11,990 karma · joined February 23, 2021
Assembly isn't that hard. You'd have still gotten a job, but your employer just wouldn't have gotten as much productivity out of you (so they'd either have had to hire more programmers or write less software).
Not honoring the GPL very, very far down the list of moral wrongs, and certainly isn't in the "morally repugnant" category.
Until it doesn't. I mean until very recently the narrative justification for extreme automation was it would free up our time to create art and stuff. Now that's in question.
It's all excuses to avoid thinking about the problems the automation technology will cause. Avoidance worked OK in the past, but as these technologies get more and more extreme, the problems will get more and more pressing, and the old lazy excuses won't cut it anymore.
> ...but we should do so in the context of celebrating greater individual leverage to create and produce.
And the end point of that is a small cadre of elites who control the machines, and hordes of people left with no economic value (except, perhaps as slaves for elite amusement, like gladiators and prostitutes).
What's the status of the GPL under Chinese law? Because maybe they're not required to honor it. IIRC, the GPL was written in the context of certain Western legal systems and depends on certain characteristics of those systems.
Even in a Western country, there's probably situations "give back" requirements become unenforceable (e.g. the copyright on the code runs out).
> Writing was a remix of pictorial representation, which was a remix of the way things like ox heads, flowing water, and birds look.
That's the kind of absurd reasoning when you take some proposition and try to defend it to the death even though its wrong.
> There's a much simpler explanation: people are worried about the environment and global warming, so they are willing to try out a lot of different things that they think might help, but lo and behold, it turns out that some of those things actually help and others turn out not to...
It's not one or the other, it's both.
There's also the factor that people are more comfortable with changes that inconvenience others, but don't inconvenience them much; so there's often a major lack of consideration and empathy with the proposals. Couple that with religion-like moral urgency, and you get a lot of unnecessary conflict.
Really? It's not very believable that someone on the right would phrase a threat like that (i.e. "go away or you'll end up dead, like the last right-wing leader killed by an left-wing environmental activist").
I did some digging and all I could find (in English) was some comments attributing the threats to the "the anti-farmer or anti-BBB lobby" (https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/07/pro-farming-mp-cancels...).
So? If the disorder would have otherwise remained latent in an individual, and marijuana was the environmental factor that caused it to manifest itself, then that's definitely a negative health outcome of marijuana.
What do you mean? This is China we're talking about. Every major company has a cell of Communist party members. If the government makes a decision, you follow and don't complain too loudly or risk political consequences. And, IIRC, the Chinese government already made the decision to build up their chip industry years ago (Made in China 2025).
IMHO, it's quite plausible that not implementing an export ban would have just allowed them to make the transition to domestic production more cheaply and more smoothly.
> Are we using the same Internet? Clickbait, outrage and emotionally-charged drivel triumphs over measured rational discourse every day of the week
Yeah ... for ad-driven content and messaging about wedge-issues meant to hold together electoral coalitions. Is this one of those things?
If you actually are about issue X, it's probably not a good strategy to let it get polarized along political lines, you might slightly increase your support with one polarization, but you'll increase opposition from the other. That's a recipe having your issue stagnate.
That's going too far. It's almost like saying "don't fight a battle that won't immediately win you the war." It's important not to overstate their effectiveness (an export ban won't hit some Achilles heel that grind their military to a halt), but that doesn't mean the short term effects aren't valuable and the right thing to do. These bans are delaying tactics, they'll make things harder but not impossible for Russia and China to do certain things, and they might have to make unwanted compromises (e.g. force short-term supply chain issues and redesigning using a less robust common civilian grade chip they can get on the grey market rather than the harder-to-get specialized chip they want).
Basically, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
In the short term, I'm sure China will be able to get whatever chips it needs (for military applications, at least) that are available on the civilian market, they'll just have to setup front companies, etc.
In the medium to long term, this will motivate China to build the capacity it needs. It might ever exactly be cutting edge, but I'm sure they'll get close enough that it won't matter too much.
Who has both 1) an interest in bank balance sheets, and 2) enough clout with Wells Fargo's depositors to cause a SVB-style collapse?
Given how large and diversified Wells Fargo is, I think the only people with the reach to get a message like that out on social media (celebrities) probably don't have the interest or credibility to send such a message and have it listened to.
That will probably be denied by claiming the the groups with lower rates are lying about their mental health, due to "inferior" ideology, and the higher rates are a reflection of the "true" human condition.
> The concrete thing, though a bit curious, does seem to bear out in photos of their ammo dumps and RF's inability to cure a pad before rebar is stolen (WaPo, NYT, and ChrisO_wiki are good on this issue).
However, the reasoning you give here makes the claim more credible, since it makes clear the problem is corruption not technology.
https://vgamuseum.ru/gpu/noname/videoloca-bitchin-fast-3d-20...
