bsdetector

الشهر الماضيdiscuss

Anyone that wants to see real examples can turn on showdead in preferences.

bsdetector

الشهر الماضيdiscuss

[flagged]

bsdetector

قبل شهرينdiscuss

It implies that this list is the entirety of the cancelled NSF grants instead of a cherrypicked woke subset.

bsdetector

قبل شهرينdiscuss

https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award/?AWD_ID=1231319&a...

Appears it didn't receive any funds since 2022 after being extended for years (so your "daddy" is Biden) and wouldn't get any more money so was canceled to get it off the books.

If anything this shows the list includes regular grants that were canceled for normal reasons, which further demonstrates the cuts were not of real science.

bsdetector

قبل شهرينdiscuss

The cost to the content provider can be reduced to zero by the parents, by allowing it in parental controls.

So the maximum cost to a provider is capped at convincing parents to disable blocking of the content. That could be an unfathomably large sum for pornhub or negligible for wikipedia.

The question then is what's cheaper, paying to have parents enable the content (for instance advertising to make that choice acceptable) or rating the content? If it's the former that's essentially the same value parents place on blocking that content.

You're looking at rating content in this default-block scheme as a cost, but really it's a discount. You're paying a smaller amount to rate the content "G - general audience" then convincing parents to allow unrated content.

bsdetector

قبل شهرينdiscuss

If the default wasn't "almost nothing" then you'd be sanctioning exposing some kids to content their parents didn't want them to see. If there's no economic incentive to tag content then it's not valuable content for kids.

Ultimately the problem is the provider knows what category the content is and the parent knows what the content policy is. Providers can't say whether it's "safe" or "unsafe", only what standards it complies with. Some parents will have weird policies like "only G-rated movies or any Jim Carey movie" that can't even be delegated in any reasonable way to providers.

So the header has "PG-13, US-legal" because it's a movie rated PG-13 and constitutionally-protected legal content in the US, and whatever other markets you want to open up. Providers could even include AI ratings so as to mass-tag their content at low cost, and parents can decide if a particular AI rating is okay.

Parental controls could even restrict official ratings to country of origin, so if you approve PG-13 it'll block that content from countries where you can't sue them for lying about it.

bsdetector

قبل شهرينdiscuss

You're already responsible for everything you would be on a private server (one user). If you go to 8chan and see illegal content then good luck telling the authorities you're not responsible because it's 'just' in your browser cache.

bsdetector

قبل شهرينdiscuss

Some people run their own Mastodon servers, where they share and participate in social media, so there's a proof by example that your fears are unfounded.

bsdetector

قبل شهرينdiscuss

You host your own content, and non-230 telecom rules protect a pure cache so bandwidth and always-on internet needn't be an issue.

It shouldn't be baffling to you; it's not even a hard problem to solve, and the only reason why things like ActivityPub aren't done more today is because of 230. A monopoly on data gives centralized social media an unfair advantage that's only possible through legal immunity.

bsdetector

قبل شهرينdiscuss

Without section 230 you'd get a few large publishing outlets moderating all content and you'd also get distributed media where the aggregation is done by each individual.

There just wouldn't be that middle area where social media sites get to choose what you are allowed to say or read just because they have a monopoly on the data.

For instance, you could run your own individual Hacker News site that collects the data and creates the same thing you see today - except you could choose to only view posts and comments by sources verified as humans. Or you could turn on 'show dead' on a grander scale - your choice.

Section 230 isn't required for social media.

bsdetector

قبل 5 أشهرdiscuss

Wouldn't just good screen sharing solve your coffee table problem?

Just have the coffee table iPad be a display for your own iPad. You could even have a virtual iPad on your mac that you show on the coffee one if you don't have your own.

MacOS has 'high-performance' screen sharing using hardware encoder/decoder now. Windows has had this for years and it's so fast it's like actually using the remote computer. It's not like old-school VNC, the only real functional drawback is that you can't leave wifi range.

bsdetector

قبل 9 أشهرdiscuss

Wikipedia Wow! article says it is equivalent of hydrogen line plus 10 km/s blue shift.

