(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.
| *Noisytoot has quit (Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in) | Feb 14 00:25 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 00:26 | |
| *asusbox has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Feb 14 01:01 | |
| *asusbox (~rianne@rbnv8qskr8rgw.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 01:01 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 14 01:14 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 01:18 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 14 01:24 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 01:26 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://phanes.silogroup.org/frank-gingras-is-a-former-stalker-of-mine/ | Feb 14 03:35 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-phanes.silogroup.org | Frank Gingras is a Former Stalker of Mine – Phanes' Canon | Feb 14 03:35 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "what is ffii" | Feb 14 03:35 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Re: Help for corruption overlay | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > Hi Roy, | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > Could you help to overlay a text "corruption" over the following | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > Rijswijk photo: | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > https://is.gd/gWVkbB <https://is.gd/gWVkbB> | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > Or even better "EPO = corruption". | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > Like this kind: | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | > https://is.gd/eAlpAT <https://is.gd/eAlpAT> | Feb 14 03:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | the latter image is copyrighted and watermarked, so I used something else. | Feb 14 03:46 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-illustration-corruption-red-stamp-text-white-image43173337 ) | Feb 14 03:46 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 14 04:37 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 04:38 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 14 05:14 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 05:15 | |
| *psydruid has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 14 06:02 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:03] <Source> http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3414157.stm | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:03] <Source> chris is also part of this inner circle | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:05] <Source> http://faculty.kutztown.edu/rieksts/111-Sp16/text/poulsen/Q&A%2011-15.html | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:06] <schestowitz> let me see | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:07] <schestowitz> is that Kevin Poulsen? | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:07] <schestowitz> the one who burns sources? | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:07] <schestowitz> [Wednesday, 8 December 2021] [19:00:57 GMT]<Source> All right well I'll let you go and please don't share her name or address when you share the affidavit [Wednesday, 8 December 2021] [19:01:07 GMT]<Source> The mug shot should be available next week | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:07] <schestowitz> [Wednesday, 8 December 2021] [19:02:35 GMT]<schestowitz> excellent | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:07] <schestowitz> [Wednesday, 8 December 2021] [19:03:41 GMT]|Quit| | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:07] <schestowitz> [21:03] <Source> http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3414157.stm | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:08] <schestowitz> i might be missing some context? ^^ | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:43] <Source> I think I misread that it's not a prostitution ring | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:43] <schestowitz> [21:07] <schestowitz> the one who burns sources? | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:43] <schestowitz> [21:07] <schestowitz> [Wednesday, 8 December 2021] [19:00:57 GMT]<Source> All right well I'll let you go and please don't share her name or address when you share the affidavit [Wednesday, 8 December 2021] [19:01:07 GMT]<Source> The mug shot should be available next week | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:43] <schestowitz> [21:07] <schestowitz> [Wednesday, 8 December 2021] [19:02:35 GMT]<schestowitz> excellent | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:43] <schestowitz> [21:07] <schestowitz> [Wednesday, 8 December 2021] [19:03:41 GMT]|Quit| xxxx has left this server (Ping timeout: 2m30s). | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:43] <schestowitz> [21:07] <schestowitz> [21:03] <Source> http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3414157.stm | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:43] <schestowitz> [21:08] <schestowitz> i might be missing some context? ^^ | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:44] <schestowitz> that's what I got | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:44] <schestowitz> I think it's smoke but no fire TBH | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:44] <schestowitz> or some very distant link | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:44] <Source> It did sound like he was exploiting women but that means it's not the crime they wer[21:44] <Source> [15:15:04] xxxxxx Chris Toshoks is a friend of Nat's and Alex | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | [21:45] <Source> [15:15:10] xxxxxx: Works at honeycomb with charity majors[21:45] <Source> [15:15:23] xxxxxxx: Also a friend of Nat Friedman who threatened me [21:45] <Source> Chris's wife told me that they went to Nats house for a party during the pandemic | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | chris: | Feb 14 08:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://www.flickr.com/photos/lauradeicaza/60499874/ | Feb 14 08:16 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-newsimg.bbc.co.uk | BBC NEWS | Technology | FBI joins hunt for Half-Life code | Feb 14 08:16 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 400 @ https://faculty.kutztown.edu/rieksts/111-Sp16/text/poulsen/Q&A 11-15.html ) | Feb 14 08:16 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Flickr | Feb 14 08:17 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 14 09:44 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://rubenerd.com/time-discusses-successful-tech-failures/">Time magazine discusses successful tech failures</a></h5> | Feb 14 09:44 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 14 09:44 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>Most “bad tech” retrospectives are, at best, rehashes of the same dozen devices everyone posts. There’s also little incentive to dig deeper into why such devices failed when all you’re doing is filling space during a slow news day. But this 2017 Time article had some interesting thoughts among the cavalcade of regulars.