The GP meant that they postulate a meaningful percentage within the scope of people who emulate don’t own the game they emulate.
6,278 karma · joined November 28, 2012
The value is not just that I can block at the network level rather than the application/device level, it’s also that I can see what random connected devices that aren’t general computing devices are trying to do. If they have hard-programmed DNS servers, blocking 53 for any device besides my Adguard server quickly solves that.
I use the mouse with my right because the rest of my family is right-handed so it was on the right and I just learnt by copying. I don't mind it, as I can type fairly reasonably one-handed with my left hand - much better than I could with my right - so it means I can still do short typing bursts one-handed without lifting my right hand off the mouse. When I type with two hands, I find my left covers about 60-70% of the keyboard vs. my right doing about 30-40% of the keyboard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogVy0S_jVXU
Interestingly, CS2 does not use the same menu, probably because they've moved away from trying to support consoles as a target.
I worked for a rail operator and the driver interface systems of our locos (from other suppliers) were running on WinXP. We wanted some changes and feature upgrades, but the supplier said it was obsolete and they would not do any code changes to the WinXP software. Instead, they were telling us to move to a QNX-based version of it (which came with all of the fun joys of ensuring feature and interface equivalence for both the system and the human-computer interfaces). This was even for old locos, where moving to the QNX-based system wasn't just about running the same front-end software on a different OS, but in some cases was a fundamental hardware design upgrade (i.e. moving from a dumb terminal with a rack of hardware in a cupboard to fully integrated computers in the dash), which then meant making it interface with other hardware systems that may not be designed to talk to it. In some cases, those additional systems had to be upgraded. It was well in to 8 figures of work to do.
I am surprised that Siemens have, in some degree, allowed ongoing support for this. Whichever operator uses it must be fairly big in order to bend them to still actively manage it.
If I learn to write news articles by reading the NYT, I’m not then able to duplicate myself infinitely and fill every role at every news publisher. I am but one human, producing one human’s output and consuming one human’s space within whatever pursuit I undertake. Critically, I still leave room for others to do the same thing.
Eventually I also die and then someone else can come along to replace me. I’m finite, AI is not. It doesn’t get used up or retire.
If you consider that there’s a fixed amount of societal capacity for whatever undertaking is in question (news journalism, art generation, etc.) then as a human, I take up only a certain amount and only for a certain amount of time. I will never arbitrarily duplicate to produce the work of 10, 100, 1000, etc. humans. I will also shuffle on after about 50 years and someone else, having potentially learnt from me, can now gainfully exist within the world in my stead.
The capacity for infinite commoditisation that AI brings is necessarily a critical distinction to humans when it comes to considering them performing equivalent functions. They must be treated differently.
For a moment, I was deeply disappointed that nothing displayed. Then I remembered that they came with a brightness rotary dial. Swung that around and it was as good as the day I got it. The cartridge even held my childhood save.
What an incredible device.
Moreover, there's something to be said about consistency of design when it comes to maintenance familiarity and parts interoperability. Consistent design language also tends to happen when you are catering to disability accessibility requirements and providing clear user interfaces for passengers (including those with disabilities, or those who do not speak English).
Lastly, expecting a complete redesign is committing to an astronomical amount of expense relative to even using just some of the old design DNA. However, I'm not even convinced they've just reused an old design. For starters, a different company did these (Siemens vs Bombardier) and secondly I'd bet that there's a whole lot of difference under the skin that is masked by the natural convergence of design appearance driven by the multitude of requirements set forth by TfL - everything from the design language mentioned above, to their access/egress requirements, fire safety, lighting, etc. etc. There's only so much money governments are willing to throw at figuring out how to skin that cat before it's just not worth it.
I know heat inside the tunnels fluctuates with time of year, but I can't tell if year-on-year the tunnels are getting e.g. 1xx% hotter and, critically, what the causes are (more tph will obviously, global warming will, more pax will).
