D stuff. When I say back in the day I'm thinking 90s when their was a lot of experimenting. A GPU (as just a chip) might get included as a seperate part of the motherboard. I don't remember if that before pentium 1s and 8085  and 8086 CPUs on the PC world got phased out or not.

Sufficed to say I now just smirk and cringe at calling common graphics card as GPU. because guys who (literally) wrote books on converting asembler into C. Calling anything 3D related as "the GPU". 

 

My main issue with E and P cores for now is that's from apple land and, for now, kind of silly marketing. Only because that type of chip enginnering  hasn't matured (yet). It has a lot of potential though

 

I'll also add in "prosomer" "AI enhanced" as jargon heavy tech sounding words.  that as far as I can tell don't meen anything meaningful.

[Gork]

Smart stuff is losing it's meaning for marketing as well. I have a "smart watch" that is just a digitial watch with a camera, and can send calls through it. which reeeely cool.  But it's not smart. 

[Bombastinator]

13 hours ago, Gork said:

Smart stuff is losing it's meaning for marketing as well. I have a "smart watch" that is just a digitial watch with a camera, and can send calls through it. which reeeely cool.  But it's not smart. 

I’m not sure there was ever smart anything.  

[HanZie82]

37 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I’m not sure there was ever smart anything.  

Yeah.

Smart TV

Smart phone

Smart watch

they are not smart, or smarter.

They just have added functionality.

Putting Bluetooth on your watch doesn't make it smart, having an agenda and web-browser on your phone or TV doesn't make it smart.

Granted it makes them less useless.

 

It's just because people are dumbing down, having smart-appliances maybe makes them think they are smart.

[Togglesun]

 Maybe Radeon Pro cards? 

[XGoodGuyFitz]

2 minutes ago, Caroline said:

It's kinda so they can spy on you better.

 

I don't watch TV, but if I did and went to buy a new one and found that they're all "smart" boy I'd be mad. I know, could get a big monitor instead, but why? I want a TV, not a monitor. It's merely an example.

and a big monitor, especially tv size will probably be more money anyways. 

[Bad5ector]

On Prem

[The_russian]

35 minutes ago, Bad5ector said:

On Prem

What’s wrong with the term On Prem? Just that it’s shortened, or…? 

[Bad5ector]

3 minutes ago, The_russian said:

What’s wrong with the term On Prem? Just that it’s shortened, or…? 

No reason. Just hate when it's used, usually by people who want to sound smarter (IE, non-tech managers). But, hey that's just me and I use it all the time as well (also usually to sound smarter lol).

[Bombastinator]

53 minutes ago, The_russian said:

What’s wrong with the term On Prem? Just that it’s shortened, or…? 

I have no idea what it means, but Prem strikes me as a proper name so I can see how this person could be highly annoyed by it.  Googling the word it seems to be an abbreviation used for both “premium” and premature infant.  Neither are tech terms though.  depending on the situation. There are a host of random acronyms but I could t find a tech one for that either.

 

”Perm” would be different.  There is something of a limitation to any electronic data permanence really. You can recognize if something was once a pot, even if it’s ground to sand an left in the desert for a thousand years.  We can read cuniform from the beginnings of civilization, We can read the graffiti of Roman soldiers. but a RW CD or dvd will soon be totally gone if it isn’t already.  That ink just fades. Permanent used to imply archival but not in computers. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Bad5ector]

@BombastinatorOn Prem = On Premises, IE, the Exchange server is "ON PREMises" and not the cloud.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, Bad5ector said:

@BombastinatorOn Prem = On Premises, IE, the Exchange server is "ON PREMises" and not the cloud.

So a third.  Interesting.  I very much like my data on prem myself. Or at least on A prem. I’m just a cloud hater though I accept that there are sometimes uses for such.

[Bad5ector]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

I’m just a cloud hater though I accept that there are sometimes uses for such.

Hey what is a cloud if not a server On-Prem somewhere else?? lol.  

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, Bad5ector said:

Hey what is a cloud if not a server On-Prem somewhere else?? lol.  

Well a server somewhere holding a (hopefully) encrypted blob. Until encryption dies. Encryption may already be dead and it’s just not popularly known.

[Bad5ector]

35 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Encryption may already be dead and it’s just not popularly known.

Scary to think that even some folks in Gov't think that getting rid of encryption is a good idea... what a world we live in.

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, Bad5ector said:

Scary to think that even some folks in Gov't think that getting rid of encryption is a good idea... what a world we live in.