So, typical Russian disinformation.
That's not true: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/us/politics/cruise-missil...:
"Weapons investigators in Kyiv found that at least one Russian Kh-101 cruise missile used in widespread attacks there on Nov. 23 had been made no earlier than October."
> ...whereas those are available to NATO, and we've seen those be a lot more effective than the dumb artillery.
They are, but I'm under the impression that NATO/the US would also quickly use up their cruise missile stockpiles in the event of a hot war.
> NATO has large stocks of 155mm shells. But they can also buy them because it's become a standard outside of the non Russian influence world. South Korea has a huge production and stock that is under negotiation.
South Korea isn't allowing any of their equipment or ammunition to be exported to Ukraine. The best that enables is for Western countries to play musical chairs and give Ukraine a greater share of their stockpiles/production from other sources.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Constitution also says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Chinese are people and tanks are arms, but that doesn't mean the Constitution protects their right to drive a column of tanks up to the White House.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact, but broad and literal readings of certain sections would make it so.
1. You can point to a source with some authority talking about the lack of a thing. Which shouldn't be too hard, since, unless you're ex-Russian Army logistics, you must have learned those claims from somewhere.
2. You can point to a source talking talking about Russian Army logistics, that shows them "moving things by hand" when forklifts would be more appropriate.
3. You can point to a source talking about how all forklifts require really flat concrete, and not all countries can make it because [reasons]. However, you probably can't do that because that would contradict the example I gave of a forklift operating on gravel.
Do you have a source for that. The last part (especially) is pretty unbelievable. I would assume that the techniques for pouring flat concrete isn't new, and even if they didn't have it, they could just make forklifts with bigger wheels or something. For instance, here's a US military forklift driving on gravel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forklift#Counterbalanced_forkl....
I do understand the Russians are much more focused on rail for military transport compared to the US, which then let them make design choices that have made it hard to switch to truck transport.
I don't think so. At some point I setup my Signal to send backups to (I think) the "/Signal/Backups2" directory on my phone. My phone doesn't support SD cards, so there may be some quirk with those, but I definitely had some control.
> And I don't want it only as an encrypted blob to bring back into Signal though of course that option should be available. I would actually like the abilityt o export it in a format of my choosing.
That's a nice to have, but it's totally reasonable for them not to support a bunch of random formats someone might like, but hardly anyone would ever use.
If you want a different format, just write a converter. It wouldn't be very hard. The backup is literally an encrypted SQLite DB, and there's a command-line decryptor available (if you have your key).
You can totally back up and export your Signal messages on Android. You export to a file (encrypted with a generated pin), copy that file to a new device, and import that file into Signal. I've done it several times and have never lost a message.
Only in the context of the PRC. The reality of US-Taiwan relations would be much clearer if it was not PRC policy to sever diplomatic relationship with any country that recognizes Taiwan.
On the topic of Taiwan, it's a mistake to reason about de facto relationships from de jure "official positions." Basically, the "official positions" are lies, and the actual positions are not directly stated. For instance, if the US really considered Taiwan as "part of China," it wouldn't be war-gaming how to militarily repel an invasion from the PRC.
I believe Russia is already working on building new pipelines to fix that. The Chinese also know how to build things fast, so that doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem.
> To get the oil from other regions, they'd have to rely on ships...
Is that a problem or just a small inefficiency? Because it doesn't look like a problem to me, short of an all-out war where you've got submarines attacking commercial shipping.
Why do you think they'd have to deal with any "large scale insurrections"? They easily delt with one HK, once they imposed a Mainland-style security law, because fear evaporated the protests. Those protests also didn't inspire much of a response in the Mainland. They also didn't have to deal with on in Xinjiang, where they implemented so much direct oppression that you'd think they'd have inspired a response if one were possible.
The PRC security apparatus is strong, well organized, and its actions aren't constrained by liberal sensibilities. The PRC population is thoroughly disarmed, disorganized, and dis-informed, so cannot resist it. I think you're indulging in wishful thinking and fantasy.
Why would they be "scared shitless"? They've demonstrated the ability to crack down hard and defeat those movements. For instance: the Hong Kong protests ended almost immediately once China decided to take the gloves off.
The question is, can Taiwan get there? I doubt it, and if it tries and fails to reach the threshold, it will only provoke China (or more specifically, the Chinese leadership).
Limited nuclear war is an automatic loss condition for Taiwan, but it's only very costly to China. I believe nuclear weapons in Taiwan is one of China's stated red lines that will trigger war.
I think you missed my point: there's synergy between the West's two pariahs. Russia can provide the food and oil China needs, and China can supply manufactured goods to Russia (and Africa and all kinds of other places that won't fall in line behind whatever the West wants them to do).