Connect with us

Technology

Sony Movie Channel has been renamed Great! But how? And why?! | Movies

Published

on

As of this week, the Sony Movie Channel is no more. A staple of the Freeview era of television, the SMC and its spin-offs have allowed viewers to enjoy half-decent cinema, in their own home, free, for years. But now the channel has come to an end. Instead, the future is Great!

Great! Movies is the name of the new channel that is to replace the old channel but will show the same films in the same place. There will be similarly rebranded siblings too – Great! Movies Action and Great! Movies Classic but not Great! Movies Asshole! Thanks to its agenda-setting break with syntax and the attendant suggestion of a complete critical lobotomy, Great! Movies has all the hallmarks of a swift right hook from modernity.

The immediate question, with or without the addition of several exclamation marks, would be: why? Why would you ditch a name synonymous with cinema for something that could be anything from a brand of dog food to a type of scouring pad? What Great! strategy is at work?

In a word … rebrand logos.
In a word … rebrand logos. Photograph: Narrative

It’s not like the channel is struggling. “It’s one of those things that if you don’t watch them you assume no one else does, but actually the audience for the Sony Movie Channel is quite big,” says Tom Harrington, a TV expert at the research company Enders Analysis. On average, just under a million people in the UK watch at least three minutes of the channel a day, which is more than Comedy Central or Cartoon Network and about half the audience of Dave. Over the past year, its most popular films have been Die Hard with a Vengeance, a Jason Statham vehicle called Homefront in which James Franco plays a Louisiana meth baron, and Pretty Woman.

“I’d say about 70% of their audience is over 55,” Harrington says. “That’s pretty old. But the audience has been stable over the past few years. And one thing about an older audience is that they’re less likely to be recording, watching it later and fast-forwarding the ads.” As a free-to-air channel SMC is dependent on ads and, like many similar channels, it runs short news bulletins in the middle of its films to allow it to get around OfCom rules limiting the amount you can show an hour.

Sony Movie Channel appears to be doing a fair job of channelling Sony movies to the public and making money off the back of it. As far as the TV audience is concerned, a new name is unlikely to do much more, according to Harrington. “Maybe it will catch people’s eyes on the EPG,” he says, “but most viewers are going to look up what is actually on rather than the name of the channel.”

Brand consultant Cara Bendon isn’t exactly persuaded by Great! either. She describes the name as “fairly generic” and says it “doesn’t feel like a considered, consumer-focused choice” but more like a decision driven by business concerns. “If you want your name to make people believe you’re great, it needs to sound aspirational,” she says. “The word ‘Great’ and the exclamation mark have a more dated, nostalgic feel, reminiscent of top 10 lists of films.”

So what is going on? At this stage it should be pointed out that Great! is under new ownership. Earlier this month Sony sold its UK TV channels to a US investment firm called Narrative Capital. A company which invests in “the entire life cycle and global distribution of intellectual property”, Narrative has bought the channels and licensed the same content – everything from the Sony movie library, plus a load of TV shows – but decided to give it a new name.

A nod and a wink … The Graduate is Great!
A nod and a wink … The Graduate is Great! Photograph: Narrative

Narrative Entertainment’s chief executive, Daniel Levin, suggests the name is a “wink, a nod to an old friend”. “If you asked me what Rambo or Blade Runner 2049 or The Graduate have in common,’” he says, “I’d say: they’re great!”

Levin explains Great! values in other, similarly difficult to quite get on board with formulations, but he also acknowledges that, yes, the Great! channels are likely to be relaunched as an advertising-funded video on demand service and that, yes, those services will probably be made available to more countries than just the UK. With that in mind, there are only so many names that work on TV, on an app, with old and young people, in Sweden as well as Swindon. And superlatives work harder than most.

“Over one in two adults aged 16 or over watched this portfolio in 2020,” Levin says, eventually explaining his investment. “We’ve zeroed on in on this [business] because we think it’s a terrific springboard and a wonderful way to connect with lovers of film and entertainment. It’s not for a lack of seeing what’s out there. We’re very excited by the opportunity.”