My understanding is that quantum computing cuts through traditional encryption like butter, though there are limitations and difficulties.  This may be just a factor of my own ignorance on the subject.  Right Now there MIGHT be some other sort of encryption that can at least resist quantum computer cracking but I am not familiar with it.  (This says likely more about my limited understanding of the state of the art of such things than the actual state of the art of such things) What worries me is that the various pieces of quantum computing equipment have already been developed. So it wouldn’t surprise me at all if there is one that has been developed on a government level somewhere (China, the USA, and Russia would be the usual suspects but it could be almost any country) operating for years now cutting through supposedly inviolate things and slipping away.  The problem is such things almost always eventually become wide public knowledge.  It’s not a question of whether it’s a question of when.  The day of the challenger explosion I had already been told by a relative of someone who worked there that the bodies of the crew had been retrieved and they had drowned.  This was not wide public knowledge for years but it was eventually released. It was uncomfirmable for a long time.  A rumor.  

[InstantNewt]

27 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The day of the challenger explosion I had already been told by a relative of someone who worked there that the bodies of the crew had been retrieved and they had drowned.  This was not wide public knowledge for years but it was eventually released. It was uncomfirmable for a long time.  A rumor.  

Off topic, but the rumor was that they died in the explosion. Reports later indicated they were conscious until impact with the water. This was because NASA wanted the families to think they died instantly and without trauma. Drowning was never part of the discussion.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, InstantNewt said:

Off topic, but the rumor was that they died in the explosion. Reports later indicated they were conscious until impact with the water. This was because NASA wanted the families to think they died instantly and without trauma. Drowning was never part of the discussion.

I merely repeat what I was told that day.  Correct or not it was what I remember being said.  Grapevine communications of that sort are notorious for developing problems like that. An unconfirmed part of a thing.  

Edited November 8, 2021 by Bombastinator

[InstantNewt]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

I merely repeat what I was told that day.  Correct or not it was what I remember being said.

Yeah back then it was a game of telephone so I could definitely see that being said.

 

Back on your topic though, you're absolutely right that quantum computing has the potential to crack encryption as we know it. And I'm sure the government is extremely interested in quantum computing. I don't think they have quite that capability at the moment, but it's definitely on the horizon if it's not available today.

 

And even more on topic, I really hate the misuse of the term "AI". Most of the time they mean machine learning not true AI.

[Bad5ector]

49 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

My understanding is that quantum computing cuts through traditional encryption like butter, though there are limitations and difficulties.  

Well from my limited understanding on that topic, they would most likely have "quantum encryption" readily available by the time quantum computers are more mainstream.  Or at least I would hope so....

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, Bad5ector said:

Well from my limited understanding on that topic, they would most likely have "quantum encryption" readily available by the time quantum computers are more mainstream. 

The issue isn’t mainstream or not. The SR71 or the Goliath mainframe, or ultra/magic were never mainstream.  They had a profound effect on world events though.  They didn’t bother to decide every nazi message with the Goliath mainframe and ultra magic.  Just the important ones.  Nuclear weapons did become sort of mainstream after a fashion.  I remember seeing B1 bombers on wait status as a kid at the local airport.  They sat inside big red and yellow painted rings.  If a person crossed the yellow line they were immediatly arrested.  If the crossed inside the red ring they were immediately shot. 

[Bombastinator]

19 minutes ago, InstantNewt said:

Yeah back then it was a game of telephone so I could definitely see that being said.

 

Back on your topic though, you're absolutely right that quantum computing has the potential to crack encryption as we know it. And I'm sure the government is extremely interested in quantum computing. I don't think they have quite that capability at the moment, but it's definitely on the horizon if it's not available today.

 

And even more on topic, I really hate the misuse of the term "AI". Most of the time they mean machine learning not true AI.

The popular story is they don’t.  Before a U2 was brought down over the Soviet Union though the U2 didn’t exist either.  It’s real possible that functioning encryption breaking quantum computers don’t exist in any human hands yet.  If they do though it’s not a whether that will be discovered, but a when.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Bombastinator

[XGoodGuyFitz]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The popular story is they don’t.  Before a U2 was brought down over the Soviet Union though the U2 didn’t exist either.  It’s real possible that functioning encryption breaking quantum computers don’t exist in any human hands yet.  If they do though it’s not a whether that will be discovered, but a when.

Quantam computers do exist, and function, but not as powerful as they are made out to be as the technology is still super new. 

[Bombastinator]

27 minutes ago, XGoodGuyFitz said:

Quantam computers do exist, and function, but not as powerful as they are made out to be as the technology is still super new. 

This is also what I have been reading.  That’s the big question though: who if anyone has one powerful enough to break, or even just simplify, 256bit encryption. Because if a government has one announcing that they do would be counterproductive for them.  They would want to use it in secret as long as possible.