danarmak

That's a separate matter, which shouldn't affect what I wrote.

While the law hasn't changed, the prosecution policy has. USG had not charged the NYT, WP etc. with criminal publication of the Pentagon Papers, and of the many leaked classified data published before and since. A consistent change in the policy (prosecuting the NYT and its individual journalists and editors, and not just Assange) would have a huge impact on politics. An inconsistent change, successfully prosecuting but only charging the journalists that the current government finds inconvenient, would have a different but also huge impact.

To update you need the data so you can rehash it. A typical tracker only has the torrent files and would take a very long time and spend a lot of possibly expensive bandwidth to download all the tracked torrents. And some torrents may not be seeded all the time.

And then sits in port for years until it blows up.

Do remember that the bigger problem here wasn't a sea-unworthy ship that had to be impounded, but the fact the explosives were not safely stored or disposed of. That's not directly the fault of the ship's owner.

He was ~ 23 years old in 1666 when he published on calculus, the dynamics of moving bodies, inverse-square universal gravitation, and optics (prisms).

> No access to foreign websites: IP addresses are personal data

The OP talks about not storing personal data, which would mean e.g. not keeping logs of client IP addresses; that does not forbid the Internet.

I agree that a law that literally says or is interpreted to say that my IP address must not cross international borders, forbids the international Internet. But there is no such law.

It's possible to put together an argument to interpret laws in an undesirable or unexpected way. That's what lawyers are for. We have to have some measure of confidence in court rulings, that's part of the system, law interpretation is always being challenged.

> No international email, social media.

To the best of my understanding, the GDPR allows people to opt-in to send personal data. If I send an email to someone in the US, I deliberately share e.g. my name with them; that's legal. If I send an email to someone in Europe, and my and their email providers are companies operating in Europe, they should not transmit or store the email through US servers. That's not impossible. At least that's my understanding.

The problem with social networks is legitimate, and a real problem, but it's vastly smaller than "the Internet".

An Internet with no personal data is a far cry from useless.

It's possible, but in addition to the Bering strait, not instead. The Bering was crossed as many as 19,000 years ago, and some theorize an earlier wave of > 40,000 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas#Chr...

The claims for more recent trans-oceanic contact across the Pacific are about much more recent times, mostly the last 1000 years (which is when eastern Polynesia was settled), and none are widely accepted except for continuing traffic with Siberia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_co...

With the vast spans of time involved, mostly pre-literate cultures in both South America and Polynesia, and the loss of both historical knowledge and genetic diversity following European conquest, it's very hard to argue that there definitely wasn't some more recent contact; but it does not seem to have left strong genetic or linguistic signatures.

The book /Albion's Seed/, and this review of it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-se...

If she developed symptoms earlier than they did, but went to the hospital later, it's not impossible. But they couldn't have reliable data about when she or the other early patients were infected; the pre-symptomatic period seems to vary a lot.

It's happening here in Israel. The government is promoting an app which claims it stores the location history on-device and fetches known-disease-vector data from the server to compare it locally. (For good or bad it doesn't use the device's existing location history if it's already stored...)

They just announced it's had 1M installs (in a country of 8.7M) in the last week.

So fix your employment, minimum wage, etc. laws, too. UBI is a huge undertaking in terms of legal and social changes, we shouldn't consider it "either this change or no change".

Changing your employment is individual and allows different offerings from different employers, matching the wants and needs of different people. Changing your government needs a majority consensus and at least some people will be in the minority who doesn't get what they want.

I don't think tying employment to healthcare is a good thing, but I don't think your argument gives a good reason, either.

Dalvik is APL licensed, so it can't be benefitting from a GPL license grant in any way. The GPL only lets you distribute derivative copies that are also under the GPL.

One possible confounder is that having children is a pretty much irreversible step. Whereas many people who don't have children might choose to have them later. So they regret their choice less, because it's a less final choice.

> If you channel that ambition into being a better parent everyone benefits.

That's begging the question. Your original ambition doesn't benefit. What if it was something really good and worthwhile?

> for most people their kids will have more overall influence then their work ever will.

This can't be the case, unless you think the amount of 'influence' always increases as generation pass (why?)

My kids are humans, just like me. If we're both selected at random, we should expect equal 'influence' for both. If I have some reason to think I'm above average in influence, then I should expect regression to the mean for my kids.

> I think it's emcumbent on approach 2 to try and understand why people act like approach 1.

For many (most?) people, it's just a matter of values. Punishment of evildoers, justice, revenge, enforcement of the law, are not judged on the merits of preventing future offences, they're desirable in their own right.

These values are widespread and are part of the 'natural' or 'default' repertoire of human social behavior. Different cultures encourage them to different extents, and channel them differently, and of course differ a lot on what is offensive and deserving of punishment and how much. But I don't think it's difficult to understand why people desire these things.

Even if everyone agrees that rehabilitative justice is better for reducing crime, it's a separate moral decision to value reducing crime over other things like justice (fairness) or punishment (negative consequences for infringing on rights).

This is true. But if it's at all possible, the marketplace could automate it. History shows that DRM and adjacent technology rarely succeeds if the law doesn't make it illegal to circumvent. And history also clearly shows that most users are willing to click a button letting others access their Steam account if needed.

A game only has value while I'm playing it. If two people play the same game at different hours or timezones, they can buy a single license and transfer it back and forth. (This is different from e.g. server software.)

A tariff on resales would cut back on that (if the ruling allows it). But the effective price of a game would still tend to approach the cost of reselling it. You would need to re-download the game every time you buy it, but with modern broadband this is feasible.

An efficient marketplace for 'renting' games (or game licenses) would let you buy a game just before you start playing, and resell it when you go to sleep. The marketplace would only need to buy enough licenses to satisfy peak demand and could amortize the cost across players and games.

If that's true, it's wonderful and I applaud them for making this decision.

I haven't been following this conversation closely; is there any serious change of Linux (some distributions, or the kernel upstream) disabling HT by default?

Two of the three (current) top-level replies compare BSDs to Linux in general, but that really has nothing to do with whether you disable HT. Using Linux should not have stopped anyone from listening to Theo and disabling HT months ago. Your security authorities don't have to be your kernel developers.

On the other hand, if BSDs had been more popular, one of these splinters might have dominated the market as much as Linux does, due to the many positive feedback effects of being the most successful free OS.

Every nation is also individually incentivized to act against the common good of all nations.

Those are the previous generation, Zen 1 EPYC CPUs, whichn were rolled out on AWS back in November.

It's 10 characters too long. But when shortening it, the meaning should not be significantly changed.

E.g., you could replace "AMD Ryzen 7 3700X + Ryzen 9 3900X" with "AMD Ryzen 3700X + 3900X". 10 characters shorter and no confusion or change in meaning. I'm sure there are other ways to rewrite this.

The original article is titled "...With A Big Caveat". That is the author's (Michael Larabel's) decision. It's fine to disagree and to discuss that in the comments here. But linking to the article using a title that means something quite different is misleading editorializing.

The actual article title (atm) is "AMD Ryzen 7 3700X + Ryzen 9 3900X Offer Incredible Linux Performance But With A Big Caveat". This link omits the "caveat" part. Please fix that.

> What new kernels? The three major OSes are two UNIX based, and one doing its own thing.

I meant that many new and forked UNIX-like kernels have been written over the past 35 years. Just the successful ones (for their time) include at least three BSDs, OSX, several commercial UNIXes (AIX, IRIX, Solaris, UnixWare...), and many others I'm unfamiliar with (e.g. embedded ones).

It's common to add new and better APIs while keeping old ones for compatibility. Sockets are a userland API, so if everyone had adopted a different one 20 years ago, the original API could probably be implemented in a userland shim with only a small performance hit.

However, a new file-based paradigm from sockets would probably work better with kernel involvement; that's why I mentioned kernels. We've seen many experiments in pretty much every other important API straddling kernel and userland. IPC, device management, filesystems, async/concurrent IO, you name it. Some succeeded, others failed. Why are there no widely successful, file-based alternatives to BSD sockets? The only one I know firsthand is /dev/tcp and that's a Bash internal.

I think the demand for remote GUI apps went down, for several reasons:

- Web apps got better and more common

- Windows (and MS SQL Server etc), which are some of the big OS-level reason for using remote GUI management tools, has improved its command-line management story and added UI-less server editions

- Network improvements (more bandwidth, more clouds and POPs) made existing 'remote desktop' protocols more tolerable on the Internet, all the way back to the venerable VNC and RDP

What kind of remote UI app/workload do you see as common today?

And in the 35 years since, despite multiple new kernels and userlands and languages, a more unix-file-like socket API hasn't become popular. I'm not sure what does that tells us, but it's not nothing.