Lachlan Harris

Engadget Editorial Policies

The unique content on Engadget is a result of skilled collaboration between writers and editors with broad journalistic, academic, and practical expertise.

In pursuit of our mission to provide accurate and ethical coverage, the Engadget editorial team consistently fact-checks and reviews site content to provide readers with an informative, entertaining, and engaging experience. Click here for more information on our editorial process.

Stories By Lachlan Harris

  • The Last Game

    As someone who has learnt enough Go to know that he is terrible at it and who knowns enough about AI development to know he will never be an AI developer – Possibly the biggest news of both fields came outta nowhere just hours ago. The European champion for three years has been beaten five times straight by a deep learning A.I. by none other than Google. So you may have heard of Go, you may even play a little, you may have a Kyu approaching single digits. But if you aren't one of the 40,000,000 players around the world you probably need a little outline that's a bit better than Google description of "There are lots of moves." Well, you're in luck! The game is relatively easy to explain. It has two rules. What do you mean two rules? Quite literally, two rules. Well aside from some gameplay to get out of the way. Gameplay: There are two players, one with a very nice, handwoven jar full of rounded stones with a flat side that are black and the other has a very nice, handwoven jar full of rounded stone with a flat side that are white. Black starts, and going back and forth, you play one stone at a time on the intersections of a lines on a board with 19x19 squares. Rule One: Where you place a stone, the intersection must have an adjacent intersection not occupied by a stone. Once you place a stone you can't move it, but it can be taken. Rule Two: You can't cause an infinite loop by playing a stone which causes the board to look how it looked your opponent's previous turn. The Aim: By placing the stones next to each other, you start creating areas on the board which are yours. So while you are trying to wrap off sections of the board your opponent will start to wrap off the same areas. It probably doesn't sound like there is enough there to have a game around but once you start watching games, you see that's essentially it. See what the game boils down to is how you're going to "connect" your stones in a line to get territory and how your opponent is going to stop you and form their own line. While Chess has a few hundred billion positions after a four opening moves – you can literally move anywhere during a game of Go at any time, it's just only a few make sense. But it's not like chess where a move is perceived because of how useful it will be in five/ten moves, in Go the particular place of a stone may only be useful after twenty or more moves. You have to interpret how the player is going to make their territory. Once you start thinking about all the hundreds of possible moves you can understand why some Tournament games have a 6 hour time limit. However few games actually get to the end at the professional level. Players get so good at seeing how the game will progress they usually forfeit only tens of moves in. I understand if you're still a little confused, well, I have you covered Maybe you're saying I get it, this game is very simple and very deep I get that, but I have no real interest in playing or watching a ten year old getting forced by a creepy ghost to spend hours in a room playing with himself. Why is this so special? Because some people think this is the last one. The last game that a human can beat a human. There's been Tic Tac Toe, Checkers, Candyland, Chess less than 20 years ago and now Go, the endless possibilities game is up for computer glory. But it's okay it only beat a 2 Dan. Well, it actually took place a couple of months ago but I think Google has waited until now so they can brag that they have lined up a match with a professional 9 Dan. The top level you can be in Go. In terms of rank, everyone in Go starts off as a Kyu 30. The better you get, the lower your Kyu. If you choose to go pro and dedicate your whole life to Go – you can take a gruelling exam which involves many games with many high level Dan's while they judge you. You can earn the rank of Dan. 2 Dan is already a master, someone who will never do anything other than play Go. Then you could continue playing and make small amount of incremental progress until 3 Dan's judge that you are playing in their style. And so on and so forth until you achieve the highest level of 9. Even though it would take multiple years to progress from 2 towards anything near 9, a 2 Dan could beat a 9 Dan with a 2 point advantage. While there have been thousands that have reached Dan status, as far as I can find there have been less than 100 9 Dan's. Which is why this is so huge. One of the certified level best in the world is going to verse a computer. For the first time no one is quite sure what's going to happen.

