throwaway7679

Maybe you could do a post on... remote attestation.

That is, the thing that people are actually talking about when they use that term: The means for companies and governments to usurp the ownership of consumer devices.

Sibling comments are right. Refusing to hurt people is a crime against money.

Grieving parents clamor for laws that will allow surveillance companies to surveil even harder, and for laws that force all people to be subject to their schemes.

Apparently companies can just kill kids to turn parents into their biggest advocates.

The incentives here should probably go in the other direction.

This construction of wind and solar has nothing to do with renewable, and everything to do with China's desire to get as much electricity generation as possible, which involves increasing nuclear, coal, hydro, and everything else.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

The ideal is the owner being able to use TPM/SecureBoot/etc to ensure that the device is in the configuration they want. That means resisting tampering, and making any successful tampering become obvious.

The problem is third parties using TPM/SecureBoot/etc as a weapon against the owner via remote attestation, by preventing them from configuring their own device, with the threat of being cut off from critical services.

Having the upside without the downside would be nice, but how could it work? Is a technical solution feasible, or would it need a law/regulation?

Let's not hand-wave field of view. Glasses cannot display anything outside the bounds of their frames, and therefore cannot have a field of view as large as a headset. No amount of miniaturization will overcome that limitation.

Contact lenses having the capability of a headset? That's just magical thinking.

There are several gaps in capability between headsets and glasses, which cannot be filled by any existing technology.

For example, consider field of view, which is a critical measurement of these displays. Typical specs are 120 degrees for headsets, 40 for glasses.

Headsets also perform very high performance rendering compared to glasses. The tiny <1Wh batteries in glasses are insufficient for that amount of work.

Glasses can't be expected to compete with headsets, much less eliminate them from the market entirely within a few years. It makes more sense to think of VR headsets and AR glasses as completely unrelated product categories.

Screwing customers with sabotaged crap is standard Nintendo behavior. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30773214

But I wonder if they have run afoul of the EU Radio Equipment Directive in this case, by refusing to receive power from some devices.

To get AI to fix a specific issue, simply have a human fix it first.

If that doesn't sound very useful, well...

NEITHER DISCORD NOR ITS AFFILIATES, SUPPLIERS, OR DISTRIBUTORS MAKE ANY SPECIFIC PROMISES ABOUT THE APIs, API DATA, DOCUMENTATION, OR ANY DISCORD SERVICES.

The existence of terms like this make any discussion of the other terms look pretty silly.

Their policy is simply that they do whatever they want, and that hasn't changed.

There are lots of details about the technology, license agreements, service history, comparable platforms, and whatnot, which all form reasonable support for botghost.

None of that matters in the slightest. They're dealing with an indifferent, capricious, unaccountable company. And trying to do it without enough leverage to even get a response.

It seems like it's about to end the way it was always going to.

https://zalgo.org/

Zalgo and unzalgo text

Configurable craziness level

It needs to be screened by someone

The people using this stuff want plausible deniability. If there's a problem with the slop, the computer did it, not me.

Screening it is contrary to that, so they won't do it.

Anyone can stop using gmail at any time

True, and applies to many other things as well. Anyone claiming otherwise is shirking responsibility for their own actions. Every single sibling comment here suffers from this.

Arguments in the form of "other people do it, so I must also" are unpersuasive and pathetic.

Stealing from children is the MO of Epic Games

There are garbage bins in NYC. Here's one: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7238555,-73.9968645,3a,75y,5...

A shameless betrayal of user intent.

This article calls it "a genius move".

Repulsive.

It's doom, so hell for everyone

A trillion dollar company is screwing me again. Any tips on how I can keep supporting them?

https://web.archive.org/web/20040604194346/http://bash.org/?...

(2008)

Discussing the effectiveness of the technique requires believing that the system has a legitimate purpose and was made with genuine intent.

Is it good to automatically record, transcribe, analyze, and censor all private conversations? Is their goal even censorship, or is that a false 'child safety' justification for mass surveillance?

a 452-megawatt (MW) solar farm in West Texas [...] will generate enough electricity to power over 190,000 homes annually

452 MW nameplate * optimistic 0.3 capacity factor = 135.6 MW

8760 hours annually * 135.6 MW = 1187856 MWh

1187856 MWh / 14.112 MWh per Texas home = 84173 homes powered

190000 / 84173 = 2.257 lying factor

There has been a significant decrease in desktops in the last decade.

Indeed, but not because phones have gotten any closer to desktop work.

What good is a phone, today, when using multiple monitors for 3d modelling, video editing, programming, spreadsheets, flight sims, or some such? None whatsoever.

And there's no apparent trend toward it, so it doesn't make much sense to predict when it will be reached.

Desktop usage will likely continue to decline as phones, tablets, VR, and whatever other devices continue to supplant them _in certain areas_, but that's insufficient to render them obsolete.

Phones have highly integrated parts, lack of IO ports, toy operating systems, and other major trade-offs, for the sake of size and power usage, which would all be disadvantages or total non-starters in a desktop environment.

This situation hasn't changed in the slightest during the last 10 years. Is there any reason to think it will change during the next 10 years? Even if a future phone could be used in the place of a tower to run a set of desktop peripherals, how is that even useful?

It kind of sounds like we're saying opposite things.

You're talking about the minimum necessary for just drawing a triangle, as if that's what "hello triangle" means. That's nothing. That's pointless.

The construction of hello triangle program marks the end of setup, and the beginning of actual work.

Skipping parts because they're boilerplate, or don't directly serve to draw the triangle, defeats the purpose. That's like typing the words "hello world" into notepad because it's faster than setting up an IDE.

That tutorial sets up a complete rendering system, and demonstrates that it works by drawing a triangle... the exact thing described in the black triangle story.

Drawing a triangle is not the end goal. That's nonsense.

and to a lesser extent the ground of warcraft3 which I think is a clever use of marching squares

Ground textures, cliffs, and ramps are tiles.[1] A heightmap modifies tile corners.[2] Everything else is an individually-placed object.

[1] https://www.hiveworkshop.com/attachments/wc3search-tutorial0...

[2] https://www.hiveworkshop.com/attachments/15-jpg.7734/

I may not have made it clear enough, but my first line was meant to be absurd and obviously wrong.

I think a service should focus on how it provides value to users, not the other way around. People use it because of what it provides to them, not because they desire to support the company's bottom line.

GitHub built a remarkably valuable product, which attracted 100M users and $1B in revenue. It has tons of public features that never required login. They could have put search, or any number of other things, behind a login at any point in the last 15 year. But they didn't, because that's not actually a good thing to do. Doing that can only ever make the feature less usable.

What drives them to do it now is unclear. Perhaps just wanting to juice their login numbers or whatever. But, performing little bait-and-switches on random features isn't going to make people use them more or spend more money. It's going to make them seek hedges against the destruction of the features they enjoy.

As for my link, the search result speed for users is directly related to cost per query, unless you believe that all of this is fake and the new search system is secretly just a bunch of expensive new hardware.

The same sound logic could have been used to put the old search being a login. That also consumed some amount of compute per query after all. Actually there's no reason to serve logged out users with anything except a login page. Why spend any resources on users who aren't adding value?

Or, maybe this is all value-destroying nonsense that only makes the service worse.

In any case, the performance of the new search system is supposed to be better, not worse. [1]

[1] https://github.blog/2023-05-08-github-code-search-is-general...