canarypilot

Of all the replies I was expecting from you, this wasn’t on my betting slip.

There’s no condescension here; you had one key thesis I objected to (and, incidentally, were the first to invoke a robot war!)

> I just asked ChatGPT and got about 10,000 examples of famous creatives demanding censorship. It didn’t used to be this way.

My argument is - it did “used to be this way”. Your proxy, as best as I can tell, agreed.

> formal government censorship was in some respects more coercive then.

And your courageous avatar made a weak (e.g. the word probably, not provably and “I think” not “I showed”) supportive claim (I cannot see the reams of research behind the conclusion).

> I think the evidence points to it being broader in scope and probably more common today than 50 years ago

I said, ok, let’s take that at face - where do you feel the transition happend, and posited reasons why the transition may seem stronger (social media).

Now you’re unwilling to argue specifics and off dismissing my sincerity. Adult argument fully abandoned, feelings abound!

So neither of us will learn anything useful today. I’ll never find out specifically when you believe our slippery slope began, and you’ll never explore whether reality matches your thinking. Let’s hope the data centers that powered your race to self-confirmation were running on solar, so at least the environment was spared!

In the hope of rescuing some thread.

> There is no way to place chronological boxes around cultural change.

This is not only demonstrably false, it also turns your initial thesis “it didn’t used to be like this” into a farce. You were the first to claim there was some time boxing we could apply!

It also, candidly, reinforces the first conclusion robo-me reached. “ someone under 40 who believes they’re living through a unique historical decline but refuses to read a book”. My robot gave me 10,000 examples of books on the study and findings of historians researching the evolution of cultural norms over time. It is very much a thing. I very much believe in it sincerely as a valuable discipline.

If you really want to argue that nobody can say Victorian social norms evolved, and were arguably most harmed by the First World War. Or that the gender and sexual attitudes of the post-second-world-war were pushed to breaking point during a period known as the “swinging sixties”. Or that the introduction of social media and camera phones to the schoolyard caused a dramatic change in kids’ behaviors. Then I think you’re being a special kind of Saturday obstinate.

But if you are actually trying to discuss rather than play-fight, try answering the question - when specifically do you think that the decline began, such that we are no longer living in the rose-tinted era where things “used to be”?

And dude, you can back your claim down or add nuance to it - “creatives censor in a different way in the internet era to how the censored in the TV era” is a defensible claim, I’ll even let you have “the nature of what is censored now has changed”. You’re just not getting away with a demonstrably false “there’s more censorship now”.

My robot says:

““use a better paid model” as an argument from authority is magnificent. We’ve somehow reinvented “my dad can beat up your dad,” except our dads are inference-time budgets”.

So there’s that.

Getting back to human responses; it’s hard to argue your robot’s conclusion when it only got to a weak “probably” while comparing the communication environments of 1980’s (no social media) and 2026 (very much social media). Lots more people with lots bigger platforms dealing with lots more voices on what should/shouldn’t be tolerated -> perceived increase in volume of censorship by both audience and other creatives (themselves taking role of both audience and performer playing to their own audience)

Elvis may not have been calling to censor himself, but the hosts and producers (themselves creatives) followed the demands of the audience - surely at least a somewhat close analogy to creatives amplifying the voices of their audiences today?

To get a bit better than your model’s “probably”, maybe we should shoot for specifics. If we agree there was a “dark past” where government and religious pressure created artistic censorship to comparable levels to today, and if I concede to move the argument forward that we’re in “historical decline” now. Where specifically do you put the beginning and end of the “golden age”?

TV self-censored for years. Elvis was unfit for family viewing. Punks wouldn’t share stages with racists and ejected National Front supporters from gigs. Rock against Racism was founded partly in response to Eric Clapton’s pro-Enoch Powell racist remarks. Dead Kennedeys were not exactly coy about where they drew the line.

If you want medical analogies for COVID, AIDS disinformation is perfect. ACT UP and similar AIDS movements would have laughed you out of creative spaces for bringing misinformation about how AIDS was spread.

If you have ChatGPT tokens going spare, you can ask it for a balanced view of historical artistic deplatforming and self-censoring. I asked mine and, in classic one-liner machine-slop dunk, it said…

“The argument sounds like it is being made by someone under 40 who believes they’re living through a unique historical decline but refuses to read a book, or someone over 40 who missed the world around them. Ask them which they are.”

Yes, and, Bush-Cheney were the modern forefathers of pushing the unitary executive theory, building on the work of Reagan after a 90’s shaped lull. Reagan took ideas from The Heritage Foundation, who returned in the ‘24 elections pushing Project 2025. A natural endgame and roadmap for the movement of power to the president, that is being followed as approximately as any political roadmap ever is.

