MudMan

I rip enough physical media to tell you that post-compression 14GB is not far from average for a 4K movie. I guarantee that Netflix isn’t storing those any bigger than that. Hard drives don’t grow on trees, you know?

It’s still good to know where the top end of optical storage is, even at an academic level, even if these end up not being widely used or being used for specific applications at smaller capacities. We’ll see where or if they resurface next, but I’m pretty sure we’re not gonna get femtosecond lasers built into our laptops anytime soon.

I don’t really know what this conversation was meant to be about at this point, and after re-reading the thread in order a few times I think you don’t either.

That is most likely going to generate less revenue than promoting donations, or a comparable amount at best. WinRAR is the meme example.

From a PR and marketing perspective, if I wanted to maximize my revenue as a single developer I would set up a Patreon or encourage recurring donations through the software by providing bragging rights stuff (merch, insider access, early access to unfinished builds and so on). Single mandatory payments simply reproduce the piracy/license access of commercial software and shaming people into paying without coercion just makes you seem less appealing to people who would donate anyway.

Right, but that’s my point, compute is compute is compute. There are tensor acceleration cores in commercially available hardware dating back five years. They capped things above a specific performance threshold, is my understanding, but that just means you need more of the less powerful hardware, so all you’ve done is make things more expensive/less energy-efficient, but not block any specific application. Not in cheap, portable chips, not in huge industrial data center processors.

So not particularly useful to stop cyberwarfare, not particularly useful to stop military applications. The only use I see is making commercial applications less competitive. Specifically on the training side of things.

None of that makes any sense. “Western chips” all come from Taiwan in the first place. “Western designed chips” are also in laptops and mobile phones, including tons of Chinese devices, and that’s assuming you mean to include South Korea as “Western”, which is a bit of a stretch. Those are fundamentally interchangeable with military hardware. Nobody is putting 4090s and A100s in ICBMs.

Make it make sense. What specific hardware is this stopping from getting to China and for what application?

I am very confused about this ongoing thing regarding “stifling China’s access to AI models”. Does the US government think GPUs are magic? All you need to make a ML model is some tensor math and a web crawler, maybe some human processing on the later bits. You’re not gonna stop China from making them. You’re not gonna stop college kids with gaming rigs making them.

I’m guessing the endgame here is to make it slightly more expensive to do this in China to get American companies to have slightly better versions in the market and prevent a TikTok situation, rather than any legitimate strategic goal. Right? I mean, besides commercial protectionism I don’t see how this type of language makes sense.

It’s not lip service if I can send messages and other people can receive them.

Again, the status quo is you can’t do that. Hell, in the spectrum of being dragged into reasonableness by the EU kicking and screaming, Meta is orders of magnitude below Apple here.

I mean, we can debate the finer points of the implementation once it’s live, but for now this is nothing but positive movement. If people got over rejecting cookies they can get over dismissing warnings regarding interoperability, and if they don’t, the same regulators have a history of re-spanking unruly malicious compliers.

But what would be the point?

I swear, people have all these weird conspiracy theories around supposed “EEE” tactics, but Whatsapp already dominates the instant messaging space. It’s pretty much a monopoly. The simplest solution to continue to dominate basically the entire market is do nothing.

Somebody explain to me how literally having the entire market to themselves in exclusive is somehow worse than any interoperability at all. You can’t tank the use rate lower than zero.

Yeah, but you do realize all that you’re describing is still more open than “this is a closed app that interops with nobody and also is permanently tied to your phone number”, right?

I mean, I don’t like the guys and I avoid their services whenever possible, but… man, as an unwilling Whatsapp user the ability to migrate without having to convince all my social circles to do anything but check a checkbox sounds like a huge step forward. I literally surfaced the idea of migrating to the WhatsApp group I thought would be most willing today and got nothing but crickets.

I keep a FB account I no longer use because in some professional circles in some countries the expectation is you’ll get contact details by sharing that.

And I keep a Whatsapp account because where I am that’s the default messaging service for everything and everybody on all phone platforms. Businesses and institutions will reach out to you over it. School will send homework to kids over it, doctors will set appointments over it, nobody will question whether you have it, just look up your phone number on it.

