Re: Roll on CBDC?
Good point, governments always have and always will prioritise the safety, privacy and comfort of innocent ordinary citizens over being able to exert control. Anything else is just an insane conspiracy theory.
681 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Feb 2023
Samsung want £200 to take it from 512GB to 1TB (and £350 to take it from 256GB to 1TB but that's a RAM upgrade too). Meanwhile, it's currently £120 for a 1TB SanDisk extreme and that will probably drop below £100 in the next year. I've also had eMMC die on Samsung phones before so I'd rather not hammer a soldered component unnecessarily.
I think I'll head over to Sony, which feels weird when I'm doing it to avoid being ripped off.
I realise it's less likely an issue here but, for the CLI-averse, Rufus will roll you a nice installation drive that auto bypasses the online requirement and even does a hands off install with an account name of your choice. It can also make a (somewhat) hardware agnostic W11 install drive.
There's a wonderful promotional video from DuPont titled "halon 1301 the instant firefighter" that features a demonstration of a lab tech in a plastic box trying to light a fire in a halon filled environment (that he's breathing in). Given DuPont's track record with worker safety, how long he survived afterwards is another question but it certainly doesn't instantly kill or impair.
The mechanism is ingenious: it reacts with burning compounds to render them non flammable. It's really annoying that it's an ozone killer because having a breathable gaseous fire suppression compound that causes no damage really was a boon. I'd have it in my house if it were possible.
Edit: sorry, this was meant to be a response to Peter2
Danish? In any case, while it's technically possible, that doesn't mean it's easy or the most cost effective solution (especially as the nature reserve might not take too kindly to changing the subterranean water flow).
I don't get why people are so keen to make engineering challenges and justifiable experiments seem like unnecessary and unforced mistakes.
It's much more than just ease of production and traceability, it's total control over the finances of the population. Every unit of currency can be set with tailored restrictions on how it's spent and its interest rates. For example, a portion could be set to only be used for their purchase of food and to disappear after a month. From a political point of view, it's incredibly powerful; agitators and those who support them could be instantly identified and all associated accounts locked down to just being able to buy essentials.
The physical currency hole is also extremely easy to plug: once a sufficient level of use is achieved, it would be trivial to identify businesses offering illicit exchange because their digital cash flows (from buying and selling) wouldn't add up. At a stroke, they can be cauterised from the network and, as with the agitators, anyone who did business with them appropriately punished.
At some point, you're arguing that businesses in this ruthless capitalist system we live in are deliberately forgoing profits and risking being out maneuvered by more inclusive competitors.
That's not to say that inclusion is without benefit or desirability but there's a balance between the two extremes.
You can just heat the air directly. The US built a direct cycle ramjet and ran a few successful ground tests (PLUTO) and also built a direct cycle turbojet (though this was never tested as propulsion). The Soviets had a similar programme, taken critical in flight but never used for sole propulsion in the same way as the US.
Indirect cycle is also theoretically possible, though less efficient.
It's transformative work. You probably have no copyright over your writings anyway (unless you're completely self hosting or have an enterprise-level hosting arrangement) but there's really very little protection offered by copyright laws in most countries against someone processing publicly available material. If this weren't the case, search engines wouldn't exist.
With women much better represented in the cybercrime sector than the cybersecurity sector, do these low prices mean they face a lower average income because of their choice of career? Also, within the cybercrime sector itself, do price negotiations also create discrimination (as men tend to have an unfair advantage) and what can be done to combat this? Someone should probably report these organisations to the government if they're not publishing income figures.
I've been the victim of an even shadier contract. The equipment in question was key to the output of the department but so hideously expensive that a redundant machine wasn't a possibility. As I understand, the new intended maintenance contract (about 4x the price) was for resolution within 1 working day, instead of a week.
Unfortunately, the language wasn't reviewed and what was bought was a contract for 'commencement of repairs' within 1 working day. This meant that, if new parts were required, the engineer would dutifully arrive on his way home, pull the cover off and then leave it while his manager found the cheapest part supplier. This often resulted in downtimes greater than under the previous contract. The resolution was that some heads rolled, the money was found for a redundant machine and the old contract was reinstated.
To be fair to Virgin, when they started development on LaucherOne, it wasn't obvious that reusable rockets were a reasonable bet and SpaceX made a huge gamble on them working out. Indeed, prior to Falcon 9 reusable concepts had consistently either failed entirely or proven to be massive cash holes. At the same time, air launch just doesn't net you that much gain because getting to orbit is primarily about going sideways really fast, with the altitude being secondary. You get minor advantages from the thinner atmosphere too, which does make a small rocket with a small payload more economical but these aren't large gains either. The biggest benefit, from a VC standpoint, is the showmanship of a rocket strapped to a plane which, to be fair again, is something of an achievement.
I'm not privy to Virgin's market research or development plans but, for this to really succeed they either need very particular customers, a quantum leap that reduces the cost of their manufacturing process or something that lets them reuse their rockets. As it stands, the sort of customer they're after would need to have something that stops them from putting a transfer stage below their package and fly it on a Falcon 9, be that technical or a disagreement with SpaceX so profound that they're happy to pay over an order more to get up there.
It may not be the only piece of the puzzle but that's how deterrence works: you either reduce the possibility that an opponent might be able to acquire something they want in-tact, you increase the cost to acquire it or you increase the consequences faced for acquiring it. Hopefully, you eventually reach a part where the opponent loses interest. It's important to identify every potential incentive because, taken together, they're the droplets that make up the ocean.
Sorry, too late to edit. I double checked and I was mistaken. HAL was being perfectly logical; his core directive is to process and relay information with complete accuracy. His order to keep a secret mission from the crew results in the logical conclusion that he has to kill the crew (to avoid the need to relay inaccurate information to them).
It seems a waste to spend another billion when we already have nuclear ICBMs that tragically never get used. Just fire one ahead of the ISS so it gets pushed retrograde and smashed into smaller pieces that will burn up before they hit the ground. Nothing could possibly go wrong and the money has already been spent.
In this context, does the AI (charged with getting the most likes for content) enslave humanity, stripping the bodies down to the brain & essential organs (to provide the greatest resource economy) and stimulating the brain of endlessly produced people to like its content?