Remember that each time you’re tempted to crack a Coors light!

Need to triple buffer or there’s a condition where you have used a plate from the clean pile, but the dirty wash is still running. You’d just have to stand there in the kitchen like some kind of Sims character.

Great Stuff Guys! But I worry the concept of a long-running gag may be lost on today’s youth.

If you had some way to illustrate an aging joke, possibly situated near to something much younger (for comparison) I would be deeply obliged if you could print it on page 94 of your organ.

Removing context to make a selective argument is intellectually dishonest.

The article contrasts the operating environment of “Big Three” auto-manufacturers across countries. It compares manufacture costs in Germany and Japan with those in the US, and the paragraph you cite links through to a (2004) article in which it is estimated that pensions and health insurance combined add $1,784 to the cost of a car in the US.

You need to subtract some contradictory numbers in the article to come to a number you can ascribe to health insurance, but somewhere between $400 and $800 fits a quoted “$900 will flow to [pension] funds”.

Given this context it is reasonable to argue that General Motors is (or at least was in 2004) at a competitive disadvantage to manufacturers in Japan or Germany as a result of the US having no universal healthcare system.

Lamentably for your position, just because there are political decisions involved that bring about consequences, factual discussion of those consequences is not itself necessarily political.

Challenging this axiom is why when I think of the threat model I face traveling from place to place, I come to the inevitable conclusion that I am very likely a target of assassination attempts.

Consequently, I ensure that my motorcade of armed guards are always with me, and accept cars loaded with only the toughest reinforced glass. I am, of course, paranoid about physical proximity to strangers and that mostly incentivizes me to avoid public travel, particularly flights (though even my private jets must be carefully maintained only by my most trusted insiders lest they find themselves tumbling out the sky near Tver). When flying on particularly important trips I send a decoy plane, and I make sure that air space near me is well controlled.

Or maybe, just maybe, I don’t actually face the same threat profile as presidents, spy agency bigwigs, and leaders of paramilitary organizations, and pretending I do is an act of high fantasy that far from empowering my true human soul would be so ridiculous as to make life unlivable!

One hop from the parent article is a discussion on why these researchers believe it matters.

Hacker News comments have been in a bit of an anti-academia, pro-business mood recently, so most relevant question copied below.

Imagine an (exploitative? Creative?) product launch for a probiotic yogurt made “to give you the biome of a true paleo”. We might want to ensure those whose mouths were swabbed to unlock that tag line were compensated.

> Q: What is microbiome ownership, and why is it important? Weyrich: This means that someone could own or have rights to their own bacteria. The ‘next generation’ of probiotics to support health are coming from people who donate their microbes — not yogurts or fermented foods, so establishing a framework for people to own their microbes means that they could benefit or profit from the commercialization of these microbes. This framework is important for providing equal benefits for research participants, research teams and companies that may want to commercialize someone’s microbes to make ‘next generation’ probiotics.

Best drop that M from STEM; from the article, and similar recent reporting, the graduate Maths program is one of the indulgences Virginians can do without.

Knowing that group N passengers may be forced to check their bags, the pricing to put yourself in group N - 1 is your “calculated misery”. Repeat across other airline convenience fees like seating.

Sigh… I guess we’re doing this!

The term cpu-hotplug in the arm world almost never means hot-adding a new package/die to the platform, we usually mean taking CPUs online/offline for power management. e.g. cpuhp_offline_cpu_device()

https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg739722.html

Sure man, your call.

https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0024/a/Power-Mana...

CPU Hotplug is a long established name for this process, whether for correctness or power, particularly in Linux Kernel contexts.

I like a good analogy challenge, let me try to shape something around your framework!

We sell particularly high-value, unique jewels, that are seated in jewellery. In fact, our jewels are so valuable to us, that our stores are able to modify the case around the jewel even before they sell to a customer. Each customer will be offered the last casing the jewel was in, and be given the opportunity to change it - though they might still choose not to buy.

We have a set of stores that we can sell from, and of course only one store can have the jewel in it at a time. We’re losing customers by only having the local stock available to sell, so we instigate a new policy; every store takes a picture of the casing for the jewel when they have it in store, they can show this last copy of the jewel in their catalogue. If a customer wants the jewel from the catalogue, we call around the other stores asking for the physical jewel to be brought to us.

This works well a lot of the time, but we find a new problem. Sometimes the customer really liked the casing the jewel was in for the photograph in the catalogue, but when the physical jewel arrives the casing has changed. The customer mutters something about false advertising and storms out disgusted by the stale photo shown. So we add a new policy. If a store changes the casing for a jewel it has to send a picture to every other store of the new casing so they can all update their catalogues.

