EarlKing

....and I don't care because I don't use either of those. All the network effects in the world mean nothing if that network has no value to me.

You can thank them properly by submitting a comment on this matter and add your voice to the chorus so the proposed ruling gets shoved right back into the orifice it was pulled from.

Facebook is filled with billions of people I have no reason to speak to, ergo its network effects for me are zero, and its value to me is zero. Other services have similar zero or negative value, and hence I don't use them either. As much as some around here would like to believe that network effects are a moat that effectively allow social media to be immortal, experience has shown that not to be the case. Facebook is dying a slow, lingering death. It is not the place you go to find trendsetters and people of import, but, at best, to go check up on grandma. Facebook will die when grandma finally kicks the bucket and there isn't anyone to replace her because they're all on Discord.

He shut down the whole fund. There was a press release about it a few days ago.

Then how about SoftBank[1]... are they irrational? Or Michael Burry[2] who shorted Nvidia and Palantir before concluding the market is once against being irrational and selling his positions and closing his hedge fund... is he irrational?

The people in a position to know are telling you something: This is a Bubble, and they're getting the hell out while they're ahead. You should do the same.

--

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/11/softbank-sells-its-entire-st...

[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-shot-michael-burrys-ai-14...

No archive link, OP? No cookie for you.

https://archive.is/xcOwc

Linux system calls WERE 80h. If your code is still using an interrupt to access kernel functions then you've got problems. Syscall exists for the simple reason that interrupts are expensive.

Please replace link with https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09642-3 so people don't get sent to the supplemental material, kthx.

Is there some reason we can't refuse to import their goods or offset their lower cost of goods due to slavery by imposing tariffs?

Seriously, I can do this all day.

Great! If this is so, then you should be able to prove that UK citizens are using crypto to purchase their services and that 4chan is expressly aware of this fact. I'm sure this proof will be forthcoming presently...

Objection: The Chernobyl containment building generally speaking does its job. /pol/, on the other hand, leaks like an incontinent old man in a retirement home. "Containment" only works if you have jannies that actually sweep it up. 4chan, much like Voat, suffers a problem of people spamming up boards and threads with unrelated crap that is ostensibly supposed to be kept to other boards/threads (like /pol/). The reputation they have is a consequence of that unmanageability (just like Voat ultimately suffered from when they embraced Reddit's cast-offs and suddenly had people talking about "shitskins" and "day of the rope" everywhere).

Generations of wave solder machines and pick-and-place machines beg to differ...

The first amendment is a natural right, not a civil right, but at any rate the matter of personal jurisdiction is what is at issue, which most definitely does regulate who can and cannot assert authority over a man (fictive or otherwise). Ofcom's attempt to enforce their law over corporations and people who do not in fact have "links to the UK" as defined under US law is the entirety of the issue. They are overstepping their jurisdiction and infringing upon the sovereignty of the United States.

Is there some reason that you are bound to do business with literal slavemasters? Are you incapable of resisting doing business with the lowest bidder?

> The ugly truth is our society is built on top of people doing absolute shit jobs for insulting pay.

Perhaps you could try paying them more?

One no more tames a politician than one tames a dog. When you stop feeding either their slab of meat, you become their next meal.

> To put it another way, if 4chan blocked the UK, the UK would be fine with this outcome.

They really wouldn't, otherwise they would've done that already since it is well within their power to command ISPs to blackhole any offending website. That they chose to levy fines instead tells me all I need to know about their true intentions.

Ofcom attempting to enforce it's laws upon a US-resident corporation that has no business presence in the United Kingdom is the very definition of affecting one's right to free speech in the United States. This is why the US has a rich history of case law to draw upon for defining personal jurisdiction. In this case, Ofcom is perhaps hoping to exploit uncertainty regarding personal jurisdiction to impose its law upon foreign citizens who otherwise have no business in the United Kingdom. So, yeah, it definitely affects a company's right to free speech in the US. It affects EVERYONE's right to free speech in the US, and it should not be dismissed simply because 4chan is the defendant.

Yes, good question: When can we start jailing CEOs and their employees for these blatant violations of the CPRA and GDPR?

