grive

You assume the central planner to be the same as a single unit (as in, of the same kind, the same species).

Who is to say that the central planner must be the ontological equal of a single unit? Why not a more complex system?

You could have for example a quorum of single-unit who will need to reach a consensus concerning their diverging self-beneficial impetus. You can also imagine, if you represent the interest of each single unit as a vector in some kind of space, that the quorum must navigate a product of those vectors.

You can imagine an AI then, a machine exploring that vector space that could learn to balance the wants and needs of its single units.

Et cætera. I don't know exactly why you comment was not well received, I am not able myself to downvote comments here and I did not do that, but my own opinion about yours was that it was basing itself on some assumptions that were biased by some real-world considerations that were irrelevant for the concept presented.

Your comment however contains very little in the way of actual refutation, as you missed the point and did not engage it in the least.

It is easy (1x) to create meaningless content, it is harder however to address it and to explain properly why the point was missed.

Building a sound argument, clearly and in a straightforward manner is hard. Understanding the non-sequitur of your interlocutor is hard. Extirping the salient part of the inconsistency will force you to shave off the useless fluff around it.

Adding that fluff is easier, as it only takes intellectual laziness.

Then you are probably not the target for the Arch distrib. Others are better suited for your needs.

You were using a distribution made for people who want to take time to tinker, then complain that it requires that you take time to tinker.

Using Arch is sometimes a status symbol, a way to signal that you are a hacker that likes to control every bit of your system. There is no need to try this hard. You can also simply use Ubuntu or any variants, or even Fedora for what's matters. That's what I do.

> I do not think that would be fair to stockholders (among which are pension funds).

How is it not fair? Why should they bear no responsibility in the behavior of something they are funding? They should indeed lose money for being reckless in their investment.

The alternative is to let the rest of society, that has no stake in the company, bear the cost of their toxic activity. How is it more fair than making stockholders pay?

In this letter[1], the term is explained as

> "Entirely new role in area such as cybersecurity, data science, artificial intelligence and cognitive business"

Leaving the "Entirely new" bullshit, considering that "what matters most is relevant skills, sometimes obtained through vocational training", to me it seems that they simply want to hire software engineers while paying them 2x less than their market rate.

New collar is a bullshit term meant to avoid saying white collar, because they will have the same job with a pay cut.

[1]: http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/files/201...

It is a sensible decision, as it will focus doing things right on that particular paradigm: UNIX.

For example, this means that plugins trying to extend grammar analysis, will primarily try to rely on their already existing parsers and tools via the command line. This means a streamlined process to create plugins / extensions to the editor, and the function of the editor is well defined.

If your command is ongoing, you can argue that the time it is taking is in itself surprising.

You expect it to finish at any time. It continuing is the surprise. A marker for its progression is thus, IMO well within the range of respecting this philosophy.

kill sends a signal. It has no bearing over what the signal does and whether the result is what was expected.

You missed the point: the telecom carriers haven't either, however they are regulated, which is not the case for Uber.

So the point is moot for telecom carriers because the regulator already swept in. The point is still important to make concerning ongoing practices in unregulated markets, like big data in tech.

If you don't like how little is done to correct the NSA using telecom facilities however, you should see with your government, not simply the companies it coerces.

Indeed, it is not explicit, but it is akin to a nuclear winter: soot everywhere that obscured the atmosphere, killing crops and making farming impossible.

It could be other events (supervolcano eruption for example), but a nuclear holocaust would be similar if not too many bombs are used.

Very cool, I was just searching this kind of thing.

I'd like to see if it would be easy to support ReST beside markdown. I'd like to reuse my current files instead of trying to convert them haphazardly...

A somewhat less popular cultural reference could be The Road from McCarthy.

Human scavengers roaming what's left, true, but mostly famished and trying to find food before anything else.

Maybe this time is the time we will renew the fear of nuclear annihilation. With Trump elected, Europe is turning to itself for its defence, and is already considering a common nuclear deterrence. Depending on its implementation, this could mean the end of the non-proliferation treaties.

Time to watch Threads again.

There is no confusion as to what they are doing. That does not mean that there isn't any moral ambiguity.

What they are doing is akin to a racket protection. They place themselves in the position of deciding whether some ads are authorized or not, and of course some money can push them in the good direction.

The only ambiguity here is that they seem to at least respect a standard for the ads they accept. Beside that, this is racket and corruption.