</p> | Feb 14 09:44 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 14 09:44 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 14 09:44 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Rubenerd: Time magazine discusses successful tech failures | Feb 14 09:44 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 14 09:45 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://ntietz.com/blog/chess-com-servers-melting-why/">A systems design perspective on why chess.com's servers have been melting</a></h5> | Feb 14 09:45 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 14 09:45 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>Why not plan for universal adoption from the very beginning? Why not create something which can scale infinitely? Because it's usually too expensive. Making something that's infinitely scalable means that you need to have (effectively) infinite capacity, and servers have to be paid for somehow.</p> | Feb 14 09:45 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 14 09:45 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 14 09:45 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ntietz.com | A systems design perspective on why chess.com's servers have been melting | nicholas@web | Feb 14 09:45 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 14 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/maybe-people-do-care-about-performance-and/">Maybe people do care about performance and reliability</a></h5> | Feb 14 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 14 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>This doesn’t quite agree with my personal experience. I pay a lot of attention to people using computers in my daily life: clerks, receptionists, administrators, etc. And they’re pretty universally frustrated with how slow and unreliable their computers are. They’ll complain for hours if you give them the chance.</p> | Feb 14 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 14 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 14 09:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Feb 14 09:46 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-buttondown.email | Maybe people do care about performance and reliability • Buttondown | Feb 14 09:46 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | arsenal 7:30pm tomorrow... big game | Feb 14 10:35 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 14 11:56 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://rubenerd.com/derek-sivers-on-openbsd/">Derek Sivers on OpenBSD</a></h5> | Feb 14 11:56 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 14 11:56 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>Based on the email I’ve had, this was received poorly. Which sucks; even if you disagree with the merits of BSD, I was hoping the takeaway would be about fostering curiosity and fun with something you haven’t tried before.</p> | Feb 14 11:56 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 14 11:56 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 14 11:56 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Feb 14 11:56 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Rubenerd: Derek Sivers on OpenBSD | Feb 14 11:56 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 14 12:03 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/windows-11-year-and-half-review.html">Windows 11 - A year and a half later, still meh</a></h5> | Feb 14 12:03 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 14 12:03 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>It's been a year since I last "blogged" about Windows 11. Yeah, for most of the last year, I simply didn't care enough to bother using my test instance of this operating system, for this or that purpose, or to write any content, for that matter. I let it be, completely apathetic to its look, its appeal, and the future prospect and impact for the wider Windows audience.</p> | Feb 14 12:03 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 14 12:03 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 14 12:03 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Feb 14 12:03 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.dedoimedo.com | Windows 11 - A year and a half later, still meh | Feb 14 12:03 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 14 12:04 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2023/02/14/why-windows-11-still-sucks/">Why Windows 11 Still Sucks.</a></h5> | Feb 14 12:04 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 14 12:04 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>One of their unnecessary changes was the addition of a button called “Widgets”. Unlike the Windows Vista Widgets, this one has nothing to do with desktop Widgets.</p> | Feb 14 12:04 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>It instead resides on the taskbar and pops up a bunch of spam from MSN.</p> | Feb 14 12:04 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 14 12:04 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 14 12:04 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-baronhk.wordpress.com | Why Windows 11 Still Sucks. | BaronHK's Rants | Feb 14 12:04 | |
| *geert (~geert@6zkrukv62rbsn.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 12:15 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 14 12:24 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://mexiconewsdaily.com/real-estate/mexican-fintech-company-offers-mortgages-foreigners/">Mexican fintech company will offer digital mortgages to foreigners</a></h5> | Feb 14 12:24 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 14 12:24 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>Yave will be the first property technology company to offer a 100% digital mortgage in Mexico. It recently raised capital that will be allocated to improve the platform’s processes and customer service, according to Silva.</p> | Feb 14 12:24 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 14 12:24 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 14 12:24 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://mexiconewsdaily.com/real-estate/mexican-fintech-company-offers-mortgages-foreigners/ ) | Feb 14 12:24 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 12:41 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | psydruid: wb | Feb 14 12:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | psydruid: big game tomorrow | Feb 14 12:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <li> | Feb 14 12:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <h5><a href="https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1888663/lithuania-wants-eu-to-address-facebook-s-treatment-of-pro-ukraine-posts">Lithuania wants EU to address Facebook’s treatment of pro-Ukraine posts</a></h5> | Feb 14 12:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <blockquote> | Feb 14 12:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | <p>After meeting with Facebook representatives, Lithuania’s government chancellor says that she plans to raise the platform’s content moderation issue with the European Commission.</p> | Feb 14 12:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </blockquote> | Feb 14 12:53 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | </li> | Feb 14 12:53 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.lrt.lt | Lithuania wants EU to address Facebook’s treatment of pro-Ukraine posts - LRT | Feb 14 12:53 | |