Those NN-models are monstrosities that eat cycles (and watts). If your task fits neatly into one of the algorithms presented (such as may be the case in industrial design automation settings) then yes, you are most definitely better off using them instead of a neural net-based solution.

You're not alone. I saw that FHE paper earlier, so... what's going on?

Hell, I couldn't even get a "pirated" copy via archive.is, so instead I'll just add this to my mental filter of sites I will never, ever read under any circumstances.

If you really want to know: Go take a look at what things they think interest you. Go to Settings, Privacy and Safety, Content You See, Interests. You'll find they've probably randomly inserted some interest in there because you engaged with someone who had that interest and it never ever gets turned off. I followed an actor because I liked his stance on some topic or another and it decided I must be interested in his latest project... which I'm not... and no matter how many times I uncheck that interest it will just get set again within a week or so.

So, yeah, they try to make inferences about what you'll like based on who you interact with, they invariably prove to be wrong, and here we are. I suppose they may also be paid to astroturf interests to other people, but who knows?

No. I'd say their algorithm is just as bad as everyone else's since it's designed to promote ragebait (inasmuch as their goal is to increase the odds of "positive engagement" in the form of likes, retweets, and replies, and ragebait happens to maximize that). Engaged audiences stay longer and see more ads. That this results in the utter destruction of online discourse is, of course, not something that they care about. Consequently, I don't really use Twitter for anything other than staying in touch with friends... at least, those I'm not already in contact with through chat rooms of some kind (where we can share whatever we like without some Twat inserting themselves and deciding we didn't really want to share that and oh hey, how about this obnoxious thing Trump did the other day???).

I wish Stallman wasn't so silent. For someone who cares so much about software freedom he hasn't said a damn thing about any of what's been going on these past few months with KOSA, the Online Safety Act, etc.

How does something like CCBill stay in business when the card networks themselves have strict guidelines on chargeback rates that'll get you booted from the network?

I think you mean UK users... and yes, they could, but they're not required to by law, and why should they do so just because some foreign bureaucrat demands they do it?

By contrast, Ofcom could've simply ordered ISPs to null-route 4chan and KiwiFarms and that would've been that. Instead, they decided to do the most ineffectual and imbecilic thing possible... arguably because they're an extortion racket (as implied by the fact that they're mostly funded from fines and fees they obtain from those they prosecute).

> This just deepens my confusion: defamation crimes most definitely do exist in the US—have not been abolished by courts.

Right now there are laws in Utah, Texas, and Mississippi that require you to identify yourself by government-issued ID just to post on social media. These laws are blatantly unconstitutional and currently undergoing legal challenges in court. That unconstitutional laws exist at any particular time or place has no bearing on whether or not they are unconstitutional, nor does the Supreme Court's denial to hear a case as they only take so many cases every year, and that particular one may not have been suitable for review for any number of reasons. Since you just posted the ACLU's press release rather than actual court documents I can't really say one way or another.

In any event, under the SPEECH Act, foreign defamation judgements are generally unenforceable unless they offer at least as much protection as afforded to citizens of the United States under our own laws. That law was passed in direct response to libel tourism. Censors looking to launder their censorship through the UK are effectively thwarted by the SPEECH Act, hence why it was raised in their filing.

And sometimes you just gotta read the complaint...

> 61. Section 179 of the Online Safety Act, the “false communications offence,” makes it a criminal offense to send information which the sender knows to be false if, at the time of sending that message, the person intended the message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience, and the person had no “reasonable excuse” for sending that message.

> 62. Section 179 of the Online Safety Act effectively creates a defamation crime in the United Kingdom.

...

> 65. Ofcom's notices and demands to 4chan, including the "legally binding information notice" on April 14, 2025, the "failure to respond" letter on April 30, 2025, the investigation noticeon June 9, 2025, the "final legal notice" on June 16, 2025, the "Preliminary Contravention Email" on July 9, 2025, and the “provisional decision notice” on August 12, 2025, to the extent that they pertain to speech proscribed by Section 179 of the OSA, constitute foreign judgments that would restrict speech protected under U.S. law including under, e.g. the SPEECH Act, 28 USCS § 4101.

For the same reason businesses always seek declaratory judgements: So business partners can feel confident that claims made against them are indeed frivolous as far as the court is concerned.