I would have assumed that to mean, very specifically, that you wouldn't do business with, for example, a Private Military Contractor accused of human rights abuses. The specific business. Not brushing off the individual citizens of an entire country collectively, no matter their agreement with the war, for the issues you have with the country's governance. In some cases, they would have assumed themselves safe with you, in fact, because they were not seemingly aligned with their government and more aligned with Western values, and thought you would be more censorship-resistant. Far from them, I am certain, would be the idea that you would be the first to threaten their domains when they can't even pay for another registrar. (Which is another thing that would have been a good reason for, say, a Russian activist to renew with long 5+ year terms, which... Are you going to refund those? Or just tell them to figure it out?)
I mean, I can understand where you're coming from, but it's a stretch. I would not think that's what the language means in the terms. At all. It would make an activist's day 1000x worse. Imagine if they're right now being detained and can't renew or move their domain (and this is why they took a 5 year term with you!) and they can't even see this email or this discussion. You might make the worst week of their life into a much worse one. It seems bad for business. Just saying. Older netheads expect the net to be censorship resistant, not ban-happy, for what it's worth.
> There doesn't seem to be a +11~, but is it forbidden?
Well, kinda... The thing is, even if not required by standard (It is, there's a Numbering Plan for the US and Can), most 9-to-dial-out systems would fail to call such a number, redirecting 911-anything to immediately dial out 911 once the second 1 is dialed.
IIRC, I've seen POTS also skip the inter-digit tone wait (the time between your last dial and the system going "okay, that's all the numbers, let's call!") when calling x11 numbers, generally considering "911" and other emergency/service numbers to be a magic triple that doesn't wait for other numbers to dial out.
There are no area codes starting with 1 in the US nor Canada to my knowledge since any dialing in a system with 9-to-call-out should end up being dialed as follows :
* 9 (leave system)
* 1 (country code)
* 1 (first digit of the area code)
And there is no step 4, because 911 is a special number like 411 and 311, that has a special dial plan. Since there is a possibility of issues if we make the treatment any less dumb, we don't do that. 999 is a special, unassigned code in the US too. 112 is likewise impossible to clash with here in NA since calling that with a corp system just means typing 9112, which ends up being 911, and dialing it on its own can also be allowed to be a special case since there are no area codes with 1 because of 911.
In fact, even "small area codes" or, officially, "office codes" are also required to not be X11. You used to be able to call locally in your area code without dialing the area code, too. It ends up being that xxx-911-xxxx is also an invalid number. Because locally, you would have had to type "911" to start dialing that number. There are also other limitations that can be seen here as well as allocation for future expansion :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Numbering_Plan#...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Numbering_Plan_...
There's also probably a physical, legacy reason it's probably much more difficult to make a physical 911 switch when "911" is also a valid part of a phone number. It means you need to figure out "Is it what they meant, or are there more numbers coming?" It means the sequence of operations "<open line><9><1><1>" always means emergency, fast connect, and probably easier to implement as a side-channel than as a part of the dial logic? This is speculation, I haven't actually opened a POTS PBX with a physical implementation of the 911 dialing logic.
That cost-effectiveness discussion was enlightening. I find you have a knack for explaining what people don't see, by the way.
Open question, which maybe you might have info about, I'm just curious if maybe anyone crossed something on this; I wonder if that characteristic is inherent to specific energy storage tech; for example in Li-Ion IMR/INR batteries, this might be in part because of the voltage sag and discharge characteristics? In other words, a battery that sagged less under load and had a flatter discharge curve would have a wider range of acceptable durations? For example : https://www.richtek.com/battery-management/img/battery-disch...
This graph gives a general idea of how battery performance degrades the more load you put on Li-Ion batteries, the kind in flashlights, vapes, etc. The ICR18650s of the world et al.. They are not great for energy storage, long term, frankly. The harder you discharge them, the more the voltage sags, requiring even harder discharge to maintain a proper power output, leading to more heat, and power loss in spiky demand conditions. Leaving them on but at low-power for a very long time seems to be more efficient, but by the time you hit that low of a power-delivery, they become less cost-effective, because you could do the same with a hydro plant, a reservoir, and pumps. Li-Ion batteries need management circuits, balanced charge, can be overcharged, can be drained 'till they turn into a brick. They're far from idealized batteries that discharge at all rates consistently at equal voltage all along their Wh rating. A Constant-Power drain on Li-Ion heats up and degrades way worse at low charge or low battery condition, etc.