It comes to something when you’re pining for the days of channels being named after a good, old-fashioned Japanese electronics conglomerates, but at least the Sony Movie Channel meant something. As Bendon observes: “Sony’s name is synonymous with high quality technology.” (She also notes that Sony has a reputation for changing the names of its channels, and the previous name for the Sony Movie Channel was Movies4Men.) Now, the price of embracing a global digital future appears to be a name that is less a guarantee of quality and more a vague anaesthetised sentiment equivalent to the feeling you get when you find 50p down the back of the sofa. Such are the side-effects of progress.

Source link

Technology

Stripe rolls out new tax compliance tool for merchants

Published

on

Stripe Tax automates much of the calculating and collecting of levies like VAT and sales tax for businesses.

Fintech giant Stripe is rolling out a new product to automate businesses’ tax compliance.

Stripe Tax, which was built at the company’s engineering hub in Dublin, helps businesses to automatically calculate and collect sales taxes, VAT and goods and service taxes where they do business.

The product has been rolled out in 30 countries and all US states. Stripe Tax manages the requirements for tax collecting from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This ensures merchants are in compliance with local tax rules but without the headache of managing it themselves.

According to a 2020 report from Stripe, two-thirds of businesses say that managing tasks like tax compliance inhibits their growth and takes up time that could otherwise be spent on product development.

The matter of tax has become more complex with the mix of physical and digital goods and sales across borders.

Support Silicon Republic

Non-compliance with taxes, even through accidental oversight, can lead to serious sanctions or interest-laden tax bills for businesses.

Stripe Tax calculates taxes due by determining an end customer’s location and products they’re buying. It adapts as changes to tax regimes come into effect and generates reports for businesses on the levies calculated and collected.

“No one leaps out of bed in the morning excited to deal with taxes,” Stripe co-founder John Collison said. “For most businesses, managing tax compliance is a painful distraction. We simplify everything about calculating and collecting sales taxes, VAT and GST, so our users can focus on building their businesses.”

Large companies, including News UK, have started using the product.

“Directly integrating Stripe Tax into our subscriptions platform will save us countless hours, time that can be better spent elsewhere,” Ruan Odendaal, head of subscriptions platform at NewsUK, said.

Stripe has had a very busy 2021 so far. After raising funding at a $95bn valuation, it has been rolling out more services that go beyond the payments processing the company was originally built on, as well as expanding geographically with a focus on the Middle East.

Source link

Continue Reading

Technology

David Eagleman: ‘The working of the brain resembles drug dealers in Albuquerque’ | Neuroscience

Published

on

David Eagleman, 50, is an American neuroscientist, bestselling author and presenter of the BBC series The Brain, as well as co-founder and chief executive officer of Neosensory, which develops devices for sensory substitution. His area of speciality is brain plasticity, and that is the subject of his new book, Livewired, which examines how experience refashions the brain, and shows that it is a much more adaptable organ than previously thought.

For the past half-century or more the brain has been spoken of in terms of a computer. What are the biggest flaws with that particular model?
It’s a very seductive comparison. But in fact, what we’re looking at is three pounds of material in our skulls that is essentially a very alien kind of material to us. It doesn’t write down memories, the way we think of a computer doing it. And it is capable of figuring out its own culture and identity and making leaps into the unknown. I’m here in Silicon Valley. Everything we talk about is hardware and software. But what’s happening in the brain is what I call livewire, where you have 86bn neurons, each with 10,000 connections, and they are constantly reconfiguring every second of your life. Even by the time you get to the end of this paragraph, you’ll be a slightly different person than you were at the beginning.

In what way does the working of the brain resemble drug dealers in Albuquerque?
It’s that the brain can accomplish remarkable things without any top-down control. If a child has half their brain removed in surgery, the functions of the brain will rewire themselves on to the remaining real estate. And so I use this example of drug dealers to point out that if suddenly in Albuquerque, where I happened to grow up, there was a terrific earthquake, and half the territory was lost, the drug dealers would rearrange themselves to control the remaining territory. It’s because each one has competition with his neighbours and they fight over whatever territory exists, as opposed to a top-down council meeting where the territory is distributed. And that’s really the way to understand the brain. It’s made up of billions of neurons, each of which is competing for its own territory.