Even if this was a scanning beam I think we can assume it would take a lot of energy and so may be based on a simple scalable physical process. Using hydrogen to create it makes sense as it is low mass and can be replenished.

bsdetector

قبل 9 أشهرdiscuss

A ship approaching a sun will see the objects on the far side illuminated fully, but objects on the near side will be illuminated only on a thin edge, like a crescent moon, because they're looking at the 'back' side of the objects.

By sending out a pulse of light they could not just light up the ship-facing side of objects but also determine their precise location and velocity. Seems like something you'd want to do to not waste your thousand-year mission by accidentally colliding with a dark object.

The Wow! signal could be just such an event.

Aliens might use some type of scanning beam rather than a big flash, but I doubt we have the 1977 data to differentiate between a beam scanning our area and a solar-system-wide flash.

bsdetector

قبل 10 أشهرdiscuss

Seems reasonable that an alien craft travelling between stars might want to illuminate the whole star system to detect dark objects and plot a safe or more perfect course.

Apparently Wow! came from the same area and seemingly was blue-shifted by an amount that could make sense from an approaching craft, so that doesn't sound that silly to me.

Unlikely to be the real cause, not silly.

bsdetector

السنة الماضيةdiscuss

Would this be far enough out to use the sun's gravitational lensing to image distant planets?

It seems like the idea was to send a bunch of instruments way out and then take pictures in the brief time they were at a useful distance, but if there's a planet out there we can orbit and so stop the instruments at that distance it seems like we could make a permanent super telescope.

bsdetector

السنة الماضيةdiscuss

In October when Windows 10 support ends it'll finally be the year of desktop linux.

bsdetector

السنة الماضيةdiscuss

You're thinking about energy and not cost.

For example, when solar plus direct air capture can remove a ton of CO2 for cheaper than it costs a container ship not to emit that CO2 then it's reduced cost for the same CO2 outcome even though it's using more total energy.

Regardless of whether it actually makes sense to capture carbon, you'll see a lot of sky-is-falling fanatics and vested interests dismissing it because it caps the price of carbon credits and limits economic damage estimates. You can't price CO2 at $500/ton to necessitate change when it only costs $200/ton to capture it - without quickly going bankrupt that is.

This is why the IPCC not even attempting to evaluate mechanical capture shows they aren't serious about solving the problem. They seemingly exist to push a fear narrative, and having an upper bound on the impact of CO2 limits their ability to do so.

bsdetector

قبل سنتينdiscuss

The 1..125 loop stores 8000 bytes of string and they need to clear 8000 bytes.

There may be a fast path for adding one character, but in any case bytes of program are a valuable resource with only 64k ram so having a second loop from nearest power of two to 8000 would be a waste of bytes.

bsdetector

قبل سنتينdiscuss

> But none of those are simple key=value formats either.

What is the difference between:

    { object: { name: value }}
    { object: "{ name: value }"}
    object="name=value"

There's zero difference between any of them except how you parse and process the data.

> kubectl. Which to be fair defaults to output to a table-like format.

With line-based shell-variable output you have a line of variables and you have blocks of lines separated by an empty line (like an HTTP 1 header).

This can easily map to any table, two dimensions, or two levels of data structure without even quoting subvariables like in the example above. So, no, kubectl is not an example at least not how you've described it.

bsdetector

قبل سنتينdiscuss

> The nature of being nested, and also containing structures like lists, maps, etc. All of which makes it more complicated than key=value.

These are javascript objects, which are key-value. A list array is just keyed by a number instead of a string. They're functionally exactly the same as name=value except JSON is parsed depth-first whereas shell variables are breadth-first parsing (which is way better from shells).

Do you have an example of a CLI tool - intended for human use - that has output so complicated it can't be easily mapped to name=value? I don't think there is one, and it's certainly not common.

> You're reading into hostility where there isn't any.

I think "it seems you're determined not to use jq" is pretty hostile since I made no intimation of that at all.