harshreality

The link between consumption (without purchase) of CSAM and increased production of CSAM is assumed in the same way, isn't it?

The motives and situational dynamics of pedophiles filming child pornography, and gangs robbing or carjacking people on video in broad daylight, may be different in some ways, but in some ways they're not: both get direct benefit from the crime, regardless of the recordings; in both cases some (small) subset of people interested in watching the recordings may become more inclined to act out what they see, if it aligns with an already existing inclination toward pedophilia or violent crime. That's independent of whether they can make money or become famous for the crime, although money or infamy as additional motive is an additional problem.

Studies on sexual violence and changes in that over time have even more problems, for example how difficult it is to get average people to report accurately about their private relationships. Those people likely to volunteer accurate information are not necessarily representative.

Violent video games prove contribution to market demand for FPS-style videos of mass shootings or carjackings, so can/should we ban Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto now?

(Note that the "market demand" argument is subtly different from the argument that the games directly cause people to become more violent, either in general or by encouraging specific copycat violence. Studies on [lack of] direct violence causation are weak and disputed.)

Why use zfs for a boot partition? Unless you're using every disk mounting point and nvme slot for a single large raid array, you can use a cheap 512GB nvme drive or old spare 2.5" ssd for the boot volume. Or two, in btrfs raid1 if you absolutely must... but do you even need redundancy or datasum (which can hurt performance) to protect OS files? Do you really care if static package files get corrupted? Those are easily reinstalled, and modern quality brand SSDs are quite reliable.

Maybe it's the cheapest way to engineer the ILS localizer to be flood-resistant? I don't know.

"Lost battle with <disease>" could be used to refer to depression -> suicide. "Sudden [cardiovascular event]" or "died in their sleep" could be suicide or overdose. etc.

There's a standard short checklist for landing that includes flaps and landing gear. There may also be an emergency landing checklist that would also include those things.

The voice recorder and flight data recorder almost certainly survived. We'll know more after those have been recovered and analyzed.

On one hand, it's very bad because it reduces economic output from the exact same input resources (materials and labor and r&d).

On the other hand, allowing market segmentation, and more profits from the higher segments, allows more progress and scaling for the next generation of parts (smaller process nodes aren't cheap, and neither is chip R&D).

Otherwise there would have been no effort to create vp9 and av1, as everyone on that side of the codec wars would've stuck with vp8.

Even a sizable Mars colony probably won't survive without frequent Earth assistance. The Mark Watney fantasy of growing food in Martian dirt with a little added fertilizer: mostly debunked[2]. The most sustainable case—for the foreseeable future—is probably a Biosphere2-like environment, where everyone hopes there's no accident, sabotage, or environment-caused damage. How many Starship missions would it take to get enough materials to Mars to build one Biosphere2 to support 8 people?

I agree with you that meaningful colonization of Mars is not serious. I just think the prospects on the inner inner planets are even more absurd than on Mars. In a floating Venusian hab, you could generate breathable air and not much else. Underground on Mercury, getting breathable air might be a problem, but you can import—at great cost, that delta-v is brutal—anything you can fit on a suitable rocket.

There's no point to any of this except as research stations or jump-off ports, and for that Mars is the obvious choice: we can make hydrocarbon fuel there, and the surface isn't equipment-melting. But where would we be jumping off to? We have nothing planned, and no particular reason, to send humans to Europa or anywhere else.

[1] How do you resupply a floating habitat on Venus? Even if you could, the constraints and resource limitations of a floating hab would be even more severe than for an underground, resource-poor Mercury hab.

[2] https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mars-farming-harder-mart...

(And it's exceedingly rare that cops will believe an upstanding citizen who's legally armed and behaving civilly is a criminal. It happens, for instance in the two cases I cited, but it's rare. They're a rounding error in the police killing stats.)

Legal gun owners not committing obvious crimes are only rarely accosted by police, and shootings are exceedingly rare, and they usually make the news and result in legal action. They also usually involve the victim doing something that's not advisable, even if they're not doing anything legally wrong. Philando Castile, for instance, or Johnny Hurley.

"Unarmed" doesn't represent what the suspect was doing that got them shot. Were they resisting arrest or being noncompliant and reaching for their waist or a center console or glove compartment?

There are cases where police shoot suspects, armed or unarmed, unjustifiably. They're not as rare as anyone wishes they were. They're still fairly rare. Behaving civilly, even while recognizing that many police are like barely constrained wild animals, goes a long way toward ensuring that an accidental furtive gesture isn't interpreted as reaching for a weapon.

I think the author is wrong in claiming that modern attention-optimizing recommendation algorithms are better than more primitive, poorer recommendation algorithms. Appearing to be more engaging/addictive does not imply more value. It's a measurement problem.

    services:
      vpncontainer:
        image: <whatever>
        container_name: vpncontainer
        cap_add: [NET_ADMIN]

      vpn-qbittorrent:
        image: lscr.io/linuxserver/qbittorrent:latest
        container_name: vpn-qbittorrent
        network_mode: service:vpncontainer

      # and optionally, for other purposes, not qbittorrent above
      vpn-socks:
        image: serjs/go-socks5-proxy
        container_name: vpn-socks
        network_mode: service:vpncontainer

      # environments, volumes, ports, systctls, port-fwd helpers omitted

No sane court is going to uphold an adhesion contract where someone pays $100 for a substantially multiplayer game (e.g. not Portal 1) yet the publisher is allowed to disable servers required for the game's multiplayer operation a week later because they cost money to maintain and the userbase hasn't hit targets.

Granted, most of what goes on in a BIOS is displaying and changing variables involved in getting the system running, and maintaining those values, which just requires some sort of minimal editing interface and nv storage, but then... users appear. They want to be able to use a mouse. They want an ability to configure their raid chipset prior to boot, or netboot, and HW makers want to implement that in a way that's not some arcane raw assembly dance between BIOS and additional chip FW. What then?