You use this colonial image a lot in the book, a sense of the processes and struggles of evolution being fought out within the brain itself.
That’s exactly right. And I think this is a point of view that’s not common in neuroscience. Usually, when we look in a neuroscience textbook, we say here are the areas of the brain and everything looks like it’s getting along just fine. It belongs exactly where it is. But the argument I make in the book is, the only reason it looks that way is because the springs are all wound tight. And the competition for each neuron – each cell in the brain to stay alive against its neighbours – is a constantly waged war. This is why when something changes in the brain, for example, if a person goes blind, or loses an arm or something, you see these massive rearrangements that happen very rapidly in the brain. It’s just as the French lost their territory in North America because the British were sending more people over.

brain waves in rem sleep
Brain waves during REM sleep. Photograph: Deco/Alamy

One of the great mysteries of the brain is the purpose of dreams. And you propose a kind of defensive theory about how the brain responds to darkness.
One of the big surprises of neuroscience was to understand how rapidly these takeovers can happen. If you blindfold somebody for an hour, you can start to see changes where touch and hearing will start taking over the visual parts of the brain. So what I realised is, because the planet rotates into darkness, the visual system alone is at a disadvantage, which is to say, you can still smell and hear and touch and taste in the dark, but you can’t see any more. I realised this puts the visual system in danger of getting taken over every night. And dreams are the brain’s way of defending that territory. About every 90 minutes a great deal of random activity is smashed into the visual system. And because that’s our visual system, we experience it as a dream, we experience it visually. Evolutionarily, this is our way of defending ourselves against visual system takeover when the planet moves into darkness.

Another mystery is consciousness. Do you think we are close to understanding what consciousness is and how it’s created?
There’s a great deal of debate about how to define consciousness, but we are essentially talking about the thing that flickers to life when you wake up in the morning. But as far as understanding why it happens, I don’t know that we’re much closer than we’ve ever been. It’s different from other scientific conundrums in that what we’re asking is, how do you take physical pieces and parts and translate that into private, subjective experience, like the redness of red, or the pain of pain or the smell of cinnamon? And so not only do we not have a theory, but we don’t really know what such a theory would look like that would explain our experience in physical or mathematical terms.

You predict that in the future we’ll be able to glean the details of a person’s life from their brains. What would that mean in terms of personal privacy and liberty?
Oh, yeah, it’s going to be a brave new world. Maybe in 100 years, maybe 500, but it’ll certainly happen. Because what we’re looking at is a physical system that gets changed and adjusted based on your experiences. What’s going on with the brain is the most complex system we’ve ever come across in our universe but fundamentally it’s physical pieces and parts and, as our computational capacities are becoming so extraordinary now, it’s just a countdown until we get there. Do we get to keep our inner thoughts private? Almost certainly we will. You can’t stick somebody in a scanner and try to ask them particular kinds of questions. But again, this will happen after our lifetime, so it’s something for the next generations to struggle with.

Do you think in the future that we’ll be able to communicate just by thinking?
Communication is a multi-step process. And so in answering your questions, I have many, many thoughts. And I’m getting it down to something that I can say that will communicate clearly what I intend. But if you were to just read my thoughts and say, “OK, give me the answer,” it would be a jumble of half-sentences and words and some random thought, like, Oh, my coffee is spilling. It’s like you wouldn’t want to read somebody’s book that hasn’t been polished by them over many iterations, but instead is burped out of their brain.

elon musk with the surgical robot from his august 2020 neuralink presentation
Elon Musk with the surgical robot from his August 2020 Neuralink presentation. Photograph: Neuralink/AFP/Getty Images

What are your views on Elon Musk’s Neuralink enterprise, which is developing implantable brain-machine interfaces?
There’s nothing new about it insofar as neuroscientists have been putting electrodes in people’s brains for at least 60 years now. The advance is in his technology, which is making the electrodes denser and also wireless, although even that part’s not new. I think it will be very useful in certain disease states, for example, epilepsy and depression, to be able to put electrodes directly in there and monitor and put activity in. But the mythology of Neuralink is that this is something we can all use to interface faster with our cellphones. I’d certainly like to text 50% faster, but am I going to get an open-head surgery? No, because there’s an expression in neurosurgery: when the air hits your brain, it’s never the same.