It is important to use uBlock origin and not uBlock. The latter was an error.

Otherwise, it is impossible: the blacklist are the same, the capabilities are the same, the only difference being that ABP will allow some ads by design.

Not Internet, the Web. And not the web, but the way we have started using it.

We sell analytics and data about people. This data is more valuable the more people there are to sell. This popularity metric will thus foster popularity contests, where inane content and disinformation is put forward. This is the problem.

> Click the Like button on a Page that challenges your beliefs, interact with that information and you'll see more of it.

That's precisely the problem with it. I'd like to read more on extremists groups and see how and why they exists, what kind of people they are, why do they think the way they do, what their fight is in our society. This is the first step to build a dialog.

However, "liking" their pages is out of question. I will not support them, I will not help them further their propaganda, their hateful rhetoric. I would like to understand them, but in no way do I want to support them.

In that sense, Facebook actively discourage dialog and openness to other ideas, because the only way to receive these ideas is also to make them more relevant than they ought to be.

There should be a way for us to navigate different bubbles, to inhabit different, neutral profiles to explore other niches of population, other ways of life within our own society. In that regard, Facebook is useless because it is not interesting for their business.

Reddit can work, but Reddit also has unpenetrable walls sometimes. However, it is already much better than Facebook or Google.

On the contrary, I think it is crucial for us to fight against websites selling audiences.

Fake news exists because they are able to sell ads on their pages, and they are profitable because they attract people, creating feelings, outrage, unreasonable reactions that feeds the pre-existing bias in the whole population.

Fighting these should be cutting their revenue streams. Google did just that, but it is a survival move so as to avoid precisely being in the blast of defense move that ought to be taken by citizens.

However, Google can and will only do the bare minimum for them to show that they somewhat care and that they are in control. They are starting a play of cat and mouse with people that can easily switch platforms.

> It's useless and a waste of time.

Ad-blockers are pretty effective there. If everyone used ad-blockers, fake news website would not have any revenue left, beside some marginal subscription streams. Evangelizing for ad-blockers, against Facebook, against Google and against analytics in general is an effective way to fight against these parasites.

> The time you spend blaming Facebook is the time you don't spend actually fixing what should be fixed : creating an healthy environment for debate.

The time I spend blaming all social networks is a time spent to better the Internet and fight against populisms at large. As for how to foster a healthy environment for debate, I'd quote Sartre:

> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.

Replace anti-Semites, which were the populists of the pre-45 era, to whichever populism you want today, be it from the left or from the right. You cannot win with reason against them, because they speak to the guts and then explain that since they have popular support, they have already won. You cannot defend measure and reason because their main weapon is bipartism coloring things in black and white, and this will always be more popular than trying to explain things, to have some critical thinking.

Mass-media in general will always push forward this kind of gregarian thinking. Internet ought to be a way for us to build other ways to consume and produce, to share information. Facebook and Google and Amazon are building empires upon the ashes of the old world, effectively cutting the disruptive factor that Internet was introducing in its infancy. Fighting those mastodons is not vain, it is time spent actually fixing what should be fixed.

> They sell ads. If "news filtering" aligns with their bottom-line they'll do it, if it doesn't, they won't, that's business.

Yep, that's what is said when saying "Facebook [...] kills democracy for their own benefit". They provide a discourse perceived as the public discourse for a profit.

Some people are considering that this exercise is a threat to democracy, and even though you seem to imply that you are more versed / cynical / aware ("Give me a break"), that's precisely the for profit part that ruffles some feathers.

> What kills democracy is people incapable of convincing others that they are being mislead/wrong without insulting them with all possible -ism .

Offering a platform for misleading news does not help and actually plays an active part in this.

> What kills democracy is people on both side being so extreme they just can't talk to each other anymore. Facebook isn't responsible for that.

Building a bubble is the prime example of how you can stop separated communities from talking to each other. You can say that the separation existed before Facebook, before other online communities, it does not make it any less salient that these bubbles exists and that it is in the monetary interest of Facebook to further them in order to sell better targeted ads. They whole business plan, their whole point of existing is depending on practices and behaviors that are currently a problem in our democracies.

This means that as of now, Facebook will fight for these problems when they fight for their business. Even if you don't use Facebook or other social networks on the Internet, this means that as an individual citizen your country / nation is being influenced by these products. Even if you choose to not use them, it is perfectly reasonable to go out of your way to tell people to stop using them and to fight their influence in your country.

So, people can perfectly continue to blame Facebook for these problems. No one says that they should be alone in being blamed on this, no need to exaggerate the critics to make them appear ridiculous. But acknowledging these problems is absolutely critical these days.

We're not talking about Emojis, but coloured typeface. Emojis are part of Unicode, coloured typeface are not.

The DPDK and all the kernel bypass in networking is another example.

That is effectively the case. See for example DDIO with Intel which can only be enabled for specific devices with full cooperation between Intel and this particular vendor.

You cannot compete with a DDIO-enabled device, which of course all Intel devices are.

See also the Intel multibuffer crypto library, which was specialized and timed for Intel CPUs. No one else could write at this level of optimization, because we do not have the internal design and simulator that Intel work with.

So yeah, you are talking with sophisticated hardware which will have firmware blobs and undocumented features. If you only rely on general instructions sets you will only get so far. When we are talking about ns of latency and these level of bandwidth, they make the difference between several stacks.

The push for smart-NICs will increasingly blur the line between soft and hard layer. We can either direct our efforts so as to avoid rewriting an abstraction layer upon it or do so for each vendor-specific API (OFED is but one example, there will be others).

> DPDK is taking the industry in the wrong direction, and application developers should fight back.

DPDK is doing the exact same work you did, make hardware vendor release their driver API and abstract it away so that Application developer can stay independent from it.

You "successfully lobbyied" for one API to be released. Now do that for any number of hardware, NICs versions, and in the end you will have to release a generic API, which is effectively a new DPDK.

Completely independent applications will only go so far. You are left with a vendor lock-in with a very high upfront cost if you ever need to evolve your hardware.

That's a good thing.

I fail to see why snark is warranted here. Linux should not have to conform to Microsoft anti-competitive practices.

UEFI is a mess to deal with because Microsoft wanted to lock users. Yes, this will prevent Linux on the desktop. That doesn't mean it will never happen.

Do they need the market leader to take on the market?

In the end, that's also what is at stake, and the reason Intel might not be that interested. They will maybe see the light and see that they would have to steer the collaboration toward a more beneficial direction (for them), but at first, they will probably wait for it to gain momentum before deciding that they have to invest money to push the effort in the right direction (for them).

They have to be a threat for the established company to make a move. What nickpsecurity is saying by telling that they don't need Intel is that they are not yet a sufficient threat and that they are capable of becoming one.

Your argument boils down to "public service is awful". The article simply states that privatizing is simply making things worse.

Privatizing is not the solution. You said yourself: "We pay far too little for services like water". Well, yeah. Stop paying so damn little for your infrastructure then.

Your critique of public service is that it is unable to function with so little ressource. I don't see that as a failure from the public service itself, but from the society that should be making it work.

And I mean society, not government. It's too easy to fault the big bad government for being unable to do it. That's the taxpayers that are in the end voting for populists that will pledge to reduce spending and taxes to unrealistic levels, breaking public services, preparing the terrain for privatization and selling to their friends.

Anyway.

I can perfectly tell the difference, you simply missed the point.

You imply that it was dishonest. It was absolutely not dishonest. It was precisely to emphasize my point.

My point being that the words you used were all comparisons, made in relation to a norm. That's the whole point of the thread. That it was actually impossible to use the nouns themselves ("dumb", "weak", "ugly"), exactly because there cannot be any objective measure of it in nature.

Yes, you lift Nkg. You weight Mkg. You measure Xcm. That does not tell whether you are strong, heavy or tall. These are all meaningless in a vacuum. More importantly, it does not tell whether you are stronger, heavier, taller. Stronger, heavier, taller than what, than whom?

You were excluding this context in you analysis, telling that the poors would not lose anything as they would not be worse off from their former self. The context here is that they are not measured against humanity decades, centuries earlier, but to their contemporaries, the elites that would design their babies.

It is impossible to abstract this context from the comparison, precisely because it is a comparison, and because the only meaningful comparison is that which concerns contemporaries.

"Lifting 100kg" is objective. Saying that "being able to lift 100kg is being strong" is not. What is not objective is saying what it takes to be considered strong. Not the measurement itself.

That's pretty much exactly my point. These can only exist as comparisons. They are meaningless on their own, e.g. they are not objective attributes.