In other words, kWh is never the be-all-end-all of energy storage. If you want long, sustained power in tiny sips, I'm pretty sure nothing beats these ZnO batteries for hearing aids that use oxygen (or is it air?) as fuel. What seems to really matter is the ability to push out kWh on a consistent basis is, as far as I can tell, and we have no really good solution for this?
In your Titanic analogy, you realize you're the Titanic and I'm the iceberg you hit, right?
> ... and earnestly promise I will stop, just as soon as this seventh paragraph's ink dries ...
It often happens that bullshit needs counter-arguments orders of magnitude larger in order to be shown as bullshit. History is full of "Obviously the Earth is flat" - "No, because $300_PAGES_OF_SCIENCE." situations, and I don't see why this is a problem, in fact I see it as a noble pursuit, in some limited respects. Your statement is abject bullshit, and I'm trying to call it out as the ad hominem, freedom-destroying bullshit it is. Stop being weak, evasive, and willfully blind, and actually read my argument instead of being trite. Maybe there's something there.
Or maybe I'm like all those others that disagree with you. I must be stupid. How else could I disagree?
If you don't want a discussion, you don't want to make points, and you don't want to be debated, maybe don't post inflammatory statements like claiming people are stupid for catching a disease. But don't come over and pretend I'm soapboxing when I'm the one calling you out from the crowd, you Very Smart Person.
[EDIT : Speaking of language issues, I should probably have said "I'm not willing to stand here idly..." instead of "I'm not willing to entertain...". Basically, I'll call out BS when I see it.]
Doctors were more exposed than average. Same for other healthcare workers and related fields, as well as service workers, sanitation workers, food industry workers (Frito-Lay has wonderful working conditions since COVID, I'm sure), essential workers... While every person with a desk job worked from home. Every person in physical rehab was stuck being in-person, as well as the occupational therapists, the home help for the disabled, etc... If this is as dangerous as we think, it means every single privileged person was able to stay home, safe and away from the unwashed masses while getting their creature comforts delivered in the safety of their lordly home, while the poor suffered trying to make ends meet delivering the aforementioned comforts while the former class were telling them "we were all in the same boat." And then the people that caught it because they tried to make it easier for others to live through this are supposed to feel what, stupid? These people are good enough for bringing you food, but not good enough to be entitled to control over their body? These people who caught COVID because they brought meds to people door-to-door because the elderly couldn't go out... Are they all stupid? Or stupider than average? Or are you (without thinking) insulting kind, courageous souls from behind your keyboard? Just a humble proposition.
To me, your post feels like an insult to the people who have to work for a living without either cushy desk jobs or the option to work with their brains exclusively, like lawyers. Watch the implications of what you say, especially if you're going to make value judgements about other humans. You don't seem to value these people's opinions or their right to live their life the way they want to. Genocides, fascism, and authoritarianism start this way. "They're stupid anyway." "They deserve it." "They're dirty." "They don't think right." "They're too dumb for their own good." "We should force them to do the right thing." "Of course the people who have that disease are stupid, they..."
The shoah started this way, and I find it disgusting that we seem to be treading the same path again, 100 years later, but for different reasons. History never quite repeats, but goddamn does it rhyme. "These damn $MINORITY, they don't $THING, we should force them to do it!", as if anything gave you such a right over another human being on G-d's green earth. They are not "less than" because they don't think like you. They have a right to be heard, and a right to tell you "I refuse." This is why fundamental, inalienable rights exist. For these moments, where momentary problems would make everything worse for everyone in the aftermath. Losing control over what gets put inside my body is a big deal, and seeing it sacrificed for temporary security makes me feel wrong.
Keep in mind that $MINORITY : $THING in the analogy above has many, many tuples. Quite a few can be pulled from history with not much thought, some persecuted because of genetic reasons, some for religious reasons, some for "I have a right to decide for myself", a.k.a. freedom reasons. But your implication that someone is stupid, and by this I mean actually measurably dumber, to the point of needing statistical compensation in a study(!), and not only stupid, but stupid to the point where they should be "assisted against their will" or mocked for doubting new medical interventions borders on the reckless, stupid, and the kind of thing future generations will look back towards with great sadness, I think. Or they'll never know we had that freedom in the first place.