It is not ever 'just'. This isn't copying code. This isn't building identical silicon for multiple end users. This is more like trying to add additional threads to something that is not embarrassingly parallel. What you're saying is like saying 'why can't you just make all of my computer programs run on all 32 of my CPU cores?'.
And even if you minimise the increasing complexity added by expanding the system, waterfall-style design (which is absolutely the most appropriate approach when dealing with these sorts of projects) front-end loads a frankly Herculean amount of risk management into the process because you want to make sure that's all absolutely square and true before you progress to implementation.
Lastly, it's worth noting that with systems this complex, a lot of the detail is bespoke because the number of complicating input variables the system is exposed to necessarily requires a relatively bespoke solution. Yes, the idea of e.g. ETCS being ETCS is going to hold, but how that works in reality, how it ties in to all of the other legacy systems, etc. will mean that you can't for example just take ETCS-equipped train A and and drop it into ETCS-equipped network B.
Their overall limit of heat output by the trains remains the same. The tunnels won't be any hotter than they are now, thanks to savings found in other systems.
Proving that it fails safely requires a mountain of effort and documentation, but it's required because failure doesn't just lead to some speculative CPU bugs leaking a password or to a browser crash, it leads to many people dying.
Human capacity is rate-limited, and that’s an important distinction.
Another point: humans exist for a finite time. If I learn how to write music per the above, I’ve only got a set period of time wherein I’m collecting from the talents given to me by the shoulders upon which I’m standing. Sooner or later I retire/die and someone else must become the cultural torchbearer. If you consider some finite amount of capacity in the world to gainfully support all artists, I’m only drawing from that for a finite period of time.
Contrast that with AI, where, theoretically, in 50 years a model will still be just as able to create outputs as it is today.
Having said all that, I don’t have enough skin in the game to decide whether that builds an argument for regulating input vs output. I’m certainly sympathetic to the idea that it might, though. It’s a complex topic and saying “humans work this way, computers are fine to as well” doesn’t IMO capture the nuance of the debate.
The computing equivalent would be where how CPUs which fail QA are binned to lower spec (e.g. using 6 cores not 8, or underclocked), except in this instance it’s then still sold as the top-end chip even if it’s unstable and crashes under load sometimes.
What do you think “fake” means in this context? That the part is really a Loony Toons sketch of the real thing, stickytaped to the surrounding engine? No, it means it’s essentially an outwardly identical part without the appropriate QA/QC processes undertaken to certify it as genuine and to spec.
This may for example include destructive and nondestructive testing of parts, or it might include tracking the manufacturing process parameters to ensure correct outputs. For example, a cast component has sufficiently low levels of porosity, inclusions, etc. that might in time lead to premature failure. Or it might mean that there wasn’t sufficient record of the brew of the metal going into the casting or the casting process itself to confirm the part has the requisite material properties. In all but the most dire circumstances, it’s nearly impossible to verify whether any of that was done correctly just by looking at the part; for all intents and purposes, it’ll look identical to a real part.
In the case that the OP references regarding Virgin Australia [1], the parts were a low-presssure turbine blade and a high-pressure turbine nozzle seal. Both of them would fall into situations similar to the above. If cast, the turbine blade would need to prove what I outlined, amongst much more. If machined from billet, it’ll still need proof the ingot itself was manufactured correctly which mirrors a lot of the above. In the case of the seal, there’s similar processes to prove that the non-metallic material is to spec so that a Challenger-style failure doesn’t occur, except within expected operating parameters.
The link I provided regarding Virgin Australia gives much more detail about the core issue at play. This isn’t a situation where manufacturer B is stamping its parts as made by manufacturer A. It’s where manufacturer B says it can make a part compliant with the specifications, same as manufacturer A, but then does not have the required documentary evidence that it meets those specifications.
1: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/two-virgin-aircraf...
They are absolutely not without significant fault and there doubtlessly countless false negatives giving people ideas they can go out when sick (stay home, Covid or not!). However it’s not fair to say that “PCR only works”.