Well! Now we have chaos! Every store owner is so busy updating catalogues and sending pictures around the other stores that they’re getting less real work done. We look at our catalogue, sometimes we’re updating the same page many times without a customer even seeing it!

So we come up with a new policy - instead of immediately changing the catalogue when we get told that another store has changed the physical jewel, we’re just going to mark the catalogue page as out of date. If eventually a customer asks to see that jewel, we’ll apologise to them for the wait, we’ll ask the other stores who has the jewel right now, then we’ll go get the physical jewel from them, take a picture for our catalogue, and show it to the customer. (As a minor optimisation, if we think the customer will want to change the casing we’ll politely inform the store we picked it up from that they can now mark their catalogue out of date).

It is all going well, but there’s a lot of overhead in our catalogue with only one jewel per page, so we start putting multiple jewels on each page. That makes our catalogue page update a bit difficult so we declare that a store must always collect all physical jewels for any given catalogue page.

One day we find that two stores are sending the same two jewels backwards and forwards all day. We investigate and find that the two jewels are on the same catalogue page, one jewel is being changed by a particularly indecisive customer in one store, and the other is being change by an equally determined customer in the other store. Neither cares about the jewel the other is trying to change, but both customers are getting frustrated by the wait as our policy requires both jewels in the same location before an update can be made. The store managers bemoan ever putting the two jewels on the same page to create this false sharing nightmare. They agree that even if wasteful, for these particular jewels they’ll leave blank space in the catalogue, the two jewels land on different pages, and the shuffling of jewels between stores stops.

There is a large user manual available in “Books” ; https://books.apple.com/gb/book/iphone-user-guide/id15159955...

I imagine most iPhone users don’t know it is there!

Why would you consider prediction based on dynamic conditions to be the sign of a dystopian optimization cycle? Isn’t it mostly intuitive that interesting program executions are not going to be things you can determine statically (otherwise your compiler would have cleaned them up for you with inlining etc.), or could be determined statically but at too great cost to meet execution deadlines (JiTs and so on), or resource constraints (you don’t really want N code clones specialising each branch backtrace to create strictly predictable chains).

Or is the worry on the other side; that processors have gotten so out-of-order that only huge dedication to guesswork can keep the beast sated? I don’t see this as a million miles from software techniques in JiT compilers to optimistically optimize and later de-deoptimize when an assumption proves wrong.

I think you might be right to be nervous if you wrote programs that took fairly regular data and did fairly regular things to it. But, as Itanium learned the hard way, programs have much more dynamic, emergent and interesting behaviour than that!

From what I can tell, this is a set of recipes from other medieval cook books, not a translation of “the Boke of Cokery”. In a random sample of ten recipes, each gave a different source and none was Boke of Cokery. Still a great website!

Next you will want a building in which to keep these objects, which will of course need heating and lighting (need I even start to compute the power cost…) and will take up real estate that could otherwise be used for apartments where people could literally LIVE!

You’ve also failed to account for right clickers (so named for the click of a camera shutter, normally triggered by a button to the right of the camera) who can simply take a picture of your object and trade it as they like… This will surely reduce the value of any one of your works to zero!

(In all seriousness, NFT’s gotta be stopped!)

I’ve switched out meat for plant-based substitutes for most meals in a week. My reasoning is that a great deal of my mid-week cooking is lazily constructed and only making use of meat by tradition rather than the meat being treated with enough care to add something essential to the flavour - katsu curries, beef stir fries, creamy pasta dishes. Good enough texture and possibly topping up “meatiness” in sauces using stock and flavour enhancers make plant-based alternatives more than adequate replacements for a Tuesday night.

I then reserve meat for evenings where I am going to take the time (or am at a restaurant where others have taken the time) to prepare it with respect for flavour, texture.

Admittedly I won’t win over a BBQ-every-day crowd with that approach! But, I fear that all good sense will go out of the window on the new possibilities opened by this research once it is converted to another notch on the left/right “identity” battle. As so often, we will lose the nuance of which meals could be meat-free and remain tasty and devolve to shouting names between the planet-murderers and the science-lab-creeps. Progress!

You are right, I’ve read a quarter’s numbers as the numbers for the year in the naturalisation source. Multiply my estimates for lawful naturalisation by 4 and get to between 400,000 and 800,000 (backed up by 2017-2019 data https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigra... ). That’s still a long way short of the population of Canada (and you have overshot by a bit).

The downvotes are likely because you’ve made an outlandish claim that is unlikely to hold up to investigation - that America admits more immigrants than the population of some democracies that criticise it.