It's not joyful to me, but I guess it will take one massive wake up call for people to understand vaccines (even the regular type, nevermind these new mRNA ones) are not 0-consequence, and that imposing them on others amounts to giving the state control over everyone's body in perpetuity... "My body my choice", but not when people get scared... Which is deeply unwise. Corollary to this, is that you shouldn't have a right to impose injections to healthy, aware, clearly unconsenting people. Because you might be forcing someone to go through Hell to make you feel safer. Having side effects from a forced injection is inherently cruel, and having it done to you "because you won't do it yourself" doesn't make this easier on the soul, if anything it's an even worse violation of the basic right to choose medical intervention freely and without coercion.
I'm a little sorry, frankly, for the way I might be talking about this (English is my second language), but frankly, I find what you said so offensive to reason and logic that I had to comment about it. This is a very slippery slope, and we might find ourselves slipping faster than we think. Never forget how fast life changed in the last 2 years. It can get really bad, really fast.
Do you see why this is undignified in a reasonable society? I'm not really willing to entertain this type of speech, and frankly, I'm a little surprised I'm alone in talking about this. I feel like one of those $MINORITYs again, and the $THING we collectively find wrong is my thought. I swear there used to be a novel or a movie about this, but maybe the Ministry of Truth took care of it. What was the term again? Thoughtcrime? Are we really there? "These are the wrong thoughts", like a scientific inquisition? Like "I deserve to get forcefully injected by someone I don't know because I disagree being injected is the right thing to do"? Keep your ad hominem, and get me a proper scientific debate. Clubbing people down is barbarian shit, and it doesn't matter if your bludgeon is physical or mental if it leads to visiting physical harm in the end. Vaccinating people against their will, like a scared animal, or like something "owned", isn't humane. And I'm not sure you understand, frankly, that that's what you're advocating. Because you disagree. Because they're "just being difficult." Or maybe they're being patient. Careful. Well-reasoned. I find this split in society very strange. Intelligent people are calling intelligent people stupid because of political and intellectual disagreement.
We might be making everyone stupider, and the only thing you have to say for these damaged souls and minds is "No great loss, they were stupid anyway."? I guess we'll see if the S protein itself (or fragments of it) is biologically active on its own... The vaccines are basically that. You sure this is reasonable? Really sure?
[Note : For a forum that regularly talks about computer security, I find that very little thought is put to all the possible side effects of biological code uploads through injection. In other words, the "biocomputational-security" implications of running barely-tested mRNA code (dev -> prod, anyone?) in parallel in millions of humans (millions of different codebases...) at once. Especially as computer scientists, we should be very sensitive to unintended, hard-to-find, reveals-itself-in-three-years-once-you-hit-a-weird-bug-and-your-database-is-kaput, rare-as-hell side effects that are disastrous. That's most of our expertise. I guess I'm one of those people that question the wisdom of random protein-generating mRNA being injected into us, with no choice, no right to examine the code, no way to simulate code execution or sandboxing, and coercion included if you don't go along. I know people who wouldn't download a computer file under these conditions, much less agree to medical treatment...]
I remember a few messages saying my battery was degraded/degrading and needed replacement a few months before my iPhone 6 started dying at 20+% battery because of battery issues. Post-patch, it was slow, but worked.
Imagine if, to avoid damage to engine parts, engines would keep their heat limits in safe zones to not blow up when friction goes up. Imagine if, when you don't tune up your car, it starts running, factually, with less horsepower.
You do lose X horsepower every 1000 miles. You get it back with your tuneup. Which involves changing the oil.
You lose X MHz every Y% of battery discharge capacity lost. You get it back with your tuneup. Which involves changing the battery.
You don't need to detune maliciously to get the effect Apple is getting here. The system just needs to self-calibrate to a depleting battery... Which is super good for the battery because it won't actually get worse as fast. Discharge cycles, especially close to the discharge limit, puts strain on cells, which have voltage sag closer to end of life.
What my comment is trying to suggest is that AIs are not proven to be different from us. They might not have one "ultimate" form. They might be just like us humans. Diverse.
I'm always going to enjoy a person coming and showing a bit of themselves through their music.
That's not something we can really lose without losing something that connects us. People want a story. That has sold since the beginning of time, and it will keep selling. People will keep being moved to music, giving money to the artists that inspire them, and that requires connection. Maybe an AI/human team would make some really incredible stuff, and I'd be willing to pay for it if it makes me feel something. I think the human touch of "selection" will never truly leave, even if only in the listener's mind...
And yet, here I am, bringing up something no one seems to bring up in the thread. One would also logically come to the conclusions that disparate AIs with disparate interests would find different things to express, to make music about, to draw about.