Meta won the social media wars ages ago, it’s just that some, especially in the US, didn’t notice.

Well, yeah. So much of this conversation has gotten really dumb, with both advocates and detractors misrepresenting the tech and its capabilities and applying it to the wrong uses and applications as a result.

Honestly, early on I did think as a summary service for search queries it’d be more useful than it ended up being. It quickly became obvious that without the search results onscreen you basically have to fact check every piece of info you get, so it’s only really useful to find answers you already know but had forgotten or that you need a source for.

But hey, at least I noticed that it kinda isn’t before I built it as a key part of Windows. At this point if I was going to build a search app around this tech I’d use it for a short summary to replace Google’s little blurb cards and still give you the raw results immediately below. It’s only really good at parsing a wonky search prompt into a more accurate query. That’s why when I have to use one of these I go to Perplexity instead of raw ChatGPT or Bing or whatever, it’s the one that’s built the most like that, although you still end up having to argue with it when it insists on being wrong and gets sidetracked by its own mistakes.

It depends. Chatbots are terrible at broad queries or parsing very detailed information, but they’re surprisingly good with very fuzzy searches. If I want a link to a specific website I go to a search engine. If I want to ask “hey, what’s that 80s horror comedy that’s kinda like Gremlins but not Gremlins and it has one of the monsters coming out of the toilet in the poster?” I go to a chatbot.

EDIT: Heh. Just for laughs, I tried that exact query on Perplexity.ai. It got it right:

The movie you are referring to is “Ghoulies.” It is a 1984 horror comedy film that features small, impish creatures similar to those in Gremlins. One of the iconic images associated with the movie is a Ghoulie coming out of a toilet, which is also featured on the poster.

Heh, drunken rebuttals are so much better when they’re acknowledged as one. It really takes the edge off.

Alright, for one, I am not in the US or a US citizen, so a lot of my shock comes from there. For what it’s worth, I have not engaged with these processes in the US at all and here not professionally, but I did learn them because of life reasons. And like I said last time, it is messed up here too, in that some of the reasonable terms and limits to restricting someone’s autonomy and free movement do get suspended in a very weird grey area when precautionary measures, including for medical reasons, are established. Full judicial review can take years here, too, and cautionary measures can stand in place for that whole period. Just to ground the conversation a little.

However, over here before you get detained indefinitely for any reason, and yes, being suicidal counts, you still need that to get cleared by a judge. You can’t just hold a person for two weeks on the mere suspicion that they may harm themselves and not have a doctor or a court make a decision on whether there is reason for that. So already I am way out of my comfort zone in terms of constitutional guarantees at play here. Once you find somebody dead while that process is happening we’re in “maybe we need this to change right away” territory. When that happens a dozen times you mostly just set it all on fire and start over.

Now, on the specifics, I do have some questions for you, if you’re drunk enough to still pay attention to this thread.

One is that I’m a bit confused about the dfiference between being held pending evaluation and having a checklist of evaluatory criteria. Because it seems to me that if the actual evaluation is taking so long to happen that people are dying in the process then the checklist is the de facto evaluation. What’s the difference between that and letting the cops make the call? Which yeah, terrible idea, but… you know, if you just get there anyway through a loophole that seems like a problem.

For the record on the next thing, when I mean “whoever runs the institution” I mean whoever owns it, not the staff. I have no idea if this is all handled in public institutions (which is what I would expect here) or in private facilities (which is what I’d expect in the US, but maybe that’s my socialdemocracy bias). While we’re on this, I do take issue with the “don’t sue because the system is already underfunded” point. Those are two separate concerns, and if the impact is on the underfunded medical system then that’s a third problem. Asking victims (and this guy is dead, so… yeah, that’s the right word) to not seek compensation because the negligence is the result of more negligence in underfunding the system is not it. Of course these are all entirely hypothetical lawsuits, so who cares, but still.

Honestly, if you ask me what I’d do in that scenario… well, I’d get involved in the politics of it, which is what I’ve done in life when I bumped with that sort of stuff. I mean, the way I’m hearing it the main problem is funding and staffing. The way I see it, this is the still literally richest country on Earth. So yeah, the reaction must start with voting for anybody who will fix that by any amount and continue along a line that ends with locked down airports and food courts, like the French are doing today. Or at least with thousands of marches, like the Germans did a few weeks ago. I get it, half the US thinks that public services are evil (somehow), but holy shit, man, the camel’s back has to snap at some point.