I don't think the complaint is about complexity, but about code quality and architecture. This isn't the only case where an old, simpler but less capable and annoying, system has been replaced by a much more complex system that is much hated and [initially] buggy and less secure, but also more or less gets the job done better than the old way, and where average users of the new system find it easier and more productive.

If there wasn't a case where a hardware manufacturer needed a capability prior to the OS taking over, or to modify their HW settings from the OS in a portable way, it wouldn't be in UEFI, right?

Calling UEFI a full operating system seems needlessly inflammatory. It's not a linux or windows kernel. It has to do a fair amount of the basics, but so does any kernel running on a general purpose chip and interfacing with a bunch of other people's code. UEFI is terrible. Baseband firmwares are terrible. Security processor firmwares are terrible. AMT is terrible. Okay, but we still need them.

"It is hoped the drug — which is not a cure but will make the condition much less painful for sufferers — ..."

a) acknowledge that they can't fulfill the contract under the existing terms, and follow the contract's termination procedures

b) keep working to try to complete the project, because the agreed upon payment is better, even considering the extra work, than whatever contract termination involved

When DC told EE to stop work, they did so rather than say "everything's fine, we're continuing as agreed"? That means they knew they couldn't deliver as contracted, or didn't want to because every day they kept working would lose them more money even if they fulfilled the contract.

This is why they should've had a reasonable contract that didn't require heroics in order to break even. Because, when things started to go bad, they needed a fallback besides taking a big loss for partial work, and taking a bigger loss for complete work.

Or alternatively, they could've reasonably contracted to do something nearly impossible, if they were okay with failing and getting nothing, at least for the r&d portion, turning it into an RP2350 learning opportunity. (Presumably, if they made it to production, the contract easily covered production costs.)

The way EE phrases it, they were paid much less than they were owed, but owed according to what? Their internal accounting, or what they'd mutually agreed on with DC? Only the latter matters.

Emails saying "it's going to cost $X more", if any of EE's emails rose to that level of clarity and directness, are legally useless and meaningless without clear assent from DC.

- Amount of water

- Initial temperature of water

- Position of water container

They also prevent superheated water accidents.

Guns per person has gone up significantly. A wild guess might be 20-40%, but exact estimates are difficult. Sales are tracked and have gone way up, which is the starting point for estimating change in guns per person, but difficulty in estimating and combining all the factors makes it difficult to integrate.

(Most states don't track ownership, background checks aren't 1:1 with guns, gun purchase stats depending on how they're reported might include used guns, guns manufactured aren't necessarily going to civilians, and of course some guns are permanently lost or destroyed, or taken out of the country.)

More conservative voltages will only lead to small (low single-digit) performance decreases, right? Isn't that less significant a performance hit than meltdown countermeasures? The only way I can imagine performance really tanking would be if Intel has to severely down-rate supported memory speeds as well, if the ring bus can't handle higher memory speeds at slightly reduced voltages.

The only rumors I've seen are generic guesses: something AMD wasn't screening for, maybe coincidence, or maybe detected after the Intel mess sent AMD's QA teams scurrying to make sure they don't have any similar issues.

It could even be a combined issue with 3rd-party motherboards with AMD's new chipsets, the combination of which they wouldn't have been able to thoroughly test much earlier.

Isn't RUMINT on the Intel problem that, even though it's nominally a chip problem, it may occur primarily due to motherboards not following guidance? For instance, if a spec says the chip and mobo should lower max voltage by 100mV under certain conditions, but the chip still sometimes requests the full original voltage under those conditions, and the mobo provides it, whose fault is that? Maybe not exclusively Intel's, depending on how the specs are documented (a classic should vs must issue).

It seems likely that small process sizes and pushing the limits of performance are going to cause more problems like this Intel one. Notice Intel didn't have this problem before they had to push their chips to compete against the high-end Ryzens.

What it's scanning for in this case is material it believes to be copyrighted, and restricts features (notably sharing) for content that matches.

Given that copyright law exists, and that Google doesn't like wasting engineering time on legal stuff unless refusing to do it would result in lawsuits, this scanning policy is a fairly low-impact solution that has probably been deemed legally necessary to avoid media company lawsuits. I don't like it, but the alternative is for Google (and Microsoft, and any other cloud storage that allows sharing) to mount an expensive legal effort to try to overturn decades of digital copyright precedent, which is likely to fail.

https://book.systemsapproach.org/security/systems.html#firew...

First, the "Her" reference from OpenAI.

Then ScarJo saying "Hey that sounds like me. Even some of my friends think so."

The voices sound kind of similar in some ways, and dissimilar in other ways. If the voice actor was trying to mimic ScarJo, she didn't do a very good job.

Is a casual reference to the title character exemplifying the same concept, a female-voiced AI, in a movie that won best screenplay at the Academy Awards and Golden Globes, an IP violation? Even if that were the case, it would be a studio matter and not Scarlett's IP.

I am curious why they reached out to ScarJo again 2 days prior, though.

Did they want to use her purely for marketing? That seems doubtful, because they'd have to get movie studio clearance to use "Her" in official marketing.

Did they have a separate model trained on her voice (I wouldn't put this past OpenAI) and were hoping they could get last-minute clearance to use it? This is actually my suspicion. That failed, so they just went with the voice models they already had clearance to use. That's not illegal. It's not even unethical. Anyone can try to train voice models on voice samples they collect. What's a problem is commercial use and representation of likeness.

I don't think a casual reference to Her was a representation that the voice is like ScarJo. It was merely referencing (very effectively) the concept of the movie's always-there [female] AI-voiced AI-chatbot.