What distinguishes music written by AI from music made from humans? I have a story to tell. If the AI has a story to tell, one that speaks to our human emotions, it might make good music. But the point is to communicate. Even if you take, for example, someone else's words, fit them to a different model in a different field, viewpoint... You might get interesting things. You could make a cover of someone else's song, with your twist. Adding your emotion to the melting pot. AIs might be good at that, just like that, but only through communicating. Just like us. We have no idea whether they'll be better than us at doing it, or merely equivalent. We have no idea what is lossy in our sharing of mental models. Perhaps it is an unsolvable problem, which we will find out in the same way we found out about Gödel's Incompleteness.
It seems to me like we fail to understand how unique we are. We are in a unique position to shape what comes after us, and we are blind to how much we unconsciously select for things. We have an innate mental model of "humanity" we are trying to transmit to machines, and I am not sure we fully grasp it well enough to make sure we are creating something like us. We fail to do it properly to humans, sometimes, who actually do share most of our instincts and habits. Something entirely different from us? Color me skeptical.
As a person who likes music, making it, listening to it, breaking it down and hacking it...
Making a classical arrangement that evokes a particular expression in the listener is the job of the musician. If an AI system helps you explore the possibilities there, it's more like a studio musician that's able to improvise. You're still the person, the human, the emotional filter, that picks "This sounds right" or "This doesn't" for a particular situation. It's a judgement call. An emotional one.
An AI might be able to fake it, communicate with it, but it will never replace humans choosing the sounds that please them more than others. Humans communicate through music. It wouldn't surprise me that an AI would be able to as well. I don't think it would necessarily write emotionally strong music, not without human training.
Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is, sure, computers might be able to make music. Ask any guy who messes with modular synthesizers. But they're a tool. The fact an AI can express itself through music is sure as hell not gonna stop me from also expressing myself. It's like arguing "Since AIs will be able to comment on Hacker News, humans won't."
From GP:
> no matter what network traffic is occurring.
The chain described there is "possible network traffic", and would be a valid type of network traffic, "while-meaning-to" if we so please, but there is no way to distinguish that and it is thus meaningless to code.
A device that would never reboot, no matter what network traffic is occurring, would never allow you to reboot it remotely... SSH is network traffic. Your SSH authentication also is.
The point wasn't about the Roku, it was a pointed reply to that particular point, I think. :)
And proceeded to get told by the english landowners to "Speak White" when we'd speak our native french tongue.
We're just about as white as they come. "Speak White" means "Speak the english of your captors."
There is an actual poem from about the time of the Quiet Revolution named "Speak White" which would explain this really well, here's (ironically) an English translation of it :
Interestingly, they keep getting into "smaller" sounds. Snaps are kind of long-ish, potentially. Something can slowly snap (jerk primed) in two, it's not "as instantaneous a sound" as the two others. Compare to the pops (third) that are part of any crackle (second) you might hear. I always find it a little extra clever that they're ordered "like derivatives".
If you freeze video, you get an image. If you freeze sound, you get an "image" on the speaker. It "stays" where it is. (At the voltage potential it is.) We put HPFs on subwoofers so they don't stay offset like that.
The same way vision in human sight makes very little sense without things being able to move (integration over time), hearing in the human sense seems to be the same. Recording the change in pressure over time of the surrounding air, instead of photons hitting you. But I am pretty certain that "vision" that works in "single blips" with no refresh is just as pointless as a paused audio recording for survival of an animal.
The one sin is to, as far as I can tell (not a Mormon here), refuse God's light once you have seen it.
It would take a crazy man, the kind that would say "the sun does not shine when he sees it", to deny a revelation.
Arguably... Anyone who doesn't believe because they have not seen anything has not sinned. The sin would be, for example, to realize "the Mormons were right!" as you face the gates too paradise and say "I don't believe this. I am an Atheist." As you are staring down the pearly gates.
Basically, knowing you do the wrong things, since you ignore the truth in front of you, and doing it anyway. But you have to see it to really unforgivably sin.
It seems pretty well-specified. It's about internal peace, not external vision.
I mean, I can understand where you're coming from, but it's a stretch. I would not think that's what the language means in the terms. At all. It would make an activist's day 1000x worse. Imagine if they're right now being detained and can't renew or move their domain (and this is why they took a 5 year term with you!) and they can't even see this email or this discussion. You might make the worst week of their life into a much worse one. It seems bad for business. Just saying. Older netheads expect the net to be censorship resistant, not ban-happy, for what it's worth.