You didn’t start out academically in neuroscience. What led you there?
I majored in British and American literature. And that was my first love. But I got hooked on neuroscience because I took a number of philosophy courses. I found that we’d constantly get stuck in some philosophical conundrum. We’d spin ourselves into a quagmire and not be able to get out. And I thought, Wow, if we could understand the perceptual machinery by which we view the world, maybe we’d have a shot at answering some of these questions and actually making progress. When I finally discovered neuroscience, I read every book in the college library on the brain – there weren’t that many at the time – and I just never looked back.

How can we maximise our brain power, and what do you do to switch off?
There’s this myth that we only use 10% of our brain that, of course, is not true. We’re using 100% of our brain all the time. But the way information can be digested and fed to the brain can be very different. I think the next generation is going to be much smarter than we are. I have two small kids, and any time they want to know something, they ask Alexa or Google Home, and they get the answer right in the context of their curiosity. This is a big deal, because the brain is most flexible when it is curious about something and gets the answer. Regarding switching off, I never take any downtime and I don’t want to. I have a very clear sense of time pressure to do the next things. I hope I don’t die young, but I certainly act as though that is a possibility. One always has to be prepared to say goodbye, so I’m just trying to get everything done before that time.

Livewired by David Eagleman is published by Canongate (£9.99). To support the Guardian order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply

Source link

Continue Reading

Technology

Excuse me, what just happened? Resilience is tough when your failure is due to a ‘sequence of events that was almost impossible to foresee’

Published

on

Feature When designing systems that our businesses will rely on, we do so with resilience in mind.

Twenty-five years ago, technologies like RAID and server mirroring were novel and, in some ways, non-trivial to implement; today this is no longer the case and it is a reflex action to procure multiple servers, LAN switches, firewalls, and the like to build resilient systems.

This does not, of course, guarantee us 100 per cent uptime. The law of Mr Murphy applies from time to time: if your primary firewall suffers a hardware failure, there is a tiny, but non-zero, chance that the secondary will also collapse before you finish replacing the primary.

If you have a power failure, there is a similarly micro-tangible likelihood that the generator you have tested weekly for years will choose this moment to cough stubbornly rather than roaring into life. Unless you are (or, more accurately, the nature of your business is) so risk-averse that you can justify spending on more levels of resilience to reduce the chance of an outage even further (but never, of course, to nothing).

There are occasions, though, where planning for failure becomes hard.

Let us look at a recent example. In July 2020, the main telco in Jersey had a major outage because of a problem with a device providing time service to the organisation’s network. The kicker in this event was that the failed device did not fail in the way we are all used to – by making a “bang” noise and emitting smoke; had it done so, in fact, all would have been well as the secondary unit would have taken over.

Impossible

No, this was a more devious kind of time server which only part-failed. It kept running but started serving times from about 20 years in the past (by no coincidence at all this was the factory default time setting), thus confusing network infrastructure devices and causing traffic to stop flowing.

Customer dissatisfaction was palpable, of course, but as an IT specialist one does have to feel something for the company’s technical team: how many of us would ever consider, as a possible failure case, something that the technical chief described quite correctly as a “sequence of events that was almost impossible to foresee”?

(Incidentally, in a somewhat more good-news story, stepping back a moment to our point about extra layers of resilience, the same company had previously survived three offshore cables being severed… by having a fourth).

Could monitoring tools have been put in place to see issues like this when they happen? Yes, absolutely, but the point is that to do so one would first need to identify the scenarios as something that could happen. In the sense of risk management, this type of failure – very high impact but infinitesimally unlikely – is the worst possible kind for a risk manager. There are theories and books about how one can contemplate and deal with such risks, the best-known of which is probably Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book The Black Swan, which talks of just this kind of risk, but if you want to try to defend against the unexpected then at the very least you need to sit down with a significant number of people in a highly focused way, preferably with an expert in the field to guide and moderate, and work on identifying such possible “black swan” events.