    By Lachlan Harris Read More
  • When the future becomes the present

    Hasn't BTTF day been fun this week. The fake commercials. The Nike shoes. The $20 Pepsi. The fact that there are companies still trying to build hover boards just because a movie told them to. Back to the Future is far from the only film to predict the future, but there's been so much written this week about how different the future has been than what we've predicted. But then again, we're predicting the future all the time in the news. I think, with a little bit of effort everyday can become Back to the Future day. News developed in a very interesting way on the Internet. In the beginning it appears the old print media jumped on line and expected readers would just like to see a scanned newspaper of that day. Very quickly this proved impractical for reading and news articles soon took on a more blog like format we see on Engadget. These also meant things can be reported on very quickly and articles can be updated as news develops, rather than having to rehash the same story with small bits of new information. Take Engadget's recent story on the Blackberry Priv. There's a small short update at the bottom. But one thing has remained the same as old print media. Archives. The British newspaper the times proudly has an archive going back to 1785. Two and a half centuries worth of news. Which means you'd have to read over 100 years worth of newspaper before even getting to the modern Olympic Games. For whatever reason, maybe journalistic integrity, maybe because we can, maybe because it is expected. We also have 22,127 pages of Engadget. Which will probably be over 22,200 by the time I can actually get around to finishing this article. And that's just Engadget, there are thousands of tech journals, political blogs and (shudder) news sites purely related to people who are perceived as important. Which is fantastic. We have day to day documentation of the growth of all sort of our world. And yet with this has come the fear that once we post something online it is up there forever and it can never be deleted. It is etched into a Rosetta stone which cannot be worn away with time, nor weather. And to a point, that is correct. Facebook have recently made all photos, statuses and links that were posted as "Public" searchable. And there may have been a time in the past which you were not so careful with your privacy settings and there is a post or two right now that can be found. Now that you're slightly paranoid follow these instructions to fix it, go ahead, I'll wait. Yet the story I mentioned before about the Blackberry Priv was updated on the same day. Several tech sites, such as Android Police actually put the date and time that the update was done. but it rarely more than a few days that a news article does not get an update and a whole new article is written. It's understandable. In most cases updates take more work. If you're working on hundreds of news articles a day, it's easy to lose track of what's been said where and what needs correcting. And some things don't change for months. Websites such as Engadget organise articles around their original publishing time. The further back an article is, the less likely it's going to be re-read, the less point there is updating it. All this being said, I think we should implement a system of revisiting old articles. Once a week or month, content management systems should present each tech blogger with an old article from the site they are on and they have the simple task of writing a short update to the story, which will then be posted to the top of site, or in it's own special section. Why should we? If we are frequently reminded of the past, I think, not only can we fondly/not-so-fondly recall forgotten ideas, which can be reviewed with the benefit of hindsight. There's also the possibility of old ideas which didn't work at the time, being re-written as new ideas. But hopefully, we can also become much better at scrutinising the present. Let me give some possible examples. We can now update articles about Windows Phone killing iPhone to say "Still working on it" Speaking of iPhone, where is the red one? That there still hasn't been a good portable media centre in years You can now make any projector wireless using a cheap dongle sold by that weird search company that now makes software for BLACKBERRY. Seriously 2004 weird stuff is about to go down. Holy crap the writer from before who said Windows Phone 7 would crush iPhone predicted The iPhone Plus, Macbook Air and Apple Pay in 2008 Skin analysis on a phone is weird? Now do you not only have a massive choice of skin analyser apps, you can spend $500 on one! Audiovox did not become the Apex of mobile phones And finally that Engadget's publishing system now supports Safari Any other great find I'd love to know in the comments. UPDATED (2015-10-25 5:30PM AEDST): "Xbox Live and the ability to download new content is not a crutch to ship crappy software. And too often on the PC--I'm going to be blunt here--in the PC gaming space, games get out that developers know have problems because they know they can patch them later. They know they can force updates. And the act of playing [games online] becomes a pain in the ass, because you put the disc in and then you gotta download the patch and you gotta download the service pack and you gotta download the security hot fix, and then you gotta apply those things and reboot your machine. That's not an entertainment experience. That is not fun." -- Jeff Henshaw 2010-10-06 Can we just have that someone send that to Ubisoft? Thank you.

    By Lachlan Harris Read More
  • For your app-roval

    Flipboard: Rather rudely, this was preinstalled with other crapware on a previous Samsung phone. But, being curious I opened it and a love affair was born with an endless list of news articles which was more endless than Google News. Fing: It's like nmap but when you're in an Airport and want to find who is sharing their torrent folder. MX Player: Back before VLC was in the app store, this was the way go to with various file types and subtitle support

    By Lachlan Harris Read More