| psydruid | schestowitz[TR2]: city vs ? | Feb 14 12:59 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | psydruid: arsensl vmancity | Feb 14 13:00 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | 8:30pm your time | Feb 14 13:00 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | city can go top of PL | Feb 14 13:00 |
| psydruid | oh, in the league | Feb 14 13:00 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | if it wiuns | Feb 14 13:00 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | with a game ahead | Feb 14 13:00 |
| psydruid | I thought it was about champions league | Feb 14 13:00 |
| psydruid | yeah | Feb 14 13:00 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | LFC will get hammered by RM | Feb 14 13:05 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | but LFC is finished anyway | Feb 14 13:05 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | club on slae | Feb 14 13:05 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | *Sale | Feb 14 13:05 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | like 10+ years ago when they tried to sell it to bill 'epstein' gates | Feb 14 13:05 |
| psydruid | they had their time in the sun after 30 years | Feb 14 13:21 |
| psydruid | and now it's over | Feb 14 13:21 |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Feb 14 13:50 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@e29ec4gtxas4w.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 13:55 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@cbcfptirpkfqa.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 14:51 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/02/11/concerns-about-deteriorating-patent-quality-at-the-epo/ | Feb 14 16:26 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Concerns about deteriorating patent quality at the EPO - Kluwer Patent Blog | Feb 14 16:26 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken! | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | FEBRUARY 11, 2023 AT 9:39 PM | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | In view of the massive criticism uttered by the IPQC, the patent quality charter of the EPO can only elicit a weary smile: | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://www.epo.org/about-us/services-and-activities/quality/policy.html | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | If everything announced in this document would correspond to the reality, the IPQC would not come with its very pointed proposals. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | It is manifest that the IPQC is not satisfied with the quality discussions in SACEPO. If this would be the case, their proposals would be redundant. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | That the quality of the work delivered by the EPO is going down does not come as a surprise. One has just to look regularly at decisions published by the BA. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The number of patents revoked is higher than the number of patents maintained in amended form. The number of rejections of oppositions is much lesser than the number of patents maintained or revoked. In the early days of the EPO, the proportion was for each category 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Nowadays it is more 40% maintenance, 45% revocation and 15% rejection. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | When the opponent brings novelty destroying patent literature and the search report mentions a lot of documents of the category X or A, it is difficult to claim that the search was optimal. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The same applies when the opponent brings forward prior art under Art 54(3), sometimes from the patentee itself. The number of cases in which an opposition is decided on the basis of documents which were not available in the search files (public prior use, PhD dissertations, catalogues etc.) is very low. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The number of cases where the opposition is rejected or the patent maintained in amended form and the patent is revoked at the end of the appeal procedure is dangerously increasing. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | In the early days of the EPO, the search was comprehensive and the examination as well. There was no piecemeal approach. Examiners had time to do their work properly. Nowadays quality at the EPO resumes itself to timeliness. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Looking at substantial procedural violations reveals that the two other members of the division, be it examination or opposition, often simply sign what has been proposed by the first examiner. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | How do you want to ensure that members of the examining/opposition divisions spend sufficient time together for every application/opposition to discuss the proposal of the entrusted examiner when the examiners are discouraged to come into the buildings of the EPO? The action started by upper management called “Bring teams together” has the opposite effect in spite of the name. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | How do you want to have a proper training when the initial training has been reduced to two years due to the 5 years contracts offered to examiners? How do you want to ensure continuous training when examiners only get a permanent job after two 5 years periods? As the examiners can be easily be fired for incompetence, which is not achieving ludicrous ever increasing targets, why should the EPO spend money on continuous training? | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | When you read the quality report of the EPO sent to the AC, it is full of very verbose prose which try to hide reality. The AC appears gullible, the IPQC is not. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | How do you want examiners to really have a common view, when OP are only held in form of ViCo and the members of the divisions can sit at different places? | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | By the way, what is the legal basis in the EPC allowing members of the deciding bodies, divisions of first instance or boards of appeal, to sit in different places during oral proceedings? I could not find one in the EPC. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The problem lies not only with the upper management of the EPO, it is also with the Administrative Council which nowadays simply rubber stamps the desiderata and wishes of the 10th floor. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Just two examples: | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The boards of appeal have been sent at a high cost to Haar a few years ago. Now they will come back to one of the buildings next to the Main Station. If the AC would carry out his job of controlling the office such a waste of money would not be approved. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The AC has accepted that examiners from national offices can come and work at the EPO. What is the legal basis for this? No delegation to the AC could give an answer. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Should the trend clearly discernible with oppositions translates in revocations or limitations of patents decided by the UPC, the big industry has to worry a lot. On the other hand the fees are there to clearly advantage patent holders. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | It appears right to start at the source, i.e. at the EPO, and not continuously accept the soothing words about quality uttered on the 10th floor. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | REPLY | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Concerned Whistleblower | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | FEBRUARY 12, 2023 AT 1:32 AM | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Maybe the IPQC would be interested to know that the pressure to reach more than 53K R71(3) communications before the end of May has gotten so high on line managers that they now routinely resort to instructing examiners not to spend more than a certain amount of hours on a search or examination action. Individual production is monitored on a bi-weekly basis at least. Time off work is discouraged. In the last weeks examiners are bei | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ng put under immense pressure to grant everything they can and put non-grants on hold in order to “overachieve “ the COO’s instructions. TM’s are clearly incentivised to reach these targets as their bonuses and grade and career advancements are made contingent on these being attained. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | In the most complex technical fields that routinely took 2.6 days per product (that’s the internal language for a final action in search or examination) in the last few years, it has been decided by management that they cannot be more than twice as slow as the fastest technical fields that currently require 1.1 days per product on average. In 2023 no team is allowed to be slower than 2.2 days per product. How an increase of 20% i | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | n speed for large swathes of the office (mainly in CII !) can lead to an increase in quality baffles the mind. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Above average is the new normal. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Examiners are being pressured to ignore non-important aspects such as non-essential clarity (whatever that is) or minor Art 123(2) objections (the applicant is responsible for the text) in order to further speed up the process. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The internal narrative is that most applicants never litigate anyway and that the scope of granted patents will thus mostly never be put up to the test. Because the number of filed oppositions is stable enough, management is satisfied that everything is fine. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | As always examiners are petrified of speaking up. Most are resigned and follow whatever instructions come from above in order to be left alone, hoping that they’ll make a better chance at maintaining their already diminished career perspectives at the cost of the future of the patent office and patent system. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Did I mention that sick leave is at an all-time high? | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | REPLY | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | law sniffer | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | FEBRUARY 12, 2023 AT 2:41 PM | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | I have the strong impression (almost certainty, I would say) that more and more examiners concentrate only on very formal aspects like description, unfounded non-clarity issues or lack of a literal basis for amendments, and not on the real substance of the applications. But not all of them, so I wonder whether the statistics above apply uniformly across the whole population of examiners, and I personally think this is not the case | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | because I see a pretty fixed pattern examiners-behaviours (and these “bad” behaviours come more often from people longer at the EPO, as far as I could meet them or notice the names). Sorry for telling this but you should also enquire your self or some of your colleagues before looking for causes somewhere else, we all have time and personnel issues but these must impact the least on our way of working, it is a matter of profess | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ionalism. And, again, I am convinced that your work conditions are surely not worse than ours, in spite of your recent changes: as an example, the flexibility after the pandemic that took some office space or the possibility to meet in person during hearings, as I understood, gives you the freedom to work at any time or day of the week from wherever you want (with some minimal limitations), this would everywhere else be considered | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | to surpass the downsides, but apparently not for you. And don’t start now with the usual expat stories, we all had to change city or country and most of you are from the country of employment or were already there before joining the EPO. Or asking why I am not applying at the EPO, because I could say the same about you if you are so unhappy there. Perhaps your management is really incompetent or pursues sometime interests other t | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | han the ones of