Total estimated population of unauthorised migrants in the US is around 11.4 million and declining (around 3% of population). 310,000 unauthorised migrants arrive in a year https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigra...

It looks like somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 people each year step to the next stage of their path to naturalisation in the US, this is probably the most reasonable way to count migrants. https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/l...

That would give a total of around 500,000 migrants a year, the population of the smallest G8 country (Canada) is around 38 million.

The only way to get close to Canada’s population is to take the all-time estimated immigrant population (around 45 million, or 13.7% of population).

The closest you can get with the present-tense “admits” rather than “over 60 years has admitted” is to take all I-94 entries, which are explicitly non-immigrant entries, include tourists and office-visit visas, and would not be part of any welfare state.

There is no need to invent a perpetual motion machine to support people who are (broadly) supporting themselves (if through a legal migration route) or whose total size accounting for deaths and those who leave by choice is stable (if through an unauthorised route).

People have become deeply confused between censoring and censuring. They feel bad when told their opinions are unwelcome and consider it an act of silencing, rather than an act of reprimanding. Calling something a lie and choosing not to engage with it is an act of censuring; and you can disagree with my barrier for when to censure you. Preventing you from speaking the lie is censoring.

A very disingenuous comment with a courageous logical leap of faith!

What they can’t do is ban people from their platform and say “the FTC made me do it”, unless the FTC actually made them do it. Since the FTC didn’t actually make them do it, they got a public nastygram from the FTC saying “we didn’t make them do it”.

They have no obligation to support those researchers, but it sure is a bad look blocking them.

The chart shows a "harm score", made up of 16 criteria, not total deaths. I haven't pulled the full article for what the 16 criteria were, but a little more detail is in the abstract on the Lancet where it was originally published https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... . A contemporaneous article from the BBC describes more of the methodology https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210 A choice quote: "The study involved 16 criteria, including a drug's affects on users' physical and mental health, social harms including crime, "family adversities" and environmental damage, economic costs and "international damage".

It is interesting to me that despite considering myself well informed on politics, and having voted in both of the elections you’re talking about, I can’t remember which of you is more correct! Such was the strength of the Tory media coverage, and the weakness of the Labour messaging on Brexit.

I feel like techsupporter lands closer to my memory of Corbyn’s position in the recent election, but also remember the flexibility in positions for individual Labour candidates you describe.

Probably that disunity and lack of leadership contributed somewhat to their loss. I strongly remember my impression going in to the election being that Labour supported Brexit because it was too afraid to lose the North (then lost it anyway because in the North they thought Labour was opposed to Brexit because they didn’t want to lose in the South)

Do you know whether this applies to everything which executes? If my build scripts create a build script and run it I guess that will be ok, but if my build scripts build a specialised parser (say, from C source) I need to add a step after linking to code sign the generated parser binary before using it? Is that about right?

Did you just publish the result of a benchmark or performance comparison test you ran to establish the difference in $/performance ratio between competitors?

If so, I have bad news for your license compliance...

So first you malign my choice of how I spend my leisure time with an implicit “my hobby is more wholesome than yours” and now you call me ignorant? I had hoped to add to the conversation by holding a mirror up to your silly “my hobby is better than your hobby” comments by highlighting that there is no “right” amount of time to spend on relaxing and taking care of your well-being.

As I’m sure you are aware, mental health is an important component of overall well-being, and you will find that doctors have prescribed treatments involving computer games in a wide ranging number of studies since their popularity began to grow in the late 1980’s. Picking one well cited example at random from a 30 second Google search https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0026... .

“No doctor ever advised playing more video games” is such a broad brush statement as to be useless to refute. It is factually wrong, and the first statement in our sub-conversation that truly deserves the label “wilfully ignorant” - you can learn more about the topic with a few minutes of searching for “video games therapy”.

You are likely aware that not everyone is neurotypical. Some people come alive in their creativity in a video game but struggle to communicate face to face, or struggle with the fine motor control to draw, paint, or write. Video games like Minecraft can become effective communication channels. Doctors and researchers can and do prescribe video games as therapy ( https://psychcentral.com/news/2019/01/28/therapeutic-video-g... ).

I only exercise in ways that require minimum investment. Ones I can do 15-30 minutes at a time with resolution. Stuff like HIIT or 5k runs for example. The only exercise I invested serious time in the last 5 years was a half marathon. Exercising just sucks up too much time that is better spent on stuff like spending time with family, or unwinding with a video game. I’m really surprised at how many dedicated gym members there seem to be these days, especially employed ones, as I don’t know where they find the time.