While the black swan concept is most definitely a thing to bear in mind, there is in fact a far more common problem with systems that we consider resilient – a failure to understand how the resilience works.

One particular installation at a company with an office and two data centres had point-to-point links in a triangle between each premises, and each data centre had an internet connection. The two firewalls, one in each data centre, were configured as a resilient pair, and worked as such for years. One day internet service went down, and investigation showed that the secondary unit had lost track of the primary and had switched itself to become the primary. Having two active primaries caused split traffic flows, and hence an outage.

Predictable

In hindsight, this was completely predictable. The way the primary/secondary relationship was maintained between the devices was for the primary to send a “heartbeat” signal to the secondary every few seconds; if the secondary failed to receive the heartbeat three times, it woke up and acted as a primary. Because the devices were in separate data centres, they were connected through various pieces of technology: a LAN patch cord into a switch, into a fibre transceiver, into a telco fibre, then the same in reverse at the other end.

A fault on any one of those elements could cause the network devices to reconfigure their topology to switch data over the other way around the fibre triangle – with the change causing a network blip sufficiently long to drop three heartbeats. In fact, the only approved configuration for the primary/secondary interconnection was a crossover Ethernet cable from one device to the other: the failover code was written with the assumption that, aside perhaps from a highly unlikely sudden patch cord fault, the primary becoming invisible to the secondary meant that the former had died.

Many of us have come across similar instances, where something we expected to fail over has not done so. It’s equally common, too, to come across instances where the failover works OK but then there are issues with the failback, which can be just as problematic. I recall a global WAN I once worked on where, for whatever reason, failovers from primary to secondary were so quick that you didn’t notice any interruption (the only clue was the alert from the monitoring console) but there was a pause of several seconds when failing back.

In the firewall example, even when connectivity was restored the devices would not re-synch without a reboot: remember, the only supported failure scenario was the primary dying completely, which meant that it was only at boot time that it would check to see which role its partner was playing so it could act accordingly. Until someone turned it off and back on again, there was no chance that the problem would go away.

To make our resilient systems truly resilient, then, we need to do three things.

First, we should give some thought to those “black swan” events. It may be that we cannot afford masses of time and effort to consider such low-probability risks, but at the very least we should take a conscious decision on how much or how little we will do in that respect: risk management is all about reasoning and making conscious decisions like that.

Expertise

Second, if we don’t have the knowledge of the precise way our systems and their failover mechanisms work, we must engage people who do and get the benefit of their expertise and experience… and while we’re at it, we should read the manual: nine times out of ten it will tell us how to configure things, even if it doesn’t explain why.

Finally, though, we need to test things – thoroughly and regularly. In our firewall example all potential failure modes should have been considered: if a failure of one of a handful of components could cause an outage, why not test all of them? And when we test, we need to do it for real: we don’t just test failover in the lab and then install the kit in a production cabinet, we test it once it’s in too.

This may need us to persuade the business that we need downtime – or at least potential downtime to cater for the test being unsuccessful – but if management have any sense, they will be persuadable that an approved outage during a predictable time window with the technical team standing by and watching like hawks is far better than an unexpected but entirely foreseeable outage when something breaks for real and the resilience turns out not to work.

Testing

Oh, and when you test failover and failback, run for several days in a failed-over state if you can: many problems don’t manifest instantly, and you will always learn more in a multi-day failover than in one that lasts only a couple of minutes. Bear in mind also the word “regularly” that I used alongside “thoroughly”. Even if we know there has been no change to a particular component, there may well be some knock-on effect from a change to something else. Something that used to be resilient may have become less resilient or even non-resilient because something else changed and we didn’t realise the implication – so regular resilience testing is absolutely key.

Because if something isn’t resilient, this will generally not be because of some esoteric potential failure mode that is next to impossible to anticipate and/or difficult or impossible to test. Most of the time it will because something went wrong – or something was configured wrongly – in a way you could have emulated in a test. ®

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates 
directly on your inbox.

You have Successfully Subscribed!