Right?

Anyway, as a PS, you weren’t that hostile. For online forum rants that was maybe a 3/10. I’ve had way worse on accout of far less. If that makes you feel better, you’re a mellow drunken poster.

No, they should buy no car and instead buy a public transportation pass.

And a bycicle.

Again, I refer you to my previous post.

Yeah, man, so… maybe have that argument with someone who is having that argument?

I mean, cool, I get it, you’re itching to make that case to somebody who is making the opposite case, but if you just blast it at people who are not saying the thing you’re responding to it just… doesn’t really work that well.

I refer you to my previous post, where I do the going on.

In what “role”? How is that more to the point? I never said “vans are better than pickups”, I said “for the money of an expensive pickup you can get a hatchback and a van”. So not that vans are better, but that you can cover the dual role of a very expensive “truck” that you also use as a daily driver for a thing that is a more practical daily driver and a work vehicle.

So no, the idea isn’t that you’re driving a van to take your kids to school like some deranged weirdo (again, I’ve been that kid, don’t do it, it’s a bad idea). The point is that using a work vehicle as your daily driver is expensive and inconvenient for everybody else in the road.

Incidentally, you guys are being obnoxious enough about this that I today I walked past a Citroën Berlingo parked in a compact car spot on the side of the road and went “heh, look at that”. That’s what you made me do. I shouldn’t care about this. This shouldn’t even register. Stop making me notice practical vans.

I’d tell someone with a SmartCar to get a monthly bus pass instead. And a bike, maybe. And a sense of self-awareness.

But also, yeah, failing that get a bigger car with a backseat. For sure. Maybe the one Smart make, if that’s what they’re into.

What I’m fascinated about is the “these are not relevant based on my prior ownership” bit, because… I’m not talking to you. I never talked to you. You popped up in here saying that the problem with pickups is they weren’t making small ones, as if that was a systemic issue and then somehow this became about a specific car that you want to have that they don’t make. Like you personally. As if my tangentially related point was an affront to this purchase that you want to make specifically.

I’m not sure that’s a specifically American thing, because people in social media do tend to think everything is explicitly about them in particular, but man, when combined with the pickup thing it does sound… you know, arch.

But no, we’re NOT talking about those people. At least we’re not just talking about those people. And a van that is not being used because you’re taking a smaller car is, in fact, more efficient than a pikcup truck. The point isn’t “buy a van instead of a pickup”, it’s “buy a sensible car instead of a pickup, and if you do need a work vehicle get one of those on the side”.

The entire point is we’re talking about how Americans in general apply this very specific kind of FOMO to determine whether to go for a thing they don’t really need in the event they might need it, that was the point of the thread. Like, you know, driving a luxury work vehicle everywhere when you could just have a practical small car for people and a practical cheaper work vehicle for the same price. Then it weirdly morphed into how if you point out that this applies to pickup trucks people get mad at you on the Internet. And then people got mad on the Internet.

Also, second time in this bizarre argument somebody raises “vans are just built on pickup frames with a roof on them”. The other guy who said it went to sanity check online and came back reporting that actually no, that wasn’t the case, at least for the popular examples he was thinking of. I think that may be a US thing as well where one popular van was built like that and it became common to think that was the norm but the popular vans in places where vans are populars are not built like that. It’s weird, I hadn’t heard that one before until I accidentally pissed off pickup people the first time.

Well, see, the secret is you probably don’t really need that truck bed in the first place, so if I was to guess, I’d say that’s why there’s a bit of resistance to that idea. The working hypothesis here is that if you bought a sensible car that makes sense as a car… and a separate van to work, then you’d never buy a van. Which is what most people do here, honestly. You don’t so much buy a van as you know a guy who does own a van and will let you use it for the thirty minutes that you actually need it once or twice a year in exchange for a beer later.

Which is probably how you end up with fewer cars per capita than the US and still have work vehicles separate from whatever you use to take the kids to school or go get groceries.

Also, you send the kids to school in a bus and walk to the shop. That also helps, I bet.