their staff (also not to generalise though, exactly like for you examiners, and in any case I would not be so surprised in such a large semi-public organisation which on top has to balance the books at the end), but I have the impression that many examiners dont pursue the interest of the EPO either which is also quite serious, a typical attitude for me of an employee who works as a sort of permanent judge and has t | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ime to battle against any potentially negative work change. Again, some examiners (less and less, but still not so few) are, on the contrary, exemplary but I dont think that the attitude I am reading in these comments goes in the direction of reversing this trend. Seeing the incompetency of your managers or, in some cases, even their uselessness does not give you the permission to lower your commitment or the quality of your work w | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | hich to my opinion would not by magic surge if you get less actions to do in the year, because I am not sure at all that this additional time would end up in working time (maybe yes for the “good” examiners whose quality is already high, but not in the case of the “problematic” examiners). What should be done at the EPO is to have people who dont see the EPO or the applicants as “enemies”, but see them at least at the s | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ame level of the “public”, this can be done by recruiting (I see more and more people who should soon retire) and changing the “philosophy” of many examiners, which is very difficult at the EPO and the management does not seem to be up to it. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | REPLY | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Concerned observer | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | FEBRUARY 13, 2023 AT 10:34 AM | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | “Perhaps your management is really incompetent or pursues sometime interests other than the ones of their staff” | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Well, delete the word “sometime” and I might agree with you. There is ample evidence: consider, for example, the judgements of the ILO AT on breaches of fundamental rights, as well as the wildly inaccurate (and completely unjustifiable) assumptions in the 2019 “financial study” that the EPO has used as an excuse to suppress staff wages and benefits whilst simultaneously squirreling away large surpluses each year. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | By the way, I would encourage you to reflect on how “quality” at the EPO has evolved over the years. My experience is that, since the last decade, it has been on a steep decline. If there is any truth to comments from individuals such as “Concerned Whistleblower”, it is easy to see how the actions and policies of the EPO’s management could be directly responsible for that decline in quality. So why are you so keen to pin | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | the problems on “bad” examiners? | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | REPLY | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Please chose the right target | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | FEBRUARY 13, 2023 AT 10:40 AM | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | @ Law Sniffer | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Already in your comment of Feb 4th in the post “EPO consultation on EPC and PCT-EPO Guidelines” you showed very little understanding for examiners at the EPO. You continue here. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | You do not seem to have realised that the examiners are playing with the system exactly in the same way that the system plays with them. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Who could blame them. besides some people with very specific gripes, for whatever reason. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Examiners are as much aware about the interest of the EPO as the upper management does. Work changes are normal. What is happening at the EPO is a kind of Echternach’s procession: three steps forward and two steps backwards. For every improvement there is a high price to pay. This is wearing to say the least. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | When for instance, you are constantly told that new IT tools warrant as such an increase in production although they do not work as they should, is simply denying people any right to defend themselves. The situation is worse for formalities officers. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | When you get instructions, and this is not a recent occurrence, to limit the time spent for searching and go to grant as quickly as possible it shows the incompetence and uselessness of the “managers”. It is nothing new that decisions are taken by people who do not have the faintest idea of what the work consists of. That this cannot be without any consequences is pretty manifest. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | It is the management that forces staff to deliver a Smart when users of the system are paying for a Rolls. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Not the other way round. It is thus not a surprise that only few examiners can cope, but this is not a reason to bash on the other. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | In view of the situation you have every right to be dissatisfied, but it is not by hacking on those at the bottom line who are actually carrying out the work That big users of the system now officially complain about the quality delivered by the EPO should give you food for thoughts and not simply bash on examiners. Big users are not any longer gullible to what the upper EPO management repeats like a Tibetan praying mill turning in | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | the wind: our quality is excellent and our users are satisfied. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Where do you know that most of the examiners are from the country of employment or were already there before joining the EPO? This should actually alarm you as the mix of nationalities present in the early days is dwindling. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | In view of the conditions presently offered, people with professional experience and a family are not inclined to seek a job at the EPO when they have to sever every link with their national social care system and pension scheme. By recruiting people more or less directly from university it is no surprise that they do think that the grass is greener on the other side. But recruitment is a management policy. Do not blame the people | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | recruited. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The EPO is having difficulties in recruiting. A good scientist or engineer with a good knowledge of foreign languages does find other opportunities than to work for the EPO. And on top of this the training has been reduced by a third. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Experienced examiners are leaving the EPO as soon as they can afford it. Lots of excellent trainers are hence missing. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | You have here some examples of the fundamental problems which necessarily have a negative influence on quality. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Complain at the right place, but stop bashing examiners. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | REPLY | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Caballero | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | FEBRUARY 12, 2023 AT 11:04 PM | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | In 2022 EP grants were down 40% from 2020, approximately 1000 grants per week. Steady growth combined with a slow down in prosecution result in a growing backlog of pending files. How long can the EPS handle this? 50k files per year! | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | EP quality, labor disputes at the EPO, introduction of UP/UPC are under constant fire from one interest group or another, but if you cannot process files at a rate similar to that of entry, you’ve got a problem. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The EPO needs maintainable resources to handle existing and new files, structured for growth. Once the resources are in place, quality related objectives can be redefined or fine tuned. Trying to do this the other way around may require more time than the system can support. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | And there are no real options as most European national PTOs do not have the manpower to handle additional volume directly. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | RIP? | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | REPLY | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Concerned Whistleblower | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | FEBRUARY 13, 2023 AT 1:05 AM | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Dear law sniffer, | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | I’m terribly sorry that you’ve had to endure so many bad experiences with examiners in particular and the EPO in general. Most of my colleagues try to do right by the public and the applicants irrespective of management’s unreasonable constraints. They are truly putting themselves at the service of public and applicants. But I have to acknowledge that we also have bad apples. An organization with 4000+ examiners cannot avoid | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | this. It is management’s task to weed the bad apples out. But they don’t as most bad apples produces many many products. Instead they ask everyone to aspire to produce as much as the high producing bad apples. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Make no mistake, being given more flexibility to work from home is great. No one complains about that. But that does make the work plan more realistic. Nor does it mean that we should be working 60 hours a week in return. Most examiners are going the extra mile and doing an honest work. But for how long can they continue to abide by their professional standards without support or recognition? | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | What I can tell you from my own decade+ in this environment is this: | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | 1) The “better” examiners more concerned with the applicant, the substantial matter and the public service are overrepresented in “slow” technical fields. Correlation? Yes! Causation? Maybe not entirely, there are many professional and dedicated examiners in the fastest fields, but for the most part: yes! Reading takes time. Honest feature mapping takes time. Writing detailed opinions takes time. If you need to do all that | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | and the formal aspects for 15-30 claims with 3/4 prior art documents of 20 pages in less than day you’ll frequently run into trouble. Many examiners are therefore tempted to take the easy route and only adress the most obvious issues superficially. That’s human. But it is encouraged by internal performance metrics and 10% yearly target increases. Even if most people work more than 40hours a week and even more so since the flexi | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ble home working arrangements, at some point many realise that they can get away with crappy work in 40hours instead of good work in 50 or 60. Not everyone can be expected to be infallibly dedicated to the cause and put in ever increasing hours. Yes I’m sure you work more hours, but we joined the examiner side precisely because we did not want the 24/7 80 hour workweek of attorneys. (By the way, how does it work on your side? Do | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | you have targets and priorities? Who decides on your objectives? Honestly I’m curious to know how it works for you. ) | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | 2) There is a huge gap between Munich and The Hague. This dichotomy has always existed since the BEST times. It has however significantly grown in the last 5 years as the sites and technical fields have been de facto split in such a way that no effective substantial or procedural cross site communication between examiners exists anymore. No wonder that our sites diverge ever more in practice and apply different standards for qualit | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | y or inventive step. This is a pity as it creates added frustration and a feeling of arbitrariness of the decisions by the EPO. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | 3)Please bear in mind that pushing examiners like crazy over many years, as has been the case especially these last 5 years, will result in more burnouts and lesser quality in the long run. Already now burnouts are the number 1 cause of sick leave. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Don’t get me wrong we have to do our part in delivering pertinent and qualitative opinions and products. But the working environment must provide the necessary conditions for this. Constant management by fear and ever increasing targets cannot work out in the long run. Especially when there are no career prospects and no (human) recognition of the efforts. And everyone (on a permanent contract) is in for the long run. At some poi | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | nt everyone reaches their limit and just doesn’t care anymore. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | You might be wary to wish for more temporary 5 year contracts. I cannot see any path to increased work ethic with respect to substantial quality and pertinence in an organization mainly staffed with temporary contracts. They’ll do the numbers, but will they care about the quality ? After all they won’t depend on the continued success of the organization for the rest of their career or retirement! | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | 4) The AC wants more grants. The President wants less staff to reduce liabilities and costs. Both are fair and reasonable business goals. But, how can working towards both objectives in parallel work out fine for substantive quality? We’re only replacing 80% of examiners , yet our long term plan sets out stable or increasing amount of products. Is this sustainable? | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Oh, did I mention that the share of non-producing overhead staff (everyone but those dealing with the patent grant process directly) has doubled in the last decade? | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | REPLY | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | A quality problem at the EPO? You must be mistaken! | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | FEBRUARY 13, 2023 AT 4:27 PM | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Dear Concerned Whistleblower, | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | I can only support what you have said. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | It was a political decision of the then VP1 to consider that Munich and The Hague were on a par. He was a former search examiner in the predecessor of DG1, the Institut International des Brevets. He has never been confronted with examination. He even considered examination as a useless play with words. In spite of being debatable as such, searches should be as comprehensive and correct as possible. This is not the case anymore, and | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | for a long time. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Everybody knew that The Hague and Munich were not aligned and that there were big discrepancies. They have not diminished with time. In the early days of BEST, there were real exchanges between the two sites, but in view of the costs and time involved this was quickly put to an end. Sadly. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | It is also easier to go from examination to search than the other way round. The upper management, not even necessarily the president at the time, never accepted that during training examiners should have dealt first with examination rather than to start with search. Once you know how to examine you are better geared for searching, especially when the search is nowadays purely electronic. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Examiners in the first year only learn how to churn out a maximum of searches with an opinion and that is everything. They should bring about 80% as many searches as experienced examiners. As they do not have to deal with replies immediately, they can produce more searches. As such this is not wrong, but the support stops rather quickly after the first year, now the whole training is two years. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | When the replies come, then the problem starts. Inducing examiners to quickly grant easy files does not improve the situation as it means that difficult files will be left in the cupboard and will not disappear. The hope of the management is that after a few years the applicant loses interest in the application and withdraws it directly or indirectly. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Do not forget that a few years ago the upper management came with the idea of postponed examination as it was known in The Netherlands or Germany. The reply of the users was loud and clear and the idea was quickly dropped. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | This shows that lots of decisions at the EPO are taken by people who do not have the faintest idea what the work consists of, but have authoritative and peremptory views on these subjects! | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | From day one, there has always been a big administrative overhead at the EPO. It is not completely wrong in view of the overall duties of the office, but the EPO resembles more and more to a Mexican Army with lots of generals but less soldiers actually bringing the money in. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The career possibilities for examiners, for instance becoming directors have been severely curtailed. Directors are now in charge of dozens of examiners and an intermediate level, team managers, has been introduced. One can wonder what directors and principal directors in DG1 are actually doing all day. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | According to the documents of the “Interim Committee” which was set up after the signature of the EPC, a director should have been in charge of 12 examiners. It was considered that this figure would allow a director to properly help and guide his examiners. 12 might have been too little, but if a director want to correctly do his job 30 examiners are an upper limit. Nowadays team managers, which nevertheless stay examiners, do | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | the work previously devolved to directors. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The only possibility to evolve for an examiner is to end at the boards of appeal. However, the upper management has introduced two classes of examiners. Those dealing with oppositions and those who do not. It simply costs too much if all examiners are trained in opposition. That oppositions are not filed in all IPC classes is not an excuse. Dealing with oppositions is part of the general culture of an examiner. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | When an examiner wants to join the boards of appeal, he is invited to present decisions he has for a large part written himself. If he is not examiner in a specialised opposition directorate, he will never write a decision and the only possibility left to climb the ladder is closed. Encouraging isn’t it? | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The number of directors in parts other than search/examination/opposition has skyrocketed. And you wonder why examiners are desperate? Being hired on a 5 year contract is also not encouraging and for fear of being fired, those poor people will do what they are told. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | On a par with an appalling system of complaints with no real possibility of redress (the ILO-AT is actually useless and only acts in flagrant cases or when the rules have not been followed), why should one wonder at what is happening at the EPO for the last 10 years? | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | REPLY | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | NordicObserver | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | FEBRUARY 13, 2023 AT 9:10 AM | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Oh well, didn’t this all start years ago with the EPO(nian) slogan “Timeliness is quality”? The strange ‘reality’ where being faster would somehow equal a higher examination quality. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Now that DG1 is on permanent homeworking, communication wihtin the Divisions has, according to my information, mostly deteriorated. As sad state of affairs, as well-functioning Divisions is one of the cornerstones of EPO quality. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Anyway, hope that the EPO hears the IPQC message! | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | REPLY | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Patent robot | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | FEBRUARY 13, 2023 AT 9:40 AM | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Nowadays the bigger threat to patent quality at the EPO are the new illogical, dangerous and unfounded requests to amend the description, which of course are not the fault of the examiners. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Having one page of objections of inventive step and several pages of requests to amend the description make applicant want to file national instead of using the EPO. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | What a nightmare! | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | REPLY | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Please chose the right target | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | FEBRUARY 13, 2023 AT 3:15 PM | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | I was waiting for the old rant about amending the description vs amended claims. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | As long as the boards will remit to the OD in order to adapt the description to the maintained claims, the same will happen in examination. And rightly so. The three decisions to the contrary weigh little in this respect. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The problems brought forward by the IPQC are much more serious and represent a real threat for the EPO and its reputation. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | If the search is not carried out properly, any examination as good as it might be will not improve matters. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | When examiners do not have time to properly carry out their searches and raise well reasoned objections, don’t be surprised that many will fill their communications with for you strange stuff and care more about the appearance than the substance. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Remember that too many direct grants are suspicious. So throw in the odd X even if they are not real X documents, spice your search report with a few Y documents and just ramble about all this. If the applicant replies and say “boooh” the grant is there and everything is honky dory. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | What will you do before a court when it turns out that your patent is not worth the paper it is printed on? | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The description even not adapted to amended claims will not help very much! | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | REPLY | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Enjoy the EPO! | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | FEBRUARY 13, 2023 AT 8:02 PM | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | IPQC: | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | -Provide examiners with a sufficient amount of hours to search… | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | -Ensure that members of the examining division spend sufficient time… | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | -Allocate a sufficient time budget to make sure that… | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | -Continuous and trackable external training of examiners… | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | EPO: | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | – reduced search time every year | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | – cut examination time every year | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | – members of division have now zero time to discuss anything | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | – deleted all technical training | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Examiners kept protesting about this nightmare since Battistelli’s era. Nobody could care less. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | This is the obvious end result. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | I am retired since last June. Never took a better decision in my life. | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Enjoy the EPO! | Feb 14 16:26 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Feb 14 16:26 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.epo.org | EPO - Our quality policy | Feb 14 16:26 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed) | Feb 14 16:54 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@cbcfptirpkfqa.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 16:55 | |
| *psydruid has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 14 16:56 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 16:58 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 14 17:52 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 14 17:52 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Feb 14 17:53 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@rbnv8qskr8rgw.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 18:05 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@freenode-448.p91.7dgmmg.IP) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 18:05 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@rbnv8qskr8rgw.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 18:06 | |
| *outbeg has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Feb 14 20:04 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed) | Feb 14 22:05 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 14 22:41 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 22:42 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 14 22:51 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 14 22:52 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.