I would love it if they made it easy to split 16x PCI-e 5 16x/8x/4x slots into gen3 or gen4 breakouts.
The chips may not have the lanes, but they have the bandwidth if only 10GbE / 4xm.2 / storage controllers could plug in. I wonder if power is an issue.
I think we’re seeing his spilt economic system coming into play with computer hardware. Less and less B2C sales over time. It’s just not as profitable to sell to poor people.
In 1995 my parents, both factory workers, bought me a $2500 Packard Bell PC with 100MHz Pentium, 8MB of RAM, and a 1GB hard drive. Adjusted for inflation that would be a $5,283.95 computer today.
I remember that exact model. Computers use to be very expensive. You can pick up a brand new powerful laptop to build a career on for $300 at Target. (I’m in the US I know many commenters here are not)
I’ve always wondered if the electrons bound to a nucleus are somehow bound to the element they were attached to.
Changing an element from Hydrogen to Helium or any other variant of conversion seems like it breaks an especially solid confluence. Each proton determines the atomic number, and there is a corresponding electron for each proton after all.
They may float around the universe, but could they still “belong” to the element they were formed with, bound to be impacted in some way when that element converts to another (in a stellar reactor for example).
This would mean electrons are somehow unique most likely, but stranger things have been observed.
To be fair, what he proposed isn't (immediately obviously) mutually exclusive with your points. If it were true it would be almost impossible to detect experimentally.
So it gets tossed on the stack with all the other complex-and-unfalsifiable theories for which no evidence exists.
> To be fair, what he proposed isn't (immediately obviously) mutually exclusive with your points. If it were true it would be almost impossible to detect experimentally.
The obviousness or lack thereof is subjective, but the exclusivity is firmly established. The absolute indistinguishability of particles is deeply woven into quantum mechanics; you don't get a Pauli exclusion principle without it, for example. If the particles remembered their previous lives, and an electron that used to be tied to an iron nucleus weren't completely identical to one that used to be stuck to a carbon nucleus, all of quantum mechanics as we know it would be impossible.
I don't see why? They could be indistinguishable from our perspective while mysteriously being affected in some way if certain things happened to their "partner". We can experimentally set an upper bound on the permissible weirdness but I don't think we can eliminate the possibility.
Experimentally you'd be attempting to detect inexplicable single particle events above some level of rarity. You'd have access to only one side of the pair - you can't tell which one the other side is even if it's right in front of you (and it almost certainly isn't). So there's no discernible (to you) trigger for these events you're trying to detect. So you'd be trying to correlate frequency counts with bulk conditions as averaged across more or less the entire universe.
In the same vein as the God of the gaps the phenomenon could always be hiding below the noise floor.
Try to become an insider at one of these exchanges even with a couple million dollars. See how it goes.
This is like Coke ONLY giving discounts to Costco instead of anywhere else so that Costco can reap the rewards. Walmart, Target, they can all pay full price.
The convenience store spends more money to package individual items. A crypto transaction is the difference of a keystroke. They are not comparable on many fronts.
From a capitalist economic perspective, it makes logical sense to maximize your profits and entice wealthier customers with quantity discounts.
From a societal impact perspective, it adds transactions that may not have happened otherwise, but these are mostly isolated effects from what I can tell. This can spur the economy with spending, and be more efficient. Ultimately however, it ensures that those with more money and the ability to buy in bulk lose less money than the tired masses. This should lead to wealth inequality over time.
Without knowing what impact each of these individual variables has in isolation, it’s difficult to define metrics for “net benefit” to society with any real certainty, let alone begin to measure them.
The way foam mattresses work is weight deformation. If your butt is heavier than your head, it sinks in more.
I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest this was good for spinal alignment. If you’re a side sleeper, it can also be bad for your shoulders if it doesn’t sink in enough.
My take is that this is good (for me). At least the body can sink.
If you don't sink evenly, your spine is aligned though not level. Whereas in a traditional mattress a poor fit to your body will feel like a hammock, or a hard floor with pressure points
Presumably you'd follow the same regulations regarding actual animals in testing regarding inflicting pain or distress. Usually IRB's weigh whether the scientific results offset the risk of harm and emphasize minimizing pain (doing things under anesthesia, providing analgesia, or not letting animals regain consciousness). The ethical bars you have to clear get higher the "higher" the animal you use.
If you're doing it via simulation, physical pain issues become a lot easier to fix and more over you can probably simulate subsections of the brain rather than the whole thing. You can also limit simulation time to prevent perception of harm, and you can arbitrarily limit negative feedback in the whole simulation (stress hormones, etc).
I would also imagine one should act conservatively to the question of whether you should treat a simulated "thing" humanely.
Why is it we can’t use any DNS service by now? I want to use a completely alternate list that has the main domains like Google, Apple, Microsoft, and whoever wants to list, but doesn’t register everything like the global DNS system.
Seems silly we deify one DNS pay to play scheme when we can easily point to alternate DNS. As it stands the world has a naming scheme monetized and owned through no merit or logic based system, just entrenchment.
.onion kind of does this with privacy. .eth (ew) kind of does too, but critical mass is unlikely.
Global consensus on naming is pretty valuable. Nobody big is going to use an alternate root, especially an alternate root that potentially conflicts with the ICANN root.
There have been alternate roots, with alternate TLDs, but adoption is nearly zero. .onion works a little bit because it's part of TOR.
I'm not convinced .eth works, but maybe it's somewhat viable???
For everything else, a mediocre domain name can usually be found at low cost, and if it's too much, there are many domains that offer free subdomains, although you might not like the neighborhood.
.onion is an RFC 6761 Special-Use top-level and is described more fully in RFC 7686. It's probably not to be described as part of an alternate DNS root system.
alternative roots exist but they will not be taken seriously by operating system vendors (for damned good reasons that are touched on by RFC 2826 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2826).
You're free to use alternative roots. This doesn't quite address the structure of domain registration (the ICANN regime, perhaps?) because that's a different thing altogether, but kind of related. kind of.
I personally do not want to live in a world where there are competing roots. You would have massive fragmentation, confusion, poisoning, spoofing, severe trust issues. It's not going to happen.
Anyone can set up a DNS provider, browsers make it easy to specify an alternate IP address. A pihole for instance has a list of domains it black holes to provide ad blocking etc, NSA provides “Protective DNS” to government contractors that refuses to resolve known malicious domains (via Akamai Govshield [0]), trick is getting anyone to use it. You’re not wrong about entrenchment being the main factor but hey, it ain’t called a network effect for nothin’ !
Isn’t it wonderful when they make rules stating you must pay taxes, then they make it so convoluted and obscure that you’re forced to spend extra money to file them?
DirectFile makes it such that anyone with a simple tax situation (some W-2s, some dependents, etc) can easily file their federal taxes online. Free. Straight to the IRS. My only gripe with DirectFile is that it doesn't yet cover more complex cases (but let's not have perfect be the enemy of good; it's probably good enough for 75% of citizens) and you still have to find a way to do state filings based on your state.
This fuckery will continue unabated for the rest of our lives until we collectively stop paying income taxes with the demand that a Constitutional amendment is put in place to force the government to be honest and helpful both around the procurement (just sending a dang bill) and government spending (expressly forbidding genocides, foreign coups, certain bailouts, etc) with real teeth in it.
Of course, right now it seems even the existing amendments are not safe. Our government is a non-functioning, dishonest imperial oligarchy, and we just keep paying our tithing out of fear, telling ourselves it's all going to schools and highways.
The chips may not have the lanes, but they have the bandwidth if only 10GbE / 4xm.2 / storage controllers could plug in. I wonder if power is an issue.
reply