gpu_explorer

Thanks. I changed the setting, but it didn't help much. It's smart to optimize for small files, since those are probably 99% of your use cases.

You might want to remove the part of your web site that says "View Large Files Quickly" because I was very excited when I read this and then very disappointed when it wasn't fast at all.

Notepad++ can open the file instantly and allows me to move around very quickly. You'd probably need something close that level of performance before you can claim that your product is fast for large files.

Gotta eat your own dog food, yes?

Yes, it's just a .CSV file of a 1920x1080 image. Every value in the .CSV file is 9.

9,9 ... until 1920 columns.

...

until 1080 rows.

Would you mind explaining the biochemistry of the following statement: "The vaccines however generate large quantities of the more potent Wuhan 2019 spike."

Please including at least a few sentences that precisely describe the differences in the structure and chemistry of what you call the "Wuhan 2019 spike" compared to the Omicron spike protein.

It would be great if you could also explain specifically how differences between the structure and chemistry of the "Wuhan 2019 spike" and the Omicron spike protein support the allegations you're making.

Do you think differences in spike protein structure and chemistry have implications for immune system modulation via signaling molecules? If so, which signaling molecules and which cell lines?

Who is allowed to submit reports to VAERS? How many of the 28,000 reports in VAERS are deaths?

Hundreds of thousands of people are dead from vaccine refusal in the US and meanwhile on you talk about an appreciation for science and reason.

That is your opinion stated as if it were a fact.

Here are facts:

Anti-vax is a shortening of the term anti-vaccination, and it is not a surprise to find that people who are 'anti-vax' are against vaccinations, and many of them actively try to recruit people to their cause of avoiding vaccines. Anti-vaccination is a highly accurate term.

I and many others who are pro-vax don't think that anti-vax people are against a vast range of science-based medicines. To the contrary, I am amazed at how many anti-vax people will smoke cigarettes (DNA poisons) and drink alcohol (DNA poison) and take antibiotics and blood pressure medicines and see a dentist and see a regular doctor. Not to mention that many who are against a covid vaccine have had many other vaccines. This selective position against vaccines and not other treatments only makes their anti-vax attitude appear even more irrational.

But if you want different word, then vaccine hysteria would be a good choice. Because that's what anti-vax attitudes have caused, and now a few hundred thousand people have died from it. Think of the damage all those avoidable deaths will cause for millions of people.

As I posted a few times here in this area so far, vaccine fear isn't rational. It's also amazing to me that so many people who are against vaccines really think that people who are getting vaccinated have been manipulated to do so, but that their decision to avoid a vaccine is well-reasoned and not the result of manipulation by people with anti-vaccine sentiment who profit from spreading misinformation in society.

Here is a link that I have shared now with many people, including people I know who were against vaccines. It nudged a few people to get a covid vaccine.

https://historyofvaccines.org/

Vaccines have been in use for hundreds of years. Fear of vaccines isn't rational.

https://historyofvaccines.org/

Vaccines have been in use for hundreds of years. Fear of vaccines isn't rational.

https://historyofvaccines.org/

I tried this and it couldn't open a 6MB CSV file with 1920 columns and 1080 rows. Or maybe it could sometime if I decide that I can wait long enough. Notepad++ can open this file almost instantly.

Not impressed.

> Data please? Have you been living under a rock?

> There are very intelligent people on HN, but this weird obsession with data and scholarly articles is honestly stupid. We're not talking about events that occurred 100 years ago, we are all living this right NOW!

I would just like to see data that supports what you propose in your original remarks. It doesn't have to be an encyclopedia of references. It's okay if there isn't data - I'll just assume you're sharing your opinion (which is totally cool as well of course).

> I'm probably going to get down voted, which only proves my points.

It proves precisely none of your points. Data please.

Kosher rules are against eating pig meat. You can have a pig heart valve or heart, especially to save a life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

Not that everyone would do it.

It's interesting that you raise totalitarians like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot in this discussion. What are you trying to imply? Implication isn't a sound argument.

> Social media companies are common carriers, just another set of telecom utilities that must be regulated so they cannot deny users access once they’re above a certain size.

In your opinion. There are many good arguments against this and you know it.

> Also your claims of judging and disallowing speech on a subjective determination of being “antisocial” is exactly the kind of authoritarian kafka-esque censorship that makes the policies of these huge tech platforms incompatible with a free society.

This sounds like your arguments are misinformed or perhaps not realizing how things are.

Speech is already heavily regulated by civil agreements throughout American society. I don't have enough time to type all the examples, but here are a few: you can't sell trade secrets from your employer and claim freedom of expression, you can't scream loudly during a theater performance, you can't curse in a restaurant, you can't go sell things 'table-to-table' in a restaurant, you can't make public statements about someone's marital fidelity, or whether or not they have transmissible infections or diseases. There are many other examples.

So there are already pretty strong guards against behaving in antisocial manner and trying to claim that it's 'protected speech'. But I understand that it's very convenient for you to try to say that such guards are 'authoritarian' and 'kafka,esque' instead of presenting even a tiny crumb of valid argument against my very well-argued position.

Here we are talking on HN. Is it okay for HN to ban people who don't follow the rules? I have heard this is something that can happen here. Does this mean HN is preventing people from talking?

Companies do not have to allow people to use their platforms to engage in antisocial behavior. I'm sorry, but you can't go say whatever you want in the middle of a restaurant and assume that freedom of expression protects you from what happens when others don't want to hear what you have to say. Unless of course you're a toddler.

I would remind you that vaccine hesitancy, vaccine skepticism, and vaccine avoidance are not the sole property of the American political right. To this point, Twitter also banned Naomi Wolf. Google it if you're not familiar. Instagram banned RFK Jr. Google that as well if you want.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/05/naomi-wolf-ban...

< Its clearly forcing their politics onto the public by not allowing counter views, the politics that do include race, religion, and other aspects of life.

Marjorie Taylor Green posted provably false misinformation about vaccines, in clear violation of Twitters terms of service. She entered into a binding contract when she signed up for her Twitter account, and Twitter found a suitable remedy. She breached the contract and they terminated her account.

But never mind private companies. Society does not have to accommodate toxic, antisocial "counter views" in the interest of "fair and balanced". There is nothing "fair and balanced" about lies, and there aren't two sides to every debate. It's very convenient to cry censorship, but where is your call for personal responsibility on the part of Ms. Green?

< They clearly banned her for her right leaning politics, and used terms like "misinformation".

I would be interested in proof that her account was terminated for her right leaning politics.

I don't think this is the same old tired argument.

Political groups are not a protected class in the United States, and for good reason. Political affiliation is not an inherent quality of a person. People's political affiliation can, and does, change.

Marjorie Taylor Green had her Twitter account terminated for breaching a written contract between her and Twitter. Her Twitter account was not terminated because she is a Republican, or because she's a woman, or because she's white, or because she's over 40, or because she's heterosexual.

During the civil rights movement, people were denied service because of the color of their skin. This didn't happen to Marjorie Taylor Green.

Where does Twitter's user agreement say "you're not allowed to express any of these opinions"? Otherwise, your argument feels like hyperbole to me.

Of course. That's why Marjorie Taylor Green shouldn't have breached her user agreement.

< and then some subgroup

I'm going to assume that you have good intent here, but usually "some subgroup" is dog whistle for a repressed group such as persons of color or gay people. I hope that marginalized subgroups continue to protest and get people canceled, and I intend to continue paying and donating my time and effort to make sure they can get the canceling done.

< didn’t like their opinions

Very often these "canceled" opinions include one or more of the "big three": ideology that is sexist, racist, or homophobic. People espousing these beliefs should face consequences for their behavior; they should be canceled. Society does not have to accept the toxic notion that a system should be "fair and balanced" to accommodate poisonous, antisocial ideas and behavior.

The old system, the system that accommodated these poisonous, antisocial ideas was responsible for ruining many lives because people thought it was okay to say that people should not be able to get divorced, or go to college, or have birth control, or earn an equal living, or have a bank account or credit card. Or live in a certain neighborhood. And when it was okay to say it, it was okay to put it into public and private policy alike. You could be fired for being gay, or pregnant, or not hired. You couldn't live in a certain neighborhood if you were African American, unless you wanted to find burning crosses outside your house at night. You could be jailed for engaging in private, consensual gay sex in some US jurisdictions until 2003.

So forgive me if I take a little liberty here. I think it's totally okay for people to assemble and protest a speaker because they don't agree with their political views. It's equally okay for a university to cancel an appearance because they or their students or faculty don't agree with the political positions of the speaker. I can't remember a single instance in my life where I ever made political speech, or any other speech, that called for the repression of any group or sub-group of society simply because I felt like it, or because I read about it in some book written in the Judean or Arabian deserts several millennia ago.

Cancel culture is just the free market at work. I found that explaining it this way to conservatives helped them understand why it was necessary (and I am not assuming you are a conservative).

Twitter has the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association, and this gives them the perfect right to ban people from their platform if they don't agree with what people say. Just like you have the right to ask people to leave your house or business if you don't agree with what they say. Twitter's rights, and your rights, include banning people from platform/home whose political speech they/you don't agree with - which Twitter didn't even do in this case.

In this case, Marjorie Taylor Green's Twitter account was terminated for breach of contract. She was an adult when she signed a written contract with Twitter and opened her account. According to Twitter, she breached the agreement and they elected to choose a remedy that some people don't like. That's just too bad. She isn't facing arrest or imprisonment as a result of her statements. She can go ahead and sue them in civil court if she disagrees!

< whereby it can do all of those internal-facing "exceptional" things you listed

I'm sorry, I hate to repeat myself, but a corporation cannot levy taxes, cannot jail people, cannot execute someone, cannot declare war, all of which a government can do through a variety of legal means. In fact, the US government has so much power that it can do these things through extra legal means and face no consequences whatsoever.

Twitter does not have this kind of power, and I am rightly suspicious of arguments that attempt to frame the situation otherwise, no matter how elegantly or abstractly presented.

You mean the "right" to ban Marjorie Taylor Green for breach of contract? Marjorie Taylor Green breached a written agreement she entered into with Twitter. Provided their terms of service aren't illegal, Twitter certainly should be able to enforce them.

> Furthermore, immediately referencing the Bill of Rights to call Twitter's activities "freedom of expression" is wantonly destructive to any sort of discussion.

It's absolutely appropriate to reference the Bill of Rights. As a collection of individuals, Twitter is legally entitled to both freedom of expression and freedom of association. That said, Twitter also has every right to ban Marjorie Taylor Green for breach of contract.

> The scale Twitter operates at is much closer to that of government than that of the People.

I'm sorry, but this argument is objectively false. You cannot compare the power of Twitter to the nearly unfathomable power of the three branches of the US government. Twitter can't levy taxes. Twitter can't declare war. Twitter can't prosecute you and/or put you in jail. Twitter simply doesn't have these powers.

> Political fortunes can swing on bad tweets.

> Political fortunes can swing on bad press releases.

> Political fortunes can swing on bad interviews.

> Political fortunes can swing on bad comments at private dinners that become public.

As they should.

Even if we use the definition in sense 2 (and I definitely don't think we should) enforcing a contract is not censorship. As far as I am aware, Marjorie Taylor Green was over the age of majority and of sound mind and body - and therefore fully capable of agreeing to the terms of a written agreement - when she agreed to the Twitter terms of service.

Humans are a social species, and a lot of what you refer to as "cancel culture" is a reaction to antisocial behavior like racism and sexism and homophobia that actively harms our societies. Some of this behavior has been going on for centuries or longer. People who support so called "cancel culture" simply think that a few millennia of racism and sexism are enough.

Reasonable people should not condemn cancel culture; reasonable people should support efforts to cancel racism, sexism, ageism, and the other -isms that cause profound harm to members of our societies. It's not really that difficult to not make racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks.

It's hard to see this as a "boon" for Marjorie Taylor Green. If Twitter is such a useless platform, why was she busy using it to promote her ideas?

I absolutely agree that termination of her Twitter account is not meaningful censorship. I'm sure it won't be long before all the networks want to interview her about it. The invitations have probably already been sent.

By this logic, your family is also not a conscious being and cannot experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed. Or maybe you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend and a group of friends. Are these